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: 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 12:04

Kittybythelighthouse · 10/08/2025 11:44

”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.

The many references to knowing its an unsafe conviction because it hinged on her being weird, doing stuff thats totally normal like taking handover notes, searching for people on social media etc. The elements of these that are relevant were covered in the trial, LL herself responded and provided further information on them.

Champersandfizz · 10/08/2025 12:04

Oftenaddled · 10/08/2025 11:33

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.

So,

My mother was in hospital with a severe condition over Covid. It was devastating.

We had to set her up with a laptop in there, or it might have been a phone, I forget, so that we could be on constant call for her during the night. Some of the nurses treated her abysmally, and of course we could not go in and support her or check out what was going on. At one point, while bathing her, they fondled her breasts and laughed. These were not British nurses, so I think there could have been a cultural thing there, but my mother was horrified. There was also bum tapping going on during these bath times. Other times she asked for a certain meal and was given another and told to just be happy, all rather aggressively. I mean, I DO think the hospital staff were under obscene amounts of pressure during those times, but the care was atrocious. My other went to make a formal complaint and was called in for a chat with a senior member of the team and told that she can of course make a complaint, but that she should be aware that she had experienced the condition she was currently in for previously and might again, and if so she would come into the same ward with the same team in future that she had made a complaint about, and did she really want to go through with it. Remember, my mum believes squarely she has been sexually assaulted several times.

Look, the NHS has saved her life a few times, so this is not an anti-NHS thing, but I would encourage anyone to be in the hospital with a loved one as much as they possibly can. In our case over covid we couldn't, and it was terrible, just terrible for my mum.

This is why my children will never go to boarding school. I need to have that oversight and supervision!

SilverpetalShine · 10/08/2025 12:06

For me the elephant in the room is that all the presiding medical seniority on the ward (clinicians) appear to be poorly informed made significant omissions and have told significant lies and withheld facts from the defence. Why would they need to do that if they were sure she was guilty. Falsifying duty rostas was one standout glaring error. It enabled the false claim that she was present when all of the babies collapsed. Apparently there were many instances when she wasn't and that fact was never reported. It gave everyone a completely false impression. Her nursing managers spoke highly of her and her abilities and attitude, both to patients and her fellow team members, which was also was the first time I'd heard that. I'm greatly concerned by hearing about this failing unit and that there have been huge injustices taking place for the families of the babies and the defendant. No one has spoken either of the extreme delicacy of the constitution of these little babies and how easy it is for infection and tubing to represent a dangerous risk to them. They are so very vulnerable. I hope those involved get nearer to the truth and some peace. I'm glad people have sought to re examine things and I hope this time the facts emerge in the right way. We'll have to wait I suppose for the report. I hope it's treated in a more sober way by the press it cannot have been easy for the families of the infants to see that stuff or hear it being discussed. It must have added to their stress enormously and moreover hardly insured fairness of consideration for the accused. How is any of that allowed? Was the trial/jurors/the publics view skewed out of shape by all of that? It's an unusual story.

Hotflushesandchilblains · 10/08/2025 12:06

The NHS are great at making things
‘go away’ for the right people, ignoring toxic management, sexual misconduct etc.

Yes - in this case it is plausible that the people they were 'making it go away for' were the managers admitting children that the unit was not qualified to care for, and the doctors who were out of their depth. The NHS also has a history of scapegoating people, usually the ones considered more expendible.

Champersandfizz · 10/08/2025 12:06

To be clear - we set up the devices so that when she was sleeping, we would be awake on the other end of the whatsapp call, or gchat or whatever it was, it was a live streaming of her sleeping. We took that in shifts for 6 weeks once she told us about what was going on.

Typicalwave · 10/08/2025 12:07

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

Baby O - the baby who had suffered the catastrophic liver damage (and also the baby where Dewi Evan’s first laid eyes on the files). Evan’s claims it was blunt trauma. Two other experts believe the trauma was (or final trauma as there was already a hematoma on the liver likely due to rapid birth) caused by the insertion of a cannula during resus attempts.

The Dr who inserted the cannula was Dr Brearey.

I cannot see how anyone can believe this is a safe conviction.

Oftenaddled · 10/08/2025 12:10

Champersandfizz · 10/08/2025 12:06

To be clear - we set up the devices so that when she was sleeping, we would be awake on the other end of the whatsapp call, or gchat or whatever it was, it was a live streaming of her sleeping. We took that in shifts for 6 weeks once she told us about what was going on.

Well done. It sounds traumatic but you came through for her.

SilverpetalShine · 10/08/2025 12:11

Champersandfizz · 10/08/2025 12:06

To be clear - we set up the devices so that when she was sleeping, we would be awake on the other end of the whatsapp call, or gchat or whatever it was, it was a live streaming of her sleeping. We took that in shifts for 6 weeks once she told us about what was going on.

Can you explain this? Might be in the wrong place? Sounds interesting though.

Mirabai · 10/08/2025 12:15

junkmaail · 10/08/2025 10:51

It’s not pointless crap being taken from one house move to another though. It’s confidential medical handover sheets that she knew she’s shouldn’t have, hundreds of them. Filed and kept in plastic bags under her bed and at her parent house. This in itself is very odd. We aren’t talking about personal paperwork like bank statements and bills that need a bit of clear out! She seemingly had no intention of getting rid of those notes. It doesn’t make her guilty of murder, but it is absolutely not normal at all!

According to some nurses it is. They’re supposed to be disposed of at work but if people are rushing home, there’s no shredder available - they take them home to shred or burn. Because of course you can’t put them in the ordinary trash.

Leafy3 · 10/08/2025 12:15

nomas · 10/08/2025 11:32

She is a serial killer, most are psychopaths.

Supposition.
Not evidence.

Puzzledandpissedoff · 10/08/2025 12:18

My own view is that she's already had two trials in which she's been found guilty and I wonder just how much more some want - especially if they weren't there to hear all the evidence and are just going on the latest clickbait article

It's true that courts don't always get it right but let's face it she could have a third or even fourth trial, and if they didn't go her way there'd still be calls for another

Kittybythelighthouse · 10/08/2025 12:21

Chipotlego · 10/08/2025 12:04

The many references to knowing its an unsafe conviction because it hinged on her being weird, doing stuff thats totally normal like taking handover notes, searching for people on social media etc. The elements of these that are relevant were covered in the trial, LL herself responded and provided further information on them.

I have only seen these points being mentioned in response to people saying “I don’t care about the expert panel. I still think she’s guilty. She was weird. What about the Facebook searches etc etc”

Can you link an example in this thread of anyone who believes the convictions to be unsafe solely because the trial hinged on these things? I have only seen people argue that the expert panel can’t be ignored, which is fair and rational.

Are you suggesting that people are avoiding talking about the medical evidence in the trial? Why would they? The expert panel handled that very cleanly.

Also, why would anyone do this? Do you think people are slyly avoiding the evidence because we secretly know she did it and we all just love baby killers?

OP posts:
Chipotlego · 10/08/2025 12:21

Puzzledandpissedoff · 10/08/2025 12:18

My own view is that she's already had two trials in which she's been found guilty and I wonder just how much more some want - especially if they weren't there to hear all the evidence and are just going on the latest clickbait article

It's true that courts don't always get it right but let's face it she could have a third or even fourth trial, and if they didn't go her way there'd still be calls for another

Its curious why she hasn't waived legal priveledge, any legals people know why? Her appeal application was based on new evidence rather than her defence being crap (a more technical term exists i know); so why wouldn't this be waived so her new team could have access to everything her previous defence had?

Worryiswarranted · 10/08/2025 12:22

She needs a retrial. None of the ‘evidence’ was credible and I have little faith in the expert witnesses

Hotflushesandchilblains · 10/08/2025 12:23

Chipotlego · 10/08/2025 12:21

Its curious why she hasn't waived legal priveledge, any legals people know why? Her appeal application was based on new evidence rather than her defence being crap (a more technical term exists i know); so why wouldn't this be waived so her new team could have access to everything her previous defence had?

I thought it was a problem of her defense until I read the excellent blog linked in earlier in the threat. Its worth looking at.

Chipotlego · 10/08/2025 12:24

Kittybythelighthouse · 10/08/2025 12:21

I have only seen these points being mentioned in response to people saying “I don’t care about the expert panel. I still think she’s guilty. She was weird. What about the Facebook searches etc etc”

Can you link an example in this thread of anyone who believes the convictions to be unsafe solely because the trial hinged on these things? I have only seen people argue that the expert panel can’t be ignored, which is fair and rational.

Are you suggesting that people are avoiding talking about the medical evidence in the trial? Why would they? The expert panel handled that very cleanly.

Also, why would anyone do this? Do you think people are slyly avoiding the evidence because we secretly know she did it and we all just love baby killers?

Read my previous posts, I think her appeal application should be granted so im not against it. There are plenty of comments about stuff that has already been addressed at trial. I didnt mention the medical evidence because im not questioning people's opinions on that. Some are either twisting the evidence or are just referring to social media posts they have seen without having seen any actual reference to the trial, the answers they claim to want answering already exist.

Kittybythelighthouse · 10/08/2025 12:27

Chipotlego · 10/08/2025 12:21

Its curious why she hasn't waived legal priveledge, any legals people know why? Her appeal application was based on new evidence rather than her defence being crap (a more technical term exists i know); so why wouldn't this be waived so her new team could have access to everything her previous defence had?

This old chestnut. First of all, her new team DO have access to everything her previous defence had.

Switching legal representation does not require waiving privilege. Letby’s current and former barristers and solicitors (e.g., Myers KC and McDonald KC) all retain the privilege status necessary to freely share privileged communications among themselves.

She hasn’t waived privilege outside of that yet because she hadn’t been asked to. That’s normal. That’s what everybody does. Ffs. We have literally no reason to think she won’t when she is asked to.

Here’s an article with more info for those interested.

https://jollycontrarian.com/index.php?title=Lucy_Letby:_waiver_of_privilege%3F#:~:text=Waiver%20by%20disclosure,-Legal%20privilege&text=If%20you%20do%20disclose%20privileged,legal%20advice%20before%20the%20court.

OP posts:
Puzzledandpissedoff · 10/08/2025 12:30

Chipotlego · 10/08/2025 12:21

Its curious why she hasn't waived legal priveledge, any legals people know why? Her appeal application was based on new evidence rather than her defence being crap (a more technical term exists i know); so why wouldn't this be waived so her new team could have access to everything her previous defence had?

Why indeed Chipotlego? Confused

I'm not a lawyer and wasn't there for the trials so can't pretend to know, but my central point is that no matter how many trials there are there'll always be someone who'll cry "Yes, but ...", and I have to wonder about the number doing it for this case and not others

Iamthemoom · 10/08/2025 12:30

LivelyOpalOtter · 10/08/2025 11:06

Very interesting post.

My thoughts have been for a while that in such highly specialised cases, rather than an adversarial system of prosecution vs defence, we should instead have a system of suitably qualified experts working together under the supervision of a judge to arrive at the truth.

How would you see that?

I do think juries can struggle with very complex medical or statistical information and this case was full of it. I’d have to think about that a bit to form an opinion on if it’s a workable alternative. There might be complications around how those experts are chosen and there’s been numerous miscarriages of justice due to bad experts (Sally Clarke for example) so could that be an issue? But I think there’s something in your idea and you certainly have me thinking!

I think there needs to be changes around certain aspects earlier in the process such as the way police investigate, disclosure of evidence, disparity between being able to afford a shit hot lawyer and getting stuck with a duty brief/ representation on legal aid etc. And the CCRC isn’t fit for purpose. It needs total an overall.

Kittybythelighthouse · 10/08/2025 12:31

Chipotlego · 10/08/2025 12:24

Read my previous posts, I think her appeal application should be granted so im not against it. There are plenty of comments about stuff that has already been addressed at trial. I didnt mention the medical evidence because im not questioning people's opinions on that. Some are either twisting the evidence or are just referring to social media posts they have seen without having seen any actual reference to the trial, the answers they claim to want answering already exist.

You haven’t linked to any examples of this happening. I’ve read most of the thread and I haven’t seen this happening 🤷‍♀️

Not very important in the grand scheme of things I suppose.

OP posts:
Swirlythingy2025 · 10/08/2025 12:31

what happens if she is proven innocence ?

Iamthemoom · 10/08/2025 12:32

@LivelyOpalOtterand thank you btw, nice to have some intelligent debate on here!

Kittybythelighthouse · 10/08/2025 12:33

Puzzledandpissedoff · 10/08/2025 12:30

Why indeed Chipotlego? Confused

I'm not a lawyer and wasn't there for the trials so can't pretend to know, but my central point is that no matter how many trials there are there'll always be someone who'll cry "Yes, but ...", and I have to wonder about the number doing it for this case and not others

I refer you to my previous comment addressing this:

First of all, her new team DO have access to everything her previous defence had.

Switching legal representation does not require waiving privilege. Letby’s current and former barristers and solicitors (e.g., Myers KC and McDonald KC) all retain the privilege status necessary to freely share privileged communications among themselves.

She hasn’t waived privilege outside of that yet because she hadn’t been asked to. That’s normal. That’s what everybody does. Ffs. We have literally no reason to think she won’t when she is asked to.

Here’s an article with more info for those interested.

https://jollycontrarian.com/index.php?title=Lucy_Letby:_waiver_of_privilege%3F#:~:text=Waiver%20by%20disclosure,-Legal%20privilege&text=If%20you%20do%20disclose%20privileged,legal%20advice%20before%20the%20court.

Lucy Letby: waiver of privilege? - The Jolly Contrarian

https://jollycontrarian.com/index.php?title=Lucy_Letby%3A_waiver_of_privilege%3F#:~:text=Waiver%20by%20disclosure,-Legal%20privilege&text=If%20you%20do%20disclose%20privileged,legal%20advice%20before%20the%20court.

OP posts:
Chipotlego · 10/08/2025 12:33

Kittybythelighthouse · 10/08/2025 12:27

This old chestnut. First of all, her new team DO have access to everything her previous defence had.

Switching legal representation does not require waiving privilege. Letby’s current and former barristers and solicitors (e.g., Myers KC and McDonald KC) all retain the privilege status necessary to freely share privileged communications among themselves.

She hasn’t waived privilege outside of that yet because she hadn’t been asked to. That’s normal. That’s what everybody does. Ffs. We have literally no reason to think she won’t when she is asked to.

Here’s an article with more info for those interested.

https://jollycontrarian.com/index.php?title=Lucy_Letby:_waiver_of_privilege%3F#:~:text=Waiver%20by%20disclosure,-Legal%20privilege&text=If%20you%20do%20disclose%20privileged,legal%20advice%20before%20the%20court.

Edited

I was asking a question, i didnt state it was untoward, just asked why - why are you so defensive? Its weird how those who are allegedly open minded are often the least so.

Catpuss66 · 10/08/2025 12:36

Rednorfolkterrier · 09/08/2025 20:49

Lucy was blonde, young, attractive and fun to be around on the face of it.. now she has swathes of rich men trying to prove her innocence and rewrite the narrative..

So you think just because she was white & attractive they want to find her innocent? How about basing your opinion in fact. This could be your daughter or granddaughter this could be any of us who have worked in the NHS, ‘there but for the grace of god go I’. She has been convicted on theories that have now been retracted. other doctors both male & female have said bad clinical practice caused most of the deaths. This is not the first time this has happened same thing happened to Dutch neonatal nurse she got found innocent 7 years later. Unless the NHS, judicial system, police are held to account individuals are held to account this will continue to happen.

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