Lucy Letby - programme on ITV now

[Viviennemary]

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..

I don’t know anyone who lacks sympathy for the parents, their pain is undeniable. But that doesn’t justify punishing someone who may be innocent. If she is innocent, then the accusations against her are not only false, but deeply unjust. Two tragedies don’t cancel each other out, they compound the suffering.

Oh yes the bbc, impartial as always , not.

It is the most manipulative arrogant broadcaster.

The thing is, they sat through the trial-they know a hell of a lot more about what happened than any of us and it seems are completely convinced of her guilt. It must be absolutely devastating seeing so many people cheerleading for her. Then you've got the consultants being painted as villains as well. The whole thing is just mad. It's a healthcare case, it was never going to be straightforward, but that doesn't mean she didn't do it.

She's guilty. Everything points to it. IMHO.

It must be terrible for the parents. Of course they know far more about the details of their children's lives than anyone else, but that doesn't make them responsible for determining the cause of death, or competent to do so.

Josh Halliday, who sat through the whole trial and believes it produced a miscarriage of justice, spoke very movingly of their situation at the end of last night's documentary.

But of course, you can't refuse to investigate an injustice to spare people's feelings, can you?

Exactly! The mental gymnastics people do to try and make her innocent stretches all credibility. One or two things could be a coincidence, but she was there every time. Sometimes in rooms she wasn't even supposed to be in. The deaths followed her shifts from nights to days. And I really haven't seen all this evidence that she wasn't there for some incidents. Judith Moritz even said she was there for every single death in the last Panorama doc. They just used the cases with the strongest evidence at trial. Nothing happened when she wasn't there that is unexplained or not natural causes.

She wasn't there every time.

There will always be some people who believe that, but their arguments are running thinner and thinner.

OK source? And why didn't her defence bring that up? Pretty damning evidence and would've made the entire trial fall apart if that was true.

The Thirlwall Enquiry produced a chart showing Letby was not present for all deaths. Why Moritz hadn't corrected her account isn't clear.

Nurses "babysat" for each other in the different rooms on the ward all the time. There's no evidence Letby did any more than this, around the children she's accused of killing.

The deaths didn't follow Letby's shifts from nights to days. That's a major oversimplification. She worked mostly nights until moved to days. Most babies died at night (when senior doctors were not near at hand in a crisis). Seven months after the last of a series of five deaths at night, after four deaths, night and day, that Letby's not accused of causing, two children died while she was on day shifts. Dewi Evans believed the first of them was actually attacked on night shift, until he learned Letby was on day shift and changed his account.

The mental gymnastics are not on the side of those who think Letby's conviction are unsafe.

https://unherd.com/2025/02/why-the-letby-case-isnt-closed/

for one. See Thirlwall too - numerous references.

The defence did raise the change of times. But they weren't allowed to discuss what the judge called the construction of the case and non-indictment babies.

Like you, I think that it would have been useful to the jury if they had had that information.

I agree

It was in the documentary. But more specifically, what oftenaddled said.

I have deep discomfort in relation to this documentary and recent publications.

Firstly, why did LL's defence not call expert witnesses to challenge Dr Evans's evidence - this would have been perfectly normal and expected. The documentary danced around it and provided no explanation. IMO the most likely reason is that their appointed experts refused to give oral evidence because they've concluded they could no longer support LL's case. But of course we don't know enough.

Secondly, her new barrister seems hell bent on creating a media storm and comes across as a sensationalist, not a serious practitioner based on this documentary.

Thirdly, there is no way in hell IMO that several senior medical practitioners would raise concerns of this nature if they were not genuine. I think they know very well somebody harmed these babies and they are best placed to spot any irregularities as experienced doctors working at CoC regularly.

Fourthly, I absolutely disagree with making a media circus and trial by media involving politicians such as David Davies (?! Who even is he in the context of this case, he has no specialism in any relevant area? He made a fool of himself in the context of performing his own job on more than one occasion in the past, so I have no idea why he seemingly thinks he can perform better in areas he is even more clueless about), and involving "experts" who had limited access to paperwork and who reverse-engineered a different opinion now because they were instructed to do so. Who is behind this huge machine of people spending hundreds of hours reviewing this case, by their own admission? Who has an agenda here? Who pays for this, as this kind of review cannot be completed in full pro bono? I am deeply uncomfortable about it all and highly reluctant to trust these people's questionable findings above the trial evidence and jury. Defence had all the time they needed to call them and yet they didn't - could it be because they weren't so sure themselves?

Fifthly, the Thirlwall review already identified further concerns regarding Letby's time before CoC, at Liverpool's Womens Hospital, and it's been widely reported neonatal deaths at LWH at the time will now be investigated. I do not believe for one second this is a coincidence and I find it extremely distasteful and inappropriate that LL's barrister is fuelling this media frenzy whilst this review is still ongoing. This should never be allowed. I am also firmly of the view there is no way a triple death rate at CoC between 2015 and 2016 was a coincidence.

Finally, let's not forget the facts as they stand: LL is a convicted murderer, currently serving her custodial sentence. Nothing has changed. There are multiple sets of parents and family members involved whose lives were destroyed when their babies died. This investigation, the trial and now this frenzy is not easy for them. Let's not follow the Mickey Mouse media court, but the actual court who dealt with 8 months long trial and will now decide if there is any validity to review LL's case again. Let's pause and let the court do its job instead of fuelling irresponsible speculation which at this stage is harmful to the very people at the heart of this case - the parents of babies who died.

I may be wrong, but I don't think I am and certainly no further article from The Guardian (whose programme reviews are generally of abysmal quality) or a TV show or media conference will change my mind.

As a ‘Hail Mary’ attempt by Cheshire Police to throw enough shit around that people like you will be convinced there must be something in amongst all the smoke and mirrors.

I’ve always felt that this is a huge miscarriage of justice. I think she’s been scapegoated and if so, I hope whoever IS responsible goes down for a very long time.

One more comment, actually - I find it highly inappropriate that ITV approached her school friend and her former boss who was tasked with supporting her throughout the investigation. Both came across emotionally driven, highly biased and not the brightest bulbs frankly, no offence intended here, but this matter is far above their level.

I will never trust the ex head of nursing who assesses LL's guilt or innocence on her own impression that LL "couldn't have done this'" and who on the one hand says she worked at CoC for 30 or 40 years and "it was a good place to work" and yet at the same time appears to think her consultant colleagues wrongly accused LL of these babies' murders. This is wildly contradictory and if you trust her judgement, more fool you. The same head of nursing, following the current "challenge" argument would have had to have failed to spot multiple issues of practice at the CoC as well, allegedly, so how competent is she truly? How good is her observation and judgement? This entire challenge is deeply concerning, IMO and too many people seeking sensationalism are falling for it.

These are interesting points but one of the reasons I'm grateful for documentaries like this is that they dispel some of the misinformation circulating around Lucy Letby.

Here is one of the more recent articles on why Letby's defence did not call witnesses: https://jollycontrarian.com/index.php?title=Lucy_Letby:_the_missing_defence_evidence

Your explanation would not apply. Michael Hall, Letby's main expert witness, has spoken out since the trial saying he was willing to testify. He has also expressed concern about the safety of the conviction.

With an hour to play with, I think the documentary makers were wise to focus mostly on medical issues and verifiable facts rather than legal speculation.

Secondly, Letby's barrister certainly seems to court publicity. Is this a good tactic? I can't see why not. What does she lose by it? This isn't a police state and it is okay to bring potential injustices to the public's attention, fortunately.

Third, the consultants may have had genuine concerns, but of course they weren't senior practitioners in the relevant area of medicine. Unlike the experts now speaking out, they weren't neonatologists. The documentary suggests, very plausibly, that they were out of their depth.

Fourth, the experts involved have been instructed by the defence. That means they don't have limited access to the paperwork. They have access to exactly the same paperwork as the prosecution - and if the prosecution conceals anything, we have a mistrial.

Fifth, Thirlwall has reported nothing of substance from Liverpool: as I posted upthread, they've established that Letby was heavily supervised during her early shifts there and no-one saw anything amiss, and that there is no record of which shifts she worked in her later training period there.

I'm sorry to say that the police and court proceedings simply haven't inspired enough confidence for us to pause and feel secure that they will get things right. In an ideal world, that would be possible. As things stand it really is necessary to point out that this is an extraordinary case and that it is in the public interest to draw attention to it.

The documentary explicitly stated:

• the Defence provided no explanation why the instructed expert witnesses did not testify

and

• the medical "experts" at the press conference expressly stated their review and conclusion were focused on seven cases

I entirely disagree re this level of performative publicity, it loses her barrister and team credibility and results in significant risk of undue pressure and bias of any future proceedings in her case, should they ever occur.

The Thirlwall inquiry which is set to release on early 2026 is also incredibly heartbreaking for the families and it doesn't involve the question of whether Letby is guilty or innocent. I can't even imagine watching a resident doctor googling as to how to save your premature babies.

When watching the programme, I was astonished at how basic the NICU was.

https://thirlwall.public-inquiry.uk

Your deep discomfort @GrooveArmada is entirely performative.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/jul/02/lucy-letby-alleged-to-have-murdered-or-harmed-more-babies

Just make sure you're aware of this.

The defence provided no explanation - that doesn't mean your theory can be supported, though. Michael Hall's statements disprove it. We have plausible explanations, like the one I linked. But ultimately, I don't think it would have been useful for the documentary to spend much time speculating on legal tactics.

The first expert summary report (in February) focused on seven cases. They've since added the other ten cases, in a second report. That's the information they've published in the press. The sent much more to the CCRC. And because they were instructed by the defence, they had access to all of the evidence the police used to build the prosecution case.

I know opinions vary on involving the press. To me it seems a sound tactic. But either way, it makes no difference to the question of guilt or innocence.

Yes, this has been discussed earlier in the thread. I've also referred to it in my reply to your earlier post. The CPS hasn't approved charges yet. I suspect they may find it not in the public interest to proceed. But if they do - the prosecution will face much heavier scrutiny this time around.

@GrooveArmada
That's been mentioned and discussed a few times on the thread.

I'm really surprised at you putting "experts" in inverted commas in your previous post, not sure what that's about since they clearly are top experts in the field.

Also I think a PP was addressing your suggestion that perhaps Letby was unable to find an expert willing to support or testify on her behalf, which we know isn't the case.

It's a bit odd when someone presents as correcting others while making their own mistakes which indicate a lack of familiarity with key facts.