Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

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: have you changed your mind?

1000 replies

Kittybythelighthouse · 09/08/2025 20:42

I’ve been sensing a shift in opinions on the Lucy Letby case and I’m interested in hearing from people who have changed their mind either way.

Did you used to think she was guilty and now you don’t, or you aren’t sure? What changed your mind?

Also vice versa: did you used to think she was not guilty but then changed your mind to guilty? What convinced you?

The reason I’m using the term ‘not guilty’ rather than ‘innocent’ is because courts don’t prove innocence. Not guilty is a legal conclusion about whether or not the state met its burden of proof.

OP posts:
Thread gallery
18
Chipotlego · 10/08/2025 09:56

Frazzled83 · 10/08/2025 09:50

Then you’ll also be aware of how often HCPs are thrown under the bus to avoid addressing operational failures.

But whats curious is that there was no spotlight on the hospital, there was no internal investigation so no motivation to throw anyone under the bus here. The doctors who raised concerns knew it would also open them up to scrutiny, so whats the logical explanation for doing so if no genuine concerns regarding her conduct? If there were already concerns and people sniffing around then I can well imagine it happens that innocent people are made scapegoats, but its the opposite way round here so makes no sense?

Nchangeo · 10/08/2025 09:58

RigIt · 10/08/2025 03:56

If she had told her barrister she was guilty he would have withdrawn. He couldn’t have continued to represent her.

I’m struggling to understand how you found the panel’s evidence compelling - and their argument is that no murders occurred, the babies’ deaths were all explainable - yet still think she is guilty because “some parts are just too weird”. If you don’t think any murders occurred surely it’s irrelevant how “weird” anything else is?

I am not a medical expert. So them being convincing was me trusting that they are expert. They didn’t argue she was innocent and no murders occurred. They argued that there was potentially natural explanation for all cases. So yes if I am to believe these experts then it’s not beyond reasonable doubt according to them.

But then I remembered that it was never the medical evidence that resonated with me when looking at this. It was all the weird circumstantial stuff which still exists. So perhaps that’s why.

I hope that makes sense.

Edit - and thanks for explaining that about barrister. That is interesting. Still a mystery then why they didn’t put a defence.

Sweetlikecocaa · 10/08/2025 09:59

SiameseBlueEyes · 10/08/2025 05:52

I must admit I thought the fuss was about her looking so wholesome. Then I talked to my final year medical student son. He was absolutely adamant that it would be almost impossible for a nurse or doctor to do this and not be caught almost immediately in a NICU. He said they said she used insulin because no other toxins were found. He also said the death rate fell because they stopped taking such high risk babies at the particular hospital. And those scribblings about the baby deaths were some therapy exercise a long time after the deaths. My son is not the sort who thinks the best of people so I was really surprised he was firmly of the view that it was a witch hunt.

Apart from in this case the deaths had actually taken place. So unless they were all a coincidence?. The question is how?

LancashireButterPie · 10/08/2025 10:02

Chipotlego · 10/08/2025 09:56

But whats curious is that there was no spotlight on the hospital, there was no internal investigation so no motivation to throw anyone under the bus here. The doctors who raised concerns knew it would also open them up to scrutiny, so whats the logical explanation for doing so if no genuine concerns regarding her conduct? If there were already concerns and people sniffing around then I can well imagine it happens that innocent people are made scapegoats, but its the opposite way round here so makes no sense?

The fact there was no internal investigation in a unit that had such a high death rate, the fact that the Drs waited so long to raise concerns (at the last minute really to save their own skins, they knew that CQC would be onto them) looks like a unit that was desperately trying to cover up bad outcomes and bad practice to me.

Chipotlego · 10/08/2025 10:05

LancashireButterPie · 10/08/2025 10:02

The fact there was no internal investigation in a unit that had such a high death rate, the fact that the Drs waited so long to raise concerns (at the last minute really to save their own skins, they knew that CQC would be onto them) looks like a unit that was desperately trying to cover up bad outcomes and bad practice to me.

Maybe actually read into the case and see when doctors first raised concerns and what upper management did about it at that point :)

MrTiddlesTheCat · 10/08/2025 10:06

I think the conviction is unsafe. I don't believe she was convicted on the basis of beyond reasonable doubt. I think she was convicted because the idea of babies being murdered is so heinous that the jury would rather risk an innocent person being imprisoned than a guilty one going free.

heroinechic · 10/08/2025 10:06

Kittybythelighthouse · 09/08/2025 22:47

”I can only assume that they didn’t call them because they would have hindered her case under cross examination more than they would help”

We don’t know why they weren’t called, there are a myriad of potential legal reasons why, but we do know for certain it’s not because the prosecution evidence was too good to argue against. Far from it.

There are a few reasons why a defence team wouldn’t call their own witness and none of them reflect well on LL or the strength of her defence. Maybe the witnesses weren’t credible, their evidence was flawed or contained inadmissible evidence, they were an unsafe witness, their evidence didn’t include anything fundamental (wasn’t strong) etc. It’s possible they refused to appear but in any event they could have been summoned.

People seem to believe that her defence team not calling witnesses was lazy. I really, really doubt that. It will have been a strategic decision based on whether their evidence would help her case.

It would be one thing if her team hadn’t actually instructed any expert witnesses, but they did. They just chose not to call them.

Swirlythingy2025 · 10/08/2025 10:06

Lougle · 09/08/2025 21:06

I don't think the conviction is safe. I was a NICU nurse. I can't imagine how I would defend myself in a complex cascade of accusations over a long period of time. Care isn't as linear as people think it is. Nurse A is assigned patient X but gets patients Y & Z's drugs out at the same time as patient X's so that nurses B&C don't have to leave their patient. Nurse C covers for Nurse A while they use the loo. Nurse D covers Nurse B, the emergency buzzer goes and Nurse B ends up looking after patient Y & Z while Nurse A helps with the emergency. The nurse in the Special Care room has to leave her 6 stable patients for 10 minutes while she makes up a batch of feeds. She has no idea who might have gone into the room in that time... The phone rings and patient W's parents are calling because they can't visit and need an update on their baby.

There are so many variables and don't get started on swipe card data. Someone forgets their card, so shares someone else's card. An agency nurse can't get into or out of anywhere unless a kind nurse swipes them in and out.

"2 years ago, on a Wednesday, why does the swipe card data show you doing x?" Couldn't possibly tell you.

so at times more holes than a fishing net in water ?

Waterweight · 10/08/2025 10:07

I think there were issues at the hospital beyond a serial killing nurse but I also think her job got alot easier/more rewarding when she was knocking off some of those babys & the parents were thanking her for looking after them.

EasternStandard · 10/08/2025 10:07

I haven’t followed it much but I have questioned more now than previously. I thought it was a safe conviction but now I’m not sure either way.

Sweetlikecocaa · 10/08/2025 10:09

YanTanTetheraPetheraBumfitt · 10/08/2025 07:40

Funny because I’m also a midwife, have also worked in nnu and I think she’s innocent. As do all of my nnu nurse ex colleagues that I’ve spoken to.

as a midwife do you really think it’s possible to kill a baby by putting air down the ng tube? Enough quantities to cause a problem, while nobody sees you doing this? Knowing how thin the ng tubes are and thinking how long would this take? Bearing in mind how much normal babies can gulp in air when feeding and they don’t drop down dead but instead get tummy ache and/or bring their feed up.

This is an excellent example. So both of you are midwifes. I imagine both are you are great at your job and have critical thinking skills. The crux of the matter is here and both your opinions highlight this on the thread. We simply don't know! Because you both are qualified... so it's not about that just everyone does have a difference of opinion. Only this happens to be fatal to LL and the poor babies/families involved.

Iamthemoom · 10/08/2025 10:09

It’s clearly an unsafe conviction. Having worked in the justice system I know there are way more unsafe convictions than the public imagine. Our justice system is deeply flawed and if this case does anything I hope it makes people question that.

Waterweight · 10/08/2025 10:09

EasternStandard · 10/08/2025 10:07

I haven’t followed it much but I have questioned more now than previously. I thought it was a safe conviction but now I’m not sure either way.

I think it was a safe conviction just not necessarily fair on the person who took the entire blame (letbury) or that more staff werent also charged

Swirlythingy2025 · 10/08/2025 10:11

Iamthemoom · 10/08/2025 10:09

It’s clearly an unsafe conviction. Having worked in the justice system I know there are way more unsafe convictions than the public imagine. Our justice system is deeply flawed and if this case does anything I hope it makes people question that.

but how and why do they happen ?

LancashireButterPie · 10/08/2025 10:11

There is no regulatory board for NHS managers and executives. They are paid £100-£250k and don't have to abide by a code of conduct.
I honestly feel that many of them are not capable of managing difficult situations and my own personal experience of when I've raised safeguarding concerns, is that the managers don't want to hear it. Because then they have to deal with it. Better to sweep it away.

I'll never forget the whole service lead who told me that experience had taught her that the best course of action is to do nothing and the problem fades away of its own accord. (With a tinkly laugh).

Kittybythelighthouse · 10/08/2025 10:15

Nchangeo · 10/08/2025 09:58

I am not a medical expert. So them being convincing was me trusting that they are expert. They didn’t argue she was innocent and no murders occurred. They argued that there was potentially natural explanation for all cases. So yes if I am to believe these experts then it’s not beyond reasonable doubt according to them.

But then I remembered that it was never the medical evidence that resonated with me when looking at this. It was all the weird circumstantial stuff which still exists. So perhaps that’s why.

I hope that makes sense.

Edit - and thanks for explaining that about barrister. That is interesting. Still a mystery then why they didn’t put a defence.

Edited

”They didn’t argue she was innocent and no murders occurred.”

They literally said “There were no murders”
Did you watch it?

If there were no murders Facebook searches and post it notes etc etc are irrelevant.

https://www.youtube.com/live/N0nmoGes3IU?si=sz-DuwHrJLe2O-wQ

Before you continue to YouTube

https://www.youtube.com/live/N0nmoGes3IU?si=sz-DuwHrJLe2O-wQ

OP posts:
Allthatwegotisthispalebluedot · 10/08/2025 10:17

I am always amazed at the number of posters who don’t understand what ‘circumstantial evidence’ is, and why it doesn’t mean that convictions are unsafe. Lots of murders don’t have direct evidence - they tend not to take place in the street in broad daylight with lots of people on hand to film and give helpful eyewitness testimony that they saw nice nurse Lucy stabbing babies in the street (although obviously some murders do play out like that). It doesn’t mean that all circumstantial evidence is shady or cannot be used to convict someone. Bloody hell.

Edit to add: not sure why the NHS would want to ‘cover up’ a poorly run and understaffed unit, with the much better scenario of ‘we had a serial killer in our midst, lots of people reported it but we did nothing’. To me that seems worse!

Lougle · 10/08/2025 10:19

Swirlythingy2025 · 10/08/2025 10:06

so at times more holes than a fishing net in water ?

I wouldn't say holes. But definitely not the sort of activity that fits neatly into a timeline or a spreadsheet. Nursing works on staffing ratios to allow for the unpredictable events of wards. There are still times where everything turns to chaos. I worked in adult ICU, also, and we had one night where two patients on opposite sides of the unit had emergencies at the same time. Add to that the confused patient with a broken hip trying to get out of bed, and the patient on highly potent vasoconstrictors that needs constant monitoring, and it all gets pretty frantic. But that's just the nature of critical care.

Early in my time in NICU, I had a baby who was absolutely fine one minute, and five minutes later was very much not fine. I was convinced it must be my fault, even though I couldn't think of anything I had done or not done, but a senior nurse took me to one side and said 'babies break, and they're often breaking before we can see it. It's nothing you've done.'

Leafy3 · 10/08/2025 10:19

OK..

Looking up relatives of the babies who died:
Completely plausible, if at best unwise and at worst unprofessional. The actions of someone who cares and has been affected by the death of am infant on their ward, who has been affected by the grief and pain they witnessed from the relatives.

Someone who came of age with social media...plenty of people her age look up those they've met who've stuck with them, it's really not weird.

She kept handover notes:
These were notes she made during shift, not ones which are kept in a patient's file or records.
Again, not suspicious, completely plausible. Many have said they'd do the same, for various reasons.
Assuming people dispose of such things as soon as they notice them is ignorant. People don't. People are human. They forget. They put things off. Etc.

I can think of various reasons why one would keep such notes tbh, all innocent.

Her "flatness":
I think this is completely ridiculous. People respond in different ways, especially when scared. Astounded women on a message board such as this, with posters regularly discussing rapes & sexual assault in which they didn't fight or scream, can come out with such nonsense.

Many people are good at keeping calm in crises, when scared or upset. Women especially, who are socialised not to make a fuss, draw attention to themselves etc. Nurses especially need to be (a) naturally inclined not to kick off whenever they feel strong emotion but are also (b) trained not to, to follow process and keep calm & rational.

An alternative viewpoint is that Lucy Letby has behaved with dignity throughout.

Lucy Letby is a psychopath. Stop trying to justify her behaviour:
Nothing smacks of "witch hunt" more than this.
There is no evidence that she is a psychopath or sociopath.

Your belief that she is is based on your determination to believe in her guilt despite there being no sound argument that she did anything worse than neglect to destroy some notes or look people up on Facebook.

She didn't talk about the deaths like she should have done. Its weird
Says you. You also first read/heard of these comments in the context of her guilt. Confirmation bias, your opinion is coloured by the emotive subject her being a murderer and is not objective.

She's weird
According to you. I'm sure each of you is an expert on weirdness. Again your belief is coloured by the way her behaviour was initially presented, by a failure to accept that people don't behave as an homogeneous mass even if you personally can't conceive of acting that way should you be in that situation.

You also don't have full context for each example of weirdness. Just snippets of conversation and circumstance, by people who are public pinning their colours to the mast of her guilt.

She confessed her guilt in a note
Putting aside for the moment the fact that she was told to write down every wild thought as part of therapy...are people really saying that they've never panicked, or witness someone panic, in distress and say "it's all my fault", "I've done X", "I am useless /worthless/not good enough" ?

Because i have both done the same and witnessed other people do so when overwhelmed with distressing emotion and when scared.

In fact, its also apparent in many posts I read on these boards.

.
All the arguments people repeatedly put forward to say why they believe she is guilty are entirely subjective - more than that: they are not remotely objective, ignoring all reasoning which doesn't fit with their neat little narrative.

So much of her behaviour which had been used against her is actually indicative of someone deeply empathetic, who remained deeply affected by the suffering she witnessed at work and her sense of responsibility as to why she'd been unable to save the babies on the ward.

LancashireButterPie · 10/08/2025 10:20

I am in awe of the medical experts who have bravely stuck their heads above the parapet to challenge her conviction.
Complete respect to them for trying to get to the bottom of why those babies died, because if LL didn't do this, babies still remain at risk in units all through the NHS.

They are seeking to learn lessons. We should all at least be grateful to them for that.

Summerlilly · 10/08/2025 10:21

Swirlythingy2025 · 10/08/2025 10:11

but how and why do they happen ?

I also work in role that has given me a good amount of experience in the court system.
Sometimes judges are not good people. I’ve seen them say and do horrendous things to victims. I’ve seen them tell myself and team off and even our lawyers for pointing out the horrible things someone has done to the victim.
i can’t comment on what happened in LL’s court room. But in many other cases the judge can be to blame.

mylovedoesitgood · 10/08/2025 10:22

Allthatwegotisthispalebluedot · 10/08/2025 10:17

I am always amazed at the number of posters who don’t understand what ‘circumstantial evidence’ is, and why it doesn’t mean that convictions are unsafe. Lots of murders don’t have direct evidence - they tend not to take place in the street in broad daylight with lots of people on hand to film and give helpful eyewitness testimony that they saw nice nurse Lucy stabbing babies in the street (although obviously some murders do play out like that). It doesn’t mean that all circumstantial evidence is shady or cannot be used to convict someone. Bloody hell.

Edit to add: not sure why the NHS would want to ‘cover up’ a poorly run and understaffed unit, with the much better scenario of ‘we had a serial killer in our midst, lots of people reported it but we did nothing’. To me that seems worse!

Edited

We understand fine. Please watch the ITV documentary and you’ll see that the small amount of circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution was flawed.

Leafy3 · 10/08/2025 10:24

Waterweight · 10/08/2025 10:07

I think there were issues at the hospital beyond a serial killing nurse but I also think her job got alot easier/more rewarding when she was knocking off some of those babys & the parents were thanking her for looking after them.

This genuinely made me gasp.

There are reported, widely known, inescapable major and serious failings at that hospital. There were before, during and after the timeline of this case with multiple warnings being ignored.

Allthatwegotisthispalebluedot · 10/08/2025 10:25

mylovedoesitgood · 10/08/2025 10:22

We understand fine. Please watch the ITV documentary and you’ll see that the small amount of circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution was flawed.

Then why do some many of you (I assume you are speaking for the posters who say ‘there was only circumstantial evidence’ as you have taken it up yourself to reply to my post) say ‘there was only circumstantial evidence’ as though that means we should reconsider and wait for some cctv or something?

Swirlythingy2025 · 10/08/2025 10:26

Summerlilly · 10/08/2025 10:21

I also work in role that has given me a good amount of experience in the court system.
Sometimes judges are not good people. I’ve seen them say and do horrendous things to victims. I’ve seen them tell myself and team off and even our lawyers for pointing out the horrible things someone has done to the victim.
i can’t comment on what happened in LL’s court room. But in many other cases the judge can be to blame.

but it certainly seems very odd with judges. so sometimes its like they predecide if they want the person to go free etc or what type of punishment before the case is run ?

Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.

This thread is not accepting new messages.
Swipe left for the next trending thread