Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

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
Oftenaddled · 10/08/2025 11:21

CarlaLemarchant · 10/08/2025 10:45

Oh well there you go then, some of the public heard much of the evidence. Thats fine then. We should all be able to have a vote based on much of what we heard. Maybe they could develop a Love Island style app.

We had journalists who, as they never stop telling us, sat through the whole trial. Liz Hull, Judith Moritz, Josh Halliday.

Court reporting is allowed and encouraged because we are not a police state. We have an open justice system. One consequence of this is that one of Letby's colleagues read a report, realized consultants had forgotten an error they admitted at the time, and was able to raise this with the court. Letby was found not guilty on that charge. That's obviously a good reason to have court reporting.

Court reporting meant that medical experts in Britain could hear the case and determine that the reasons given for convicting Letby were unscientific and alarming. That's when people like Neena Modi started to raise concerns.

There has been growing controversy about this case for well over a year now, in the press. But if Liz Hull is asked to explain why Letby is guilty, it's all just the same Facebook / doodling / handover notes gossip that everyone else comes up with it. You can read all of Judith Moritz's book on Letby and not find a word on what the jury heard that wasn't already in the public domain. She just seems to feel that seeing Letby was enough for her to judge based on appearances.

Josh Halliday went from sitting through the whole trial and believing Letby was guilty to further research, including attending the international expert panel's press conference, and believing it was a miscarriage of justice.

If there is some secret, mysterious but deeply important evidence that these people and the jury saw, they've had plenty of time to do their job and tell us about it. But you can tell just by reading the judge's summing up that there isn't.

Kittybythelighthouse · 10/08/2025 11:23

Kidznurse · 10/08/2025 11:16

I don’t believe in trial by media/Facebook/Mumsnet. Only the jury heard all of the facts and the context in which the evidence was presented and they reached guilty verdicts. This debate ( because she’s young and blonde ? ) is dangerous, and that’s speaking as a PIC nurse.

Sigh. I refer you to my previous comment addressing this.

*“Luckily no one is suggesting that, given that in this case there has been an unprecedented intervention by a panel of world class experts casting doubt on the verdicts.

Why do we keep having to say this over and over?

‘It’s just because she’s blonde etc’
’you just want to just let mob rule decide everything’

No and no. There are extremely credible experts casting doubt on the scientific evidence, without which there’s no proof of murder at all. No one can now honestly be 100% sure she’s guilty. That’s what we are actually concerned about.”*

OP posts:
Nchangeo · 10/08/2025 11:23

Kittybythelighthouse · 10/08/2025 10:15

”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

Edited

Yes I did. Ages ago and haven’t rewatched. I remember after thinking maybe she is innocent. I don’t remember them saying that but could be wrong.

A while after this I looked again and changed my mind again. Yes based on things you are mentioning.

I really want to see all the evidence in chronological order as I said earlier. Seriously what are the chances that not only are you accused by numerous colleagues of being a baby murderer. But that you also are the wards stalking and trophy collecting weirdo.

Oftenaddled · 10/08/2025 11:24

Imperativvv · 10/08/2025 11:15

I don't know whether LL is guilty or not, but some of the obvious issues the case raises reinforced my preexisting view that we'd benefit from expert juries in cases where such specialist knowledge comes into play. The obvious ones are medical and complex fraud.

But that would be expensive, so I doubt we'll get it.

One suggestion from Phil Hammond is that we stop having two sets of expert witnesses, one for the defence and one for the prosecution, and have them answerable to and advising only the court instead. They are meant to be impartial already but that doesn't seem to be working.

That would save money, too.

Oftenaddled · 10/08/2025 11:26

Nchangeo · 10/08/2025 11:23

Yes I did. Ages ago and haven’t rewatched. I remember after thinking maybe she is innocent. I don’t remember them saying that but could be wrong.

A while after this I looked again and changed my mind again. Yes based on things you are mentioning.

I really want to see all the evidence in chronological order as I said earlier. Seriously what are the chances that not only are you accused by numerous colleagues of being a baby murderer. But that you also are the wards stalking and trophy collecting weirdo.

It would be a huge hassle to take everything out and put it in chronological order for you, unfortunately, or I'd offer. But if you did a combination read of Judith Moritz's book and the documents on the Thirlwall site, you'd get something like that. I'm not a fan of Moritz's book but it gives the chronology.

Or is there a particular question - did x happen before or after y - that I could help with?

JJ8282 · 10/08/2025 11:27

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.

I was 50 50 following the trial. I kept thinking "where is the actual evidence?".

Champersandfizz · 10/08/2025 11:30

MarinetteDupainCheng · 10/08/2025 10:40

Not all families have that option. Some units don’t allow siblings there all day (or in times of infection or COVID, at all). Many families find one parent has to work in order to continue affording all the normal costs of living and the additional financial burden of a hospitalised child.

This wasn't during Covid, seeing as it was 30 years ago. I was in the waiting room for 4 months.

I wasn't casting judgement on anyone or saying it was wrong not to do this, I am just saying what my parents did 30 years ago.

By the way, we were not well off at all, my parents were trying to rub pennies together their entire working lives and both worked. My mum was actually in hospital much of the time, too, given t eh circumstances of it all.

Nn9011 · 10/08/2025 11:32

Spookyspaghetti · 09/08/2025 23:54

I thought the corporate manslaughter was brought because they hadn’t acted quickly enough to stop Letby harming more babies.

She is also being investigated for deaths at another trust. It seems unlikely that both trusts would be part of a big conspiracy to hang their poor practices on her.

I think both that Letby is a murderer and that there were flaws in the trust that allowed her to slip under the radar and keep killing.

It is very disrespectful to the families of the murdered babies to suggest Letby was innocent. Their instincts should be trusted and they know better than anyone what went on.

If it was a man convicted of these crimes, or a more ‘unattractive, older woman,’ I don’t think the public would give a second thought about the strength of the conviction.

Please know that I absolutely do not go as far to say she's innocent. What I am saying is that it is more disrespectful to parents and dangerous to future children to allow a scapegoat to be used to cover up intentional manslaughter through lack of staff, equipment, overworked staff and dangerous practices.
I don't know if she killed one or all of the babies but what I do know is that through intentionally diverting money from the NHS, trust after trust is covering up deaths that could have been avoided and blaming all of those on human error or people like Lucy letby ensures nothing will change and more people including children will die.
That is why I feel a completely independent enquiry needs to be done, not only at this trust but all trusts across the UK and our governments (current and past) need to have a complete separation from it.

In order to be convicted of a crime in the UK the prosecution must have proven guilty beyond doubt and it's set to that level for a reason. In this case, I don't feel it has reached that. I have studied criminology and law and work in an area that requires investigations that would stand up in court. Whilst I'm certainly not a medical expert, I have listened to the experts who have no links or benefits from Lucy being guilty and they all point to having reasonable doubt. Again not claiming her to be innocent, just pointing out that we should be concerned for all staff and patients in the NHS based on this case.

nomas · 10/08/2025 11:32

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.

Edited

She is a serial killer, most are psychopaths.

laundryhamper · 10/08/2025 11:32

@Witchlite 100%
People have this very wrong idea that doctors are gods and nurses are angels.

In my experience they lie, bully, backstab, mess-up and cover up just as much as anyone in any other profession.

I tend not to believe in conspiracies but I do believe individuals and organisations will do almost anything to cover their own ass.

As for expert witnesses - it’s hard to reconcile the blind faith some people in this thread have in the police, prosecutors and expert witnesses with the appalling miscarriages of justice to women like Sally Clarke and Kathleen Holbigg. Please listen to the Lab Detective podcast series Season 16.

Nchangeo · 10/08/2025 11:32

Oftenaddled · 10/08/2025 11:26

It would be a huge hassle to take everything out and put it in chronological order for you, unfortunately, or I'd offer. But if you did a combination read of Judith Moritz's book and the documents on the Thirlwall site, you'd get something like that. I'm not a fan of Moritz's book but it gives the chronology.

Or is there a particular question - did x happen before or after y - that I could help with?

No please, don’t worry! I am not asking anyone to do anything.

Thanks for that I might look at that book actually. Appreciate that.

It’s nothing specific at this stage; I just want a clearer picture of the whole thing. Such as when were the Facebook searches, did she come back to them and re search, if so when and what frequency etc. When did she first know she was accused/ suspected of murders. Was there time between that and the police searches. How long was she off before these searches were she could/ should have tied her room of random shopping bags. It’s all just a big picture thing and the chronology is important to that.

Chipotlego · 10/08/2025 11:32

LivelyOpalOtter · 10/08/2025 11:04

Raise those specific points with them. Or tell me which specific point of mine you're referring to?

Above I addressed the notion that no one is allowed to question it unless they were there.

I'll repeat that my doubts rest on the conclusion of the panel of international experts cited in the latest documentary.

I have been in this thread, I also think allowing an appeal seems sensible; i dont have strong feelings either way as to whether I think shes guilty or not, but as there are credible doubts then if its a safe conviction in the first place then it would withstand an appeal, and if it isnt then its right its overturned.

However the vast majority of people on this thread raise points that were addressed in the trial many even by Lucy herself, those calling it unsafe may as well read into what was actually reported from this trial first.

Oftenaddled · 10/08/2025 11:33

Champersandfizz · 10/08/2025 11:30

This wasn't during Covid, seeing as it was 30 years ago. I was in the waiting room for 4 months.

I wasn't casting judgement on anyone or saying it was wrong not to do this, I am just saying what my parents did 30 years ago.

By the way, we were not well off at all, my parents were trying to rub pennies together their entire working lives and both worked. My mum was actually in hospital much of the time, too, given t eh circumstances of it all.

That sounds really tough. I know when they asked nurses at the Thirlwall Inquiry about what measures were needed, many were worried about the implications of CCTV but emphasized the need for spaces where parents and children could be together.

SealHouse · 10/08/2025 11:34

Toddlerteaplease · 09/08/2025 22:12

Nope. Still guilty. Never doubted it from the moment I first heard about it.

Goodness, you "never doubted it" without seeing any evidence at all. I hope you never serve on a jury🙄

Outig · 10/08/2025 11:34

Thank you for this, it offers a very plausible legal reasons why the defence may have decided to not offer expert evidence.

But this paragraph stood out,

It is for the prosecution to prove their case, and not for the defence to disprove it.

It is thereby for the prosecution to ensure that the expert evidence on which it seeks to rely is as sound as possible.

The prosecution cannot shrug off this responsibility and say that it can be cured by the defence expert witnesses.

And there is concern that the prosecution expert evidence in the Letby case was not sound to begin with.

Nn9011 · 10/08/2025 11:34

nomas · 10/08/2025 06:51

This doesn’t make sense given it was the ex bosses who were adamant LL was innocent.

So if you knew that your actions lead to deaths, from lack of staffing, lack of resources and a lack of proper care for current staff but you also knew that acknowledging deaths as anything other than natural would lead to an investigation, wouldn't it be in your best interests to avoid ANY investigation, even one that might highlight a real issue?
Because if there was a cover up, it was intentional and on going and the only reason people do that is to save their own backs too.

Yachtingaroundtheworldiwish · 10/08/2025 11:38

I don’t know what to think but the whole situation looks very dodgy. When I worked in the NHS, arse covering was the norm, especially from management. As a nurse, if you were working in an area and due to lack of staff it felt unsafe, you could do a letter to the NMC and your employers. Employers absolutely hated it, if you did this.

I remember two of us trying to speak to our manager about us being snowed under and asking yet again when they were going to recruit. The manager had a pile of mail in her hands and she threw the lot across the office. She then had us both in the office for a dressing down. When I look back, we should have reported her but that’s the difficulty, it was made virtually impossibly to challenge managers in the NHS.

Kittybythelighthouse · 10/08/2025 11:40

Nchangeo · 10/08/2025 11:23

Yes I did. Ages ago and haven’t rewatched. I remember after thinking maybe she is innocent. I don’t remember them saying that but could be wrong.

A while after this I looked again and changed my mind again. Yes based on things you are mentioning.

I really want to see all the evidence in chronological order as I said earlier. Seriously what are the chances that not only are you accused by numerous colleagues of being a baby murderer. But that you also are the wards stalking and trophy collecting weirdo.

They definitely said that “there were no murders”, literally in those words.

”Seriously what are the chances that not only are you accused by numerous colleagues of being a baby murderer. But that you also are the wards stalking and trophy collecting weirdo.”

It has happened before that innocent nurses were wrongly accused and wrongly convicted of murder. Lucia DeBerk, Daniela Poggiali are two examples. In fact, this is enough of an issue that the Royal Statistical Society actually predicted in advance of the Letby case that it probably would happen again without reform in how courts handle statistical evidence. They produced a report on the phenomenon of supposed ‘healthcare killers’ and faulty statistical evidence. Again, like the Law Commission advice to the courts on expert witnesses it wasn’t followed up on.

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/lucy-letby-press-conference-evidence-murder-convictions-david-davis-b1208994.html

https://rss.org.uk/RSS/media/File-library/News/2022/Report_Healthcare_serial_killer_or_coincidence_statistical_issues_in_investigation_of_suspected_medical_misconduct_Sept_2022_FINAL.pdf

Lucy Letby: have you changed your mind?
OP posts:
PersephonePomegranate · 10/08/2025 11:41

I didn’t really follow the initial trial further than news coverage and blithely believed in the justice system. I now feel uncomfortable about this case and her conviction. I don't know whether she's innocent, but I now think her conviction is questionable, especially since a guilty verdict requires the evidence to prove the defendant's guilty is beyond reasonable doubt. There's definitely reasonable doubt IMO.

Kittybythelighthouse · 10/08/2025 11:44

Chipotlego · 10/08/2025 11:32

I have been in this thread, I also think allowing an appeal seems sensible; i dont have strong feelings either way as to whether I think shes guilty or not, but as there are credible doubts then if its a safe conviction in the first place then it would withstand an appeal, and if it isnt then its right its overturned.

However the vast majority of people on this thread raise points that were addressed in the trial many even by Lucy herself, those calling it unsafe may as well read into what was actually reported from this trial first.

”However the vast majority of people on this thread raise points that were addressed in the trial many even by Lucy herself, those calling it unsafe may as well read into what was actually reported from this trial first.”

What points are you referring to here? I haven’t noticed this and I’ve read most of the thread.

OP posts:
Chipotlego · 10/08/2025 11:47

Nchangeo · 10/08/2025 11:32

No please, don’t worry! I am not asking anyone to do anything.

Thanks for that I might look at that book actually. Appreciate that.

It’s nothing specific at this stage; I just want a clearer picture of the whole thing. Such as when were the Facebook searches, did she come back to them and re search, if so when and what frequency etc. When did she first know she was accused/ suspected of murders. Was there time between that and the police searches. How long was she off before these searches were she could/ should have tied her room of random shopping bags. It’s all just a big picture thing and the chronology is important to that.

They are mentioned throughout the trial, but if you search for the transcript of her testimony, where they are relevant in they indicate something that contradicts her initial police statements etc she is asked about them and it adds more of a timeline etc.

SteakBakesAndHotTakes · 10/08/2025 11:57

Oftenaddled · 10/08/2025 11:24

One suggestion from Phil Hammond is that we stop having two sets of expert witnesses, one for the defence and one for the prosecution, and have them answerable to and advising only the court instead. They are meant to be impartial already but that doesn't seem to be working.

That would save money, too.

I agree with this. We need to stop treating justice like a game with winners and losers. People's lives are on the line, and what should be important is the truth, not presenting deliberately biased or incomplete information in order to point-score.

Typicalwave · 10/08/2025 11:57

I think Dewi Evan’s isn’t a credible expert witness, either. Hes changed his mind on Baby C. He runs his own expert witness business. He isn’t a neonatologist. He approached Cheshire police and basically sod his services to them. He co-signed a letter with Roy Meadows in 2002 asking
for a stop to be put to ‘vexatious’ litigation from women accused of munchhausen by proxy. He was a great supporter of Roy Meadow and his shonky junk science.

Dewi Evan’s should have in no way bedn regarded as a partisan impartial expert witness

Kittybythelighthouse · 10/08/2025 12:00

Nchangeo · 10/08/2025 11:32

No please, don’t worry! I am not asking anyone to do anything.

Thanks for that I might look at that book actually. Appreciate that.

It’s nothing specific at this stage; I just want a clearer picture of the whole thing. Such as when were the Facebook searches, did she come back to them and re search, if so when and what frequency etc. When did she first know she was accused/ suspected of murders. Was there time between that and the police searches. How long was she off before these searches were she could/ should have tied her room of random shopping bags. It’s all just a big picture thing and the chronology is important to that.

I can help with those questions:

”Such as when were the Facebook searches, did she come back to them and re search, if so when and what frequency etc”

She searched for 11 of the families, performing these searches 31 times in total. By comparison, she conducted 2,287 other searches for unrelated individuals (for example, people she met at salsa class) over the same period. These searches mostly took place during June 2015 to June 2016.

”When did she first know she was accused/ suspected of murders?”

In June 2016 she was informed that hospital consultants had raised concerns about her presence being linked to unexpected infant collapses and deaths. This was the first point at which she knew she was being treated as a suspect.

”Was there time between that and the police searches. How long was she off before these searches were she could/ should have tied her room of random shopping bags.”

The first police searches were in July 2018. By that time, she had known for two years that she was under suspicion.

I hope that’s helpful. I’m happy to answer anything else. I know a lot about this case 😅

OP posts:
RaspberryBeret1999 · 10/08/2025 12:00

junkmaail · 09/08/2025 21:18

As another NHS worker, I completely agree with this. The NHS are great at making things
‘go away’ for the right people, ignoring toxic management, sexual misconduct etc. Not convinced they would be pinning multiple murders on NICU nurses. Did upper management fail to act on the suspicions reported? Yes. Is Lucy guilty? As far as I’m concerned she’s guilty as sin. And I’m horrified at the Facebook groups full of people, with zero medical knowledge and no ability for critical thinking, tripping over themselves to insist she’s absolutely completely 100% innocent.

In that same token as “making things go away” for the right people, could it be possible for senior staff to pass the blame onto junior staff to cover their failings?

What is the evidence that makes you so convinced she is guilty as sin?

Please create an account

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

This thread is not accepting new messages.