Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Lucy Letby - Specifically those who think she is guilty…

390 replies

BEAchDays2 · 23/09/2026 07:30

I’ve just been reading massive amounts of posts of Facebook following the new doc out about LL. (Blame a long train journey!) and it got me thinking, those who still think she is guilty what are your reasons?

It does feel like the tide has turned generally. I haven’t watched the new doc yet, likewise has anyone seen it, and is it worth it?

OP posts:
Portmore · 23/09/2026 10:57

AtIusvue · 23/09/2026 08:49

I’m more curious about why so many, let’s face it white women, don’t accept that that a plain, mousy brown haired, white woman, killed these babies and won’t accept the conviction.

Because people are examining the evidence critically rather than making a gut reaction about her appearance.

Very few of the experts raising concerns are women & many are from ethnic minorities & from across the world not just in the UK.

Weird to dismiss the growing amount of evidence based on a women's hair colour?

Passaggressfedup · 23/09/2026 10:55

He started in September 2015 so there were only 5 or 6 deaths before.

I do agree though that HE wasn't the main catalyst. Her psychological dysfunction was, but her obsession for his attention became the main focus.

Oftenaddled · 23/09/2026 10:51

BillieWiper · 23/09/2026 10:40

Yeah that's how I feel. The last paragraph of what you said there.

I picture something happening to a baby, (she's there but she didn't necessarily cause it first time) her then confiding in and bonding with this doctor over it.

Then her realizing this was a way to get close to him so she starts orchestrating these emergencies on purpose. And she gets a buzz from his sympathy. And ramps up the harm as she gets addicted to his attention.

Edited

But he was only there for the last two of the fifteen events she was convicted of causing. It is easy to make up stories - I could make up dozens to try to explain how various people acted around this. But you need to pay attention to the facts.

Passaggressfedup · 23/09/2026 10:47

Many people are unaware that non-suspicious causes of death were found for five of the children at autopsy. One was considered so unsuspicious by his consultant that he had no autopsy. The other was unascertained with possibility of natural death or death caused by medical procedure both considered by the coroner
Again, it doesn't have to be black or white. Both natural and criminal deaths can take place alongside each other. It's actually the opposite that would be suspicious.

It also comes down to how much evidence could be gathered for each. Even if she did murder all, the strength of evidence wasn't available for some of them.

That does not lead to cause and effect: that if some death were concluded not to have been as a result of murders, that the others ones couldn't have been either.

Passaggressfedup · 23/09/2026 10:42

She became addicted to the high of the drama. She liked the attention of being a main character in someone else’s tragedy. She also had an obsession with the older Doctor and valued his attention more than she valued the lives of the babies. I’m not sure she thought of the babies as human beings, more a tool at her disposal to get the attention she needed
This is exactly my psychological analysis of Lucy. She didn't seem to meet the profile, but there were many signs. She grew up being the complete centre of attention of her parents. She was desperate for love and having a family, children of her own. It wasn't happening and this was making her extremely anxious.

Her actions were both punishing those who were having what she thinks she deserves to have herself, a family and babies, whilst getting the dramatic attention she craved. Her rumbling notes, even without trying to interpret each phrase, do show a very emotionally and psychologically disturbed person, especially for her young age.

BillieWiper · 23/09/2026 10:40

Passaggressfedup · 23/09/2026 08:05

I am in no doubt she’s guilty, and I’m in no doubt the hospital were failing in many ways with regards to neonatal baby care
Same here.

What are your thoughts on why she kept notes related to babies who hadn’t died? And also why some were in bin bags etc?
There could be 10s of reasons with none being evidence that she's not guilty.

It's for the prosecution to make their case of guilt beyond doubt. It doesn't mean that questioning everything that is not direct obvious evidence means the person is not guilty.

I strongly believe that her feelings for the doctor went beyond just obsession. She was so desperate to be loved and have a family that it became pathological. Her life revolve around him and getting his attention and affection. Nothing else mattered. And the best way to get it was by hurting the babies under their care.

Yeah that's how I feel. The last paragraph of what you said there.

I picture something happening to a baby, (she's there but she didn't necessarily cause it first time) her then confiding in and bonding with this doctor over it.

Then her realizing this was a way to get close to him so she starts orchestrating these emergencies on purpose. And she gets a buzz from his sympathy. And ramps up the harm as she gets addicted to his attention.

Oftenaddled · 23/09/2026 10:38

JoyfulSpring · 23/09/2026 10:36

What about each death made it suspicious? That has never been answered. The only thing seems to be that someone (the consultants who only graced the ward twice a week rather than twice a day) decided Lucy was suspicious and therefore that made the death suspicious as she was present. They discounted any deaths where she wasn't present.

Yes. Many people are unaware that non-suspicious causes of death were found for five of the children at autopsy. One was considered so unsuspicious by his consultant that he had no autopsy. The other was unascertained with possibility of natural death or death caused by medical procedure both considered by the coroner.

Itsablondebobkindaday · 23/09/2026 10:37

I think it’s a difficult one because most depictions of serial killers show them to have the want to kill and enjoy it. I believe Lucy Letby is guilty but I think what she was doing was a means to an end, not a want to kill for killings sake.

She became addicted to the high of the drama. She liked the attention of being a main character in someone else’s tragedy. She also had an obsession with the older Doctor and valued his attention more than she valued the lives of the babies. I’m not sure she thought of the babies as human beings, more a tool at her disposal to get the attention she needed.

Passaggressfedup · 23/09/2026 10:37

I also think that the average person doesn't understand what research really entails.

People as a whole struggle with the concept of unknown or unproven facts. They need things to be black or white. They seek reassurance in the worlds of research and the law.

These two disciplines can only attempt to get as close as possible to 'the truth' without ever fully getting to it. Even the most regulated discipline, pharmaceutical science, gets it wrong at times, with horrible consequences.

Research is just a science that use a process of demonstration. This is why you can have two valid researches, working on the same or very similar hypotheses, coming up with different outcomes.

We can only seek to get as close as possible to what we consider to the truth. This is done by the demonstration of quality and quantity.

In the case of the prosecution, the quality is what is mainly questioned. The quantity of evidence out forward isn't though. So many oddities that alone might be almost meaningless but out all together start to reduce the chances of coincidence drastically.

The defense does exactly this, encourage the jury and the public to look at these oddities separately to make a case for insignificance.

As for the quality, well it comes down to the battle of research. Researchers kick is to try to get closer to the truth than their colleagues. It's an extremely competitive profession, and getting closer to the truth does involve discrediting other research.

Catpuss66 · 23/09/2026 10:36

ToKittyornottoKitty · 23/09/2026 07:59

People really think it’s been made up that multiple babies were murdered, and attempted to be murdered, and this woman was framed? I think that’s silly.

I think people struggle to comprehend that this pretty white woman in a nice job in a position of trust could do something so horrific, and so they turn to conspiracy instead. She’s been found guilty for a reason.

Go follow Victoria Rixon who has just left midwifery see all the people that follow her that have been bullied horror stories.i know of midwives that have committed suicide because managers have thrown the on the ground staff under the bus.

JoyfulSpring · 23/09/2026 10:36

Passaggressfedup · 23/09/2026 10:27

The other explanation is what you see in Sussex, Oxford, Nottingham etc - a hospital not coping with complex cases but carrying on until the evidence that something is wrong is overwhelming*
And where there was no suspicion by consultants before investigation showed one person was present at each event, hence demonstrating that even when hospitals are facing concerning level of incompetence, it doesn't result in babies dying in suspicious circumstances.

What about each death made it suspicious? That has never been answered. The only thing seems to be that someone (the consultants who only graced the ward twice a week rather than twice a day) decided Lucy was suspicious and therefore that made the death suspicious as she was present. They discounted any deaths where she wasn't present.

Oftenaddled · 23/09/2026 10:35

AtIusvue · 23/09/2026 09:50

I don’t believe, that if this was a south asian nurse or a black nurse, there would be the number of campaigners out there, trying to convince others that a convicted child killer is innocent.

I don’t believe there would be newspaper serialisations or channel 5 documentaries either.

The truth is, there are white women who take a strange interest in crime who dunnits, conspiracy theories etc….who are happy to revel in the disturbing details of this case and to justify this morbid interest, they claim evidence has been missed, that only those like them can see, that it’s a miscarriage of justice. Thus adding to the idea that they are special, that their interest in grisly murders, somehow makes them qualified to bang on to others that a convicted killer….isn't the killer after all.

You see that upthread with the claim that jury system cant understand complex evidence…but obviously the poster can!

It’s the refusal to believe that someone who looks like them or looks like their daughter, could ever do something like this.

Most mumsnet users are probably women. Most nurses in the UK are women. What is the basis for your claim that most people interested in this case and doubting the safety of the conviction outside this group are women? (I see mostly men, in the public sphere).

I think a few posters here are importing discourse around the Lindsay Clanchy case, where it seems to have been assumed there was a gender divide in public responses to the case. I have no opinion on that case, but it's obviously a very different one, in a different jurisdiction, where much of the public response has been misogynistic commentary on women's capacity for rational thinking.

dustabsorber · 23/09/2026 10:34

Innocent until proven guilty, then guilty until proven innocent. She won't be able to do that in the UK.

OctoberMists · 23/09/2026 10:32

I have no idea if she is guilty or innoncent.

However I do think information come out that suggest her trial was extremely flawed - the are questions round expert testomony and there seems to have been selecting data that fits the theory going on with police case.

She could still be guilty of some or all deaths but international panel of experts have cast dounbt on their actually being murders blaming just extremly poor care.

The NHS has a history of scape goating and whether she was killing or not there were clearly massive issues in that hospital.

I have to say I do not get well the jury found her guilty argument - there have been many case of miscarriage of justice where the jury found someone guilty because evidence presented in court was flawed - Sally Clark and with post office scandal where many jury's found people guilty because the courts has incorrect evidence presented to them.

MistressoftheDarkSide · 23/09/2026 10:32

So nobody who thinks she's guilty has any qualms about Dewi Evans "changing his mind" about causes of death periodically? Or that he based one "theory" on an x-ray taken the day before Lucy Letby was on shift? Or that Ravi Jayaram gave fifferent accounts of the "she was just standing there" incident in court and in other communication? Or that the door swipe data was actually wrong in the first instance, and proved very little overall as there were other routes in and out if the unit?

Or that there is no other reported case anywhere of air down an NG tube causing death due to "splinting of the diaphragm"? Or overfeeding for that matter?

And currently the AE "evidence" is under scrutiny as there was no sign of it at post mortem.

Is all of this really of no consequence because she was "white and weird"? Or is that the standard of justice you're happy with? Because what it might mean is that you could find yourself convicted of murder where the cause of death is unascertained because you were there and someone didn't like the look of you. That's not how it's supposed to work.

KidsDoBetter · 23/09/2026 10:29

JuniperJumper · 23/09/2026 09:04

Could I just correct you on one point? The jury didn't find her guilty on all charges, there were several where they couldn't reach a verdict. The jury had sat through 9-10 months of detailed evidence, and took days to consider their verdict yet still felt there wasn't sufficient evidence to convict her on several of the charges but, obviously, found that she was guilty of the majority of the charges

I feel she's guilty, I respect the jury's verdict because of the length of time it took them and I think, because they were unable to say she was guilty of all of the charges, it shows how carefully they considered each case separately

I didn’t say all charges. I said the vast majority.

But I agree with you - it shows the level of consideration that the jury applied. Rather than just lumping each charge in as a whole.

Passaggressfedup · 23/09/2026 10:27

The other explanation is what you see in Sussex, Oxford, Nottingham etc - a hospital not coping with complex cases but carrying on until the evidence that something is wrong is overwhelming*
And where there was no suspicion by consultants before investigation showed one person was present at each event, hence demonstrating that even when hospitals are facing concerning level of incompetence, it doesn't result in babies dying in suspicious circumstances.

Somethinggg · 23/09/2026 10:22

JoyfulSpring · 23/09/2026 10:11

Dr Jayaram was the person who claimed this. One of the consultants Lucy had raised a grievance about. It came out after the trial that he told a different story in an email shortly after the incident but the jury weren't made aware of this. He told the court he had walked in on a baby declining and Lucy was stood by the incubator doing nothing and had switched that alarms off. He claimed he went in as he had a feeling he should check on the baby as 'he was aware of what had happened previously when Lucy was on duty'. Since then an email came to light showing that he says he was called into the room by Lucy herself as the baby was declining. Another nurse also testified that the alarms were sounding so why did Jayaram make this up? Could he have possibly had it in for Lucy? Along with Dr Breary?

I'm certain she is innocent. Those consultants need investigating. Dewi Evans should be in prison. He's an absolute fool and been proven wrong on all of his ludicrous theories. It's crazy to me that the post mortems showed no sign of air embolism and the pathologists were specifically looking for it. Why on earth they went with this theory when there was no evidence is beyond me. I hope she is freed soon but this thread alone shows she'll never be able to live a normal life again. It's so wrong.

I dunno whether she's innocent or not, but I wouldnt want any loved one of mine in Jayaram or Brearey's care.

For those who don't know, Dr Jayaram told the court Letby had stood there and not called him when a baby who later died was in distress. Emails disclosed to the Thirlwall Enquiry (but not the defence in the trial...) showed him saying she had called him. I don't know if this was a fuck up or deliberate, but he may actually be a perjurer. And other expert doctors think Dr Brearey's negligence led to the death of another of the babies, as he performed a procedure wrongly.

Catpuss66 · 23/09/2026 10:18

Spiffingdarling88 · 23/09/2026 07:53

I still think she's guilty. Obviously the jury would have seen alot more evidence then just the information on tv/ online, so I trust thats how they made their decision.

I do believe nhs was also responsible but LL ultimately.

How did she not know how to dispose of her notes but kept them in chronological order, neatly in her wardrobe was a thing that bugged me, as well as starring days that a child died, looking up parents on Facebook etc. All felt serial killer vibe.

How would her own handover notes in a plastic bag under her bed be in chronological order rather putting them in there after taking out of her pocket.think their was a folder with 3 handover notes in, presuming to write statements from which you have to do in your own time, don’t think any related to the babies was in that file. Think you will find in her diary LD is not some secret code but means long day ( shift) the stars could indicate she was in charge of the unit that’s what her colleagues have said.

TheCountessofFitzdotterel · 23/09/2026 10:12

ThatGoldFox · 23/09/2026 09:40

I thought someone witnessed her in the same room as a baby in distress and not doing her job to help and respond but just standing there until someone else walked in. That seemed the most compelling evidence to me if true.

Are you thinking of Ravi Jayaram and his famous ‘caught her almost red handed’ quote?
If this is the one, you need to know that it turned out his earlier emails painted a very different picture of this incident to the one he gave the court. Not least, it turned out the reason he walked into the room was because she had called him.’

This is just one of many things where if the jury had had access to information that has since come out, they might have come to very different conclusions about her guilt.

JoyfulSpring · 23/09/2026 10:11

ThatGoldFox · 23/09/2026 09:57

Because to just stand watching in an emergency situation seems beyond incompetent for a trained nurse. I can't say she's 100% guilty but the op asked why people think she is and that is the detail which has stuck with me personally.

Dr Jayaram was the person who claimed this. One of the consultants Lucy had raised a grievance about. It came out after the trial that he told a different story in an email shortly after the incident but the jury weren't made aware of this. He told the court he had walked in on a baby declining and Lucy was stood by the incubator doing nothing and had switched that alarms off. He claimed he went in as he had a feeling he should check on the baby as 'he was aware of what had happened previously when Lucy was on duty'. Since then an email came to light showing that he says he was called into the room by Lucy herself as the baby was declining. Another nurse also testified that the alarms were sounding so why did Jayaram make this up? Could he have possibly had it in for Lucy? Along with Dr Breary?

I'm certain she is innocent. Those consultants need investigating. Dewi Evans should be in prison. He's an absolute fool and been proven wrong on all of his ludicrous theories. It's crazy to me that the post mortems showed no sign of air embolism and the pathologists were specifically looking for it. Why on earth they went with this theory when there was no evidence is beyond me. I hope she is freed soon but this thread alone shows she'll never be able to live a normal life again. It's so wrong.

2021x · 23/09/2026 10:11

ThatGoldFox · 23/09/2026 09:57

Because to just stand watching in an emergency situation seems beyond incompetent for a trained nurse. I can't say she's 100% guilty but the op asked why people think she is and that is the detail which has stuck with me personally.

This is an example of weak evidence.

The person walking in could have been misinformed, told she was dangerous, and then filled in the gaps herself.

Their memory of the exact events could have been poor

LL could have been observing the patient to see what the issue was

LL could be incompetent

The person may have misread the situation as an emergency when it wasn't

The alarms may have been faulty- this also does happen, especially in ventilators

The alarms may have gone off and LL was observing to see if they were meaningful. As a clinican you are trained to not just listen to technology.

She may have administered treatment and was observing for the effects before she escalated.

I grant you that, to an untrained person without hospital experience, this would seem like a big deal, but it happens often that an arriving member of the medical staff misreads a situation.

Catpuss66 · 23/09/2026 10:10

DancingonmyOwn88 · 23/09/2026 07:50

I’ve listened to every episode of the Trial podcast and now the one they’re doing on the enquiry as to why her actions went unchecked for so long.

I am in no doubt she’s guilty, and I’m in no doubt the hospital were failing in many ways with regards to neonatal baby care.

Sadly, both things are true, and the consequences were devastating.

Edited

Go look at the evidence reviewed, on Lucy letby analysis on YT. Experts give their opinion regarding the evidence presented.

Nutmuncher · 23/09/2026 10:08

OP would you leave her in charge of the care for your own newborn?

Oftenaddled · 23/09/2026 10:08

HesterLeggatt · 23/09/2026 09:41

I dont think you’ve properly read what I wrote? I was talking specifically about cluster deaths which is what you commonly see on failing units, and a pattern of lack of timely intervention is one of the things you would commonly see cause a cluster due to poor medical practices at that specific time, which would then cease once either education work was carried out or medics rotated, whereas the deaths in question show a diffuse pattern over a number of years. I never said that lack of timely intervention couldn’t be a factor in any of the deaths?

I see what you mean. But can we fairly assume that all avoidable deaths are clustered such that relevant learning, quickly applied, stops each cluster? If errors and systemic weaknesses aren't corrected, what prevents more deaths. And if admissions aren't steady - that's a key feature of the Chester unit - we have an external factor impacting on timing of deaths, not just internal practice and (possible) self-correction.

I think your post is a great argument for more sophisticated work in what happens in a unit that's not coping, but I don't think it shows that Chester was coping at all.