Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Chat

Join the discussion and chat with other Mumsnetters about everyday life, relationships and parenting.

Lucy Letby - programme on ITV now

559 replies

Viviennemary · 03/08/2025 23:19

I think this must be a new programme and not a repeat. Experts are being wheeled out to try and say Letby is innocent. I'm not convinced at all. None of them were even at the trial or worked with Letby. It's all theories and opinions..

OP posts:
Thread gallery
23
Oftenaddled · 06/08/2025 20:54

Moonlightdust · 06/08/2025 20:20

I just watched the Netflix documentary the other night. I’ve been so torn with this case since it was reported on.

At the time of her conviction I was convinced she was guilty, but then hearing how professionals disagree with the evidence and there being so much medical discrepancies I thought maybe she really could be innocent. So much seemed to be circumstantial and she was never caught afflicting any harm on any of the babies.

I seemed to remember that part of the evidence against her was text messages exchanged between her and colleagues at the times of the deaths. Found this link https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-66120198.amp which reports on her text messages and now I’m not so sure.

It’s such a complex case that could be seen in both lights. Even the supposed confessional scribbles can be explained from a therapeutic perspective that she was just offloading all bad thoughts in her mind. Again it could be argued she stated she was evil and did this as even if innocent was starting to question if somehow she was to blame.

So awful for those parents. I hope the truth will be fully confirmed one day.

I've never been able to see anything remotely sinister or significant in her text messages. That felt like an extraordinary reach, well before any of the other problems with evidence emerged.

Why do you think they matter?

NamechangeRugby · 06/08/2025 20:58

GrooveArmada · 06/08/2025 18:31

Unnecessary processing of patient information which includes their personal data (such as their names) constitues a breach of NHS England policy on confidentiality, binding on all medical professionals working for the NHS. It is also a breach of GDPR because data has been obtained for the sole purpose of it being processed by the NHS to provide health service to the patient, and not to be input into an NHS employee's personal device and social media app to stalk said patient's personal life. An NHS patient never consents to such processing which is unlawful and likely constitutes gross misconduct as a significant violation of the relevant policy. This is not new in the context of any regulated professionals with access to personal data, it is concerning you are trying to minimise it and play the card of "little Lucy was being nosey, no harm here, ain't we all". No. Professionals are not.

I've tried hard to read the extracts pasted (bit blurry), but I can't see the information you are quoting. Are you perhaps extrapolating a line of logic which makes sense to your sense of morality, but isn't definitively in the policy?

Absolutely LL should not have taken home patient notes, that is a breach (albeit a breach many hcp seem ready to admit to), but searching up someone's name on sm - that in itself is not a breach.

Happy to stand corrected if anyone can highlight the exact policy extract. I am genuinely curious. Thanks

GrooveArmada · 06/08/2025 21:39

Some of you are completely missing the point. LL only had the patient parents' names because she was their dead baby's HCP and she was looking them up because their babies died which is their private medical history and indeed she used the data that she only had available through the NHS to search on Facebook, not some random names that were in the public domain or contacts she knew in personal capacity.

Who said this makes her a murderer? Nobody. Does it show she's not suitable to be a HCP? Yes, it does. It's basic.

It most certainly is the case our HCP's snooping on us online because they are our HCPs is unethical and deeply inappropriate, as well as unlawful use of personal data.

There are so many of you on this thread blindly defending this woman that you've honestly lost sight of the obvious issues in her practice and the fact they are indeed concerning in the light of what she's been convicted of.

We will not convince each other - I recognise doubts about Dewi Evans's evidence, but this is in no way equivalent to LL being innocent and it is wrong to claim this when there is a plethora of relevant concerns about her which I mentioned in multiple posts on this thread - and nobody can confidently say one way or another. Let the court do its job and decide for the sake of these babies and their families.

Kittybythelighthouse · 06/08/2025 21:40

Firefly1987 · 06/08/2025 20:40

So now it's the parents' fault for putting some of their life online for some sicko grief vulture nurse to salivate over?! She wasn't supposed to be doing it. End of. Just goes to show how some will excuse ANYTHING she did even if it's clearly against hospital rules.

No one said it was the parents’ fault, that’s your own emotional projection. The point is that what Letby did was unprofessional, not criminal, and the information she viewed was publicly available. It’s not “grief vulture” behaviour to be curious about people you spent intense time with in a traumatic setting, it’s human, even if inappropriate in a professional context. It’s certainly not evidence of serial murder.

Calling it “salivating” is your own lurid invention. In order to have a serious conversation, we should be able to distinguish between clinical misconduct, moral failure, and actual crimes. Again, if there were no murders none of the other stuff matters at all. Overly emotional flailing about silly things like Facebook searches adds nothing to the conversation.

GrooveArmada · 06/08/2025 21:43

Sorry, it definitely is salivating over people's grief. If you care about them, ask them in person when you see them how they are, express your grief, offer help or signpost to professional services. Don't snoop on their heartbreak online because their newborn baby just died, ffs, that's disgusting.

Kittybythelighthouse · 06/08/2025 22:00

GrooveArmada · 06/08/2025 21:39

Some of you are completely missing the point. LL only had the patient parents' names because she was their dead baby's HCP and she was looking them up because their babies died which is their private medical history and indeed she used the data that she only had available through the NHS to search on Facebook, not some random names that were in the public domain or contacts she knew in personal capacity.

Who said this makes her a murderer? Nobody. Does it show she's not suitable to be a HCP? Yes, it does. It's basic.

It most certainly is the case our HCP's snooping on us online because they are our HCPs is unethical and deeply inappropriate, as well as unlawful use of personal data.

There are so many of you on this thread blindly defending this woman that you've honestly lost sight of the obvious issues in her practice and the fact they are indeed concerning in the light of what she's been convicted of.

We will not convince each other - I recognise doubts about Dewi Evans's evidence, but this is in no way equivalent to LL being innocent and it is wrong to claim this when there is a plethora of relevant concerns about her which I mentioned in multiple posts on this thread - and nobody can confidently say one way or another. Let the court do its job and decide for the sake of these babies and their families.

Nobody is stopping the courts from doing their job. That’s rather the intent of the panel and her defence team’s application to the CCRC. If anyone is trying to stop the courts from doing their job it’s those who to try pressure and emotionally manipulate everyone with doubts to just shut up about it. This doesn’t exist in a vacuum, the justice system affects all of us, as does the NHS. Given the avalanche of expert opinion and the exposed state of the prosecution’s case everybody should be interested in a rigorous process that either makes this conviction safe or vacates it. However, there are people that seem to be heavily emotionally invested in not losing a socially acceptable target for collective hatred. It seems that there are people who just enjoy having a witch to burn. I don’t get it.

And again, everyone has said she shouldn’t have looked them up. However, it’s not a criminal act and it’s not indicative of murderous impulses. Surely you understand that? It’s totally irrelevant if there were no crimes. The only thing that matters is the medical evidence.

Oftenaddled · 06/08/2025 22:01

I doubt Letby was violating any guidance provided in 2015/16 with her Facebook searches, and looking someone up on Facebook once is hardly salivating over their grief. (As far as trial records show, in fact, her multiple searches were always for families with living children nursed on the unit).

I would not like to imagine the state of the NHS if we considered anyone conducting Facebook searches unfit to be a HCP.

Firefly1987 · 06/08/2025 22:02

GrooveArmada · 06/08/2025 21:43

Sorry, it definitely is salivating over people's grief. If you care about them, ask them in person when you see them how they are, express your grief, offer help or signpost to professional services. Don't snoop on their heartbreak online because their newborn baby just died, ffs, that's disgusting.

Exactly! And on Christmas day! I mean we know she had no life, but bloody hell.

Kittybythelighthouse · 06/08/2025 22:03

GrooveArmada · 06/08/2025 21:43

Sorry, it definitely is salivating over people's grief. If you care about them, ask them in person when you see them how they are, express your grief, offer help or signpost to professional services. Don't snoop on their heartbreak online because their newborn baby just died, ffs, that's disgusting.

I find it hard to believe that you genuinely don’t understand the difference between saying she shouldn’t have looked them up but it’s not a crime and arguing that it’s totally fine to look up grieving parents? No one is doing the latter so you can calm down about it.

Oftenaddled · 06/08/2025 22:04

Firefly1987 · 06/08/2025 22:02

Exactly! And on Christmas day! I mean we know she had no life, but bloody hell.

She was at work when she conducted that Christmas day search.

Why the "no life" comment? She was a busy nurse with close friends, holidays, dancing, races, parties, an active social life, and strong family ties. Why do you feel the need to describe her that way?

SnakesAndArrows · 06/08/2025 22:15

Firefly1987 · 06/08/2025 20:13

Medical professionals aren't supposed to be doing this. Imagine your doctor snooping on your private life!

No, they aren’t “supposed to”. But it’s not illegal, it’s not gross misconduct, and it doesn’t indicate that the snooper is a murderer.

SnakesAndArrows · 06/08/2025 22:22

GrooveArmada · 06/08/2025 21:39

Some of you are completely missing the point. LL only had the patient parents' names because she was their dead baby's HCP and she was looking them up because their babies died which is their private medical history and indeed she used the data that she only had available through the NHS to search on Facebook, not some random names that were in the public domain or contacts she knew in personal capacity.

Who said this makes her a murderer? Nobody. Does it show she's not suitable to be a HCP? Yes, it does. It's basic.

It most certainly is the case our HCP's snooping on us online because they are our HCPs is unethical and deeply inappropriate, as well as unlawful use of personal data.

There are so many of you on this thread blindly defending this woman that you've honestly lost sight of the obvious issues in her practice and the fact they are indeed concerning in the light of what she's been convicted of.

We will not convince each other - I recognise doubts about Dewi Evans's evidence, but this is in no way equivalent to LL being innocent and it is wrong to claim this when there is a plethora of relevant concerns about her which I mentioned in multiple posts on this thread - and nobody can confidently say one way or another. Let the court do its job and decide for the sake of these babies and their families.

Who said this makes her a murderer? Nobody. Does it show she's not suitable to be a HCP? Yes, it does. It's basic.

Why are you even talking about it then? How is searching for patents on Facebook relevant to this case? Even if it was gross misconduct, even if it was illegal, in what way does it show that she is a murderer?

Once again, I’m not a LL apologist, I just want some assurance that in the face of all the evidence (that’s real evidence) that there’s been a miscarriage of justice, that there hasn’t been and she really is guilty.

Firefly1987 · 06/08/2025 22:24

SnakesAndArrows · 06/08/2025 22:15

No, they aren’t “supposed to”. But it’s not illegal, it’s not gross misconduct, and it doesn’t indicate that the snooper is a murderer.

It doesn't paint a very good picture when the person in question is suspected of killing babies. Somehow I think if this was a weirdo bloke doing it the comments would be very different...

Moonlightdust · 06/08/2025 22:25

Oftenaddled · 06/08/2025 20:54

I've never been able to see anything remotely sinister or significant in her text messages. That felt like an extraordinary reach, well before any of the other problems with evidence emerged.

Why do you think they matter?

I think the texts were used as evidence as they believed she seemed to be revelling in the attention each time a baby had collapsed or passed away.

She had exchanged over 1000 messages with a Doctor whom she was constantly exchanging and fishing for information with.

She had done numerous searches on specific dates and looked up parents of the babies. Although it was stated she would regularly search up to 250 people online whom she’d had even the most minor encounter with so that could suggest she was bored/nosey or had an obsessional streak.

She had bags of medical notes stashed in her house that she shouldn’t have brought home and her defence was she liked collecting paper. She couldn’t explain how she had a shredder that she used to shred financial papers yet had never destroyed these confidential medical papers going back years.

All facts can be seen in 2 lights and again are circumstantial. I honestly don’t know if she is guilty or innocent.

SnakesAndArrows · 06/08/2025 22:25

Firefly1987 · 06/08/2025 22:24

It doesn't paint a very good picture when the person in question is suspected of killing babies. Somehow I think if this was a weirdo bloke doing it the comments would be very different...

I genuinely hope you are never called to jury service.

Kittybythelighthouse · 06/08/2025 22:28

Oftenaddled · 06/08/2025 22:04

She was at work when she conducted that Christmas day search.

Why the "no life" comment? She was a busy nurse with close friends, holidays, dancing, races, parties, an active social life, and strong family ties. Why do you feel the need to describe her that way?

Lucy Letby was a fairly basic, ordinary, hard-working nurse. The most boring things have been transformed into dramatic super villain scenes with the power of pure imagination. For e.g. her texts are not shocking. They are possibly the most mundane exchanges I’ve ever read and that’s the best they could dig up? I bet any one of us has texted more shocking things from time to time. The only salivating I see is from those who leap from something like looking up a person while on a work break to dreaming up a whole imagined salacious scene where a serial killer is feeding on grief, presumably her eyes glow red as she does so, its hysteria and it’s actually a bit scary.

In my opinion Lucy Letby has become a sort of folk devil and there are people who really don’t like losing such a figure. When it’s socially acceptable to hate and dehumanise an ostracised person there is a collective catharsis to it. There’ll always be people who won’t want to let go of that, even when it’s against their own interests. It’s an interesting phenomenon evident in many human societies throughout history.

Firefly1987 · 06/08/2025 22:35

Oftenaddled · 06/08/2025 20:54

I've never been able to see anything remotely sinister or significant in her text messages. That felt like an extraordinary reach, well before any of the other problems with evidence emerged.

Why do you think they matter?

For one thing she was supposed to be looking after the babies whilst she was busy texting. For another, some of them show an insistence/obsession with being in room 1, even when she wasn't supposed to be. Plus a strange way to deal with a baby death by having to go in that same room and see another dying baby in the same cot. She never adequately explained how that helps her deal with it in any way... her friend/colleague even said it was strange and won't help her. Plus she alluded to it happening at her previous hospital. There are nurses in her position who never had to see a baby death their entire career, and how many was LL present for?! Then we've got a baby collapsing 6 mins after she finished texting this-in that same room she wasn't supposed to be in, and of course there she is. I mean, I could go on...

MargaretThursday · 06/08/2025 22:46

GrooveArmada · 06/08/2025 21:43

Sorry, it definitely is salivating over people's grief. If you care about them, ask them in person when you see them how they are, express your grief, offer help or signpost to professional services. Don't snoop on their heartbreak online because their newborn baby just died, ffs, that's disgusting.

But she wouldn't see them.

When I was pregnant with dd2 I was on an online forum. There was someone who was due about 2 weeks before me.
Baby was born 3 weeks early, and unfortunately caught an infection at about 2 days old and died after a fortnight of ups and down that mum posted.
We had prayed together, wept together and has our hopes raised together... Only to be dashed again. She never posted again after the day baby died.
I don't know mum's real name, but I do know babies' name and I think about them a few times a year, often when dd2 is doing something. She has an online memorial for the baby, but I know no other on line information about her..

I would love to know how mum is doing. Not because I want to gloat, or have a ghoulish interest in their life, but because I care, even from our short interaction, and hope that she has had better times since. That was how I found the online memorial, googling to see if I could see how they were doing with the only information I had.

I never met her in person, but I still care about this person who had a very short interaction with me. If I did know her real name then I probably would have had a loo on fb, hoping to see that times were better.

Oftenaddled · 06/08/2025 22:50

Firefly1987 · 06/08/2025 22:35

For one thing she was supposed to be looking after the babies whilst she was busy texting. For another, some of them show an insistence/obsession with being in room 1, even when she wasn't supposed to be. Plus a strange way to deal with a baby death by having to go in that same room and see another dying baby in the same cot. She never adequately explained how that helps her deal with it in any way... her friend/colleague even said it was strange and won't help her. Plus she alluded to it happening at her previous hospital. There are nurses in her position who never had to see a baby death their entire career, and how many was LL present for?! Then we've got a baby collapsing 6 mins after she finished texting this-in that same room she wasn't supposed to be in, and of course there she is. I mean, I could go on...

Nurses working at Letby's previous hospital would certainly see babies die. Liverpool Women's Hospital is a large specialist intensive care unit which sees several infant deaths a month. Lucy Letby had trained there in resuscitation methods, since it was an acute enough unit to have a dedicated resuscitation nurse whom she could shadow.

You see, once you blur the details, you can make anything seem sinister. But it doesn't stand closer examination.

"Getting straight back on the horse" - keeping busy and facing the challenge - is a very well-known coping method. Letby's friend who was texting with her has obviously been unhappy with the way that conversation has been twisted. She wrote in her Thirlwall submission that all she meant is that she herself wouldn't find that method helpful. That's fine, obviously. We all cope with stressful situations differently.

Letby wanted to be in room 1 (the intensive care room) looking after a vulnerable baby that night. She had a right to want this. And she was right to want this. The nurse put in charge of that baby was not qualified to offer one-to-one intensive care, and that very fragile baby needed one-to-one intensive care by all guidelines. The unit broke staffing guidelines, despite the baby being one of the smallest they had ever cared for and never having been examined by a consultant.

I have no idea why someone planning to murder an infant would insist on having direct care - they all babysat for each other anyway during breaks, so it would be no obstacle. And draw that wish to everyone's attention?

You only need to take the exchange at face value - she wanted to work in the intensive care unit (and should have been).

Firefly1987 · 06/08/2025 22:52

SnakesAndArrows · 06/08/2025 22:25

I genuinely hope you are never called to jury service.

I wouldn't be sending her down just based on that...all I'm saying is it doesn't look good!

Firefly1987 · 06/08/2025 22:58

Kittybythelighthouse · 06/08/2025 22:28

Lucy Letby was a fairly basic, ordinary, hard-working nurse. The most boring things have been transformed into dramatic super villain scenes with the power of pure imagination. For e.g. her texts are not shocking. They are possibly the most mundane exchanges I’ve ever read and that’s the best they could dig up? I bet any one of us has texted more shocking things from time to time. The only salivating I see is from those who leap from something like looking up a person while on a work break to dreaming up a whole imagined salacious scene where a serial killer is feeding on grief, presumably her eyes glow red as she does so, its hysteria and it’s actually a bit scary.

In my opinion Lucy Letby has become a sort of folk devil and there are people who really don’t like losing such a figure. When it’s socially acceptable to hate and dehumanise an ostracised person there is a collective catharsis to it. There’ll always be people who won’t want to let go of that, even when it’s against their own interests. It’s an interesting phenomenon evident in many human societies throughout history.

I'm not an expert thankfully, but isn't that exactly the sort of thing serial killers do? Of course it makes sense in that context to assume that she was getting something not altogether innocent out of it.

And yes it is socially acceptable to hate the country's worst serial killer of babies, strangely enough.

MissMoneyFairy · 06/08/2025 23:01

She didn't have the medical notes at home, they found nurses handover sheets which are completely different

Moonlightdust · 06/08/2025 23:10

Stumbled across this bit of information on LL which is interesting particularly as it was believed her motive was to live vicariously through the emotions of the parents.

“Letby initially failed her final year student placement, but passed a retrieval placement after requesting a new assessor.[8]In 2011, Nicola Lightfoot, her first assessor, reported she was lacking in clinical and medication knowledge and needed more experience in "picking up on non-verbal signs of anxiety/distress from parents"; in a 2024 inquiry, Lightfoot said she had found Letby to be "cold".

Wikipedia.

Lucy Letby - Wikipedia

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucy_Letby#cite_note-:0-8

Frequency · 06/08/2025 23:17

I don't know if Lucy is guilty; I don't know enough about neonatal care to make that assumption. However, it appears that the only medical professional with access to the medical notes of the victims, who believes she is guilty, is also wholly unqualified to make that assumption.

That alone merits a second look.

Oftenaddled · 06/08/2025 23:22

Moonlightdust · 06/08/2025 23:10

Stumbled across this bit of information on LL which is interesting particularly as it was believed her motive was to live vicariously through the emotions of the parents.

“Letby initially failed her final year student placement, but passed a retrieval placement after requesting a new assessor.[8]In 2011, Nicola Lightfoot, her first assessor, reported she was lacking in clinical and medication knowledge and needed more experience in "picking up on non-verbal signs of anxiety/distress from parents"; in a 2024 inquiry, Lightfoot said she had found Letby to be "cold".

Wikipedia.

Seems she learned the skill, since she had no complaints from parents while practising, that we know of. That first assessor wanted extroverts, essentially. She said that Letby failed to exude natural warmth as a nurse should. In my experience, not all nurses do, and it wouldn't be my priority.

Her second assessor said that she was shy tended to fall silent when overwhelmed, which isn't unusual or sinister, and doesn't seem to have blocked her development as a nurse. The reference she gave her was excellent in all other aspects.

Imagine if people got to pore over all of your appraisals, university feedback, private reflections and reviews. Lots of people would have a bad moment in there. Letby clearly worked on her skills and passed her placement.

Like all of the other evidence we are seeing that Letby was human, this doesn't in any way suggest she was a serial killer, of course

Swipe left for the next trending thread