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
Neodymium · 10/08/2025 13:15

nomas · 10/08/2025 09:22

By who? It hasn’t been proven in a court of law.

It was proven by the footnote on the insulin test that said this test is not suitable for forensic use. It’s literally on the website for the company that did the test for that test.

Kittybythelighthouse · 10/08/2025 13:15

CarlaLemarchant · 10/08/2025 13:13

Also, what makes you think I’m not concerned? I’ve said repeatedly I wouldn’t be against a retrial if it is deemed necessary by the people who are reviewing all of the information.

That’s fine by me then.

OP posts:
CarlaLemarchant · 10/08/2025 13:17

Kittybythelighthouse · 10/08/2025 13:13

Sorry, I didn’t know I was under interrogation. I fully answered you though.

No, I do not have any connection to the case either personally or professionally. I am merely a private citizen taking an interest in matters which call into question the dependability of the justice system and the NHS, two bodies that affect my life, and the lives of my loved ones greatly.

Paranoid much? Now you answer my question, why don’t you care about that?

I’ve just answered that point but I think your version of caring basically means accepting any point you make and jumping on your bandwagon.

Kittybythelighthouse · 10/08/2025 13:18

Chipotlego · 10/08/2025 13:13

Just seen its none other than Mark Macdonald- explains a lot!

Not sure what point you’re making here.

OP posts:
Kittybythelighthouse · 10/08/2025 13:21

CarlaLemarchant · 10/08/2025 13:17

I’ve just answered that point but I think your version of caring basically means accepting any point you make and jumping on your bandwagon.

Well that doesn’t reflect reality at all. I haven’t at any point expected anyone to simply accept any points I make. People are welcome to make factual arguments against the points I make if they like. Why are you getting so hostile though? It’s totally unnecessary.

OP posts:
LivelyOpalOtter · 10/08/2025 13:21

CarlaLemarchant · 10/08/2025 12:55

Stop being so patronising. I have not said anything about her being blonde or mob rule. I didn’t like the previous comment about ‘much’ of the evidence being heard by the public and I challenged it. I am perfectly entitled to do so unless challenging things is only ok if it’s a cause you personally agree with.

I am happy to wait for the outcome from the CCRC. If a retrial is needed then that must happen. However, whilst the experts you keep citing have made a compelling case, the court of appeal stated that even if they accepted Dr Lees findings in full (which they didn’t), it still would not have undermined the convictions.

Be honest OP, what is your role in this? Are you a journalist? Connected to the defence team? You seem desperate to sway public opinion on this.

It's galling to see you accuse anyone of being patronising, given that you caricatured the evidence based, well founded and coherently expressed doubts of others about this verdict as them "wanting a Love Island style vote."

boopthatdog · 10/08/2025 13:22

Has Jayaram not opened himself up to a charge of perjury now given what he said on the stand v what has emerged in emails ?

Kittybythelighthouse · 10/08/2025 13:23

boopthatdog · 10/08/2025 13:22

Has Jayaram not opened himself up to a charge of perjury now given what he said on the stand v what has emerged in emails ?

Technically, yes he has. Whether that would ever be pursued is another question,

OP posts:
Catpuss66 · 10/08/2025 13:23

SpottyAardvark · 09/08/2025 23:15

I think this is a fair point. Would the safety of the conviction in this case be attracting anything resembling as much attention if the nurse involved was a middle-aged black man rather than an attractive young blonde haired white woman?

Sadly, I think we all know the answer to that. When people look at pictures of Letby they see their daughter / sister / friend / girlfriend / colleague. They don’t see a mass murderer.

No they see a lack of concrete evidence, flawed data, theories that should have been challenged by her defence team. Experts should have been made to give evidence ( they would if it was against the mafia) media spinning headlines already shouting her guilt before she was even convicted how is that fair? I was told by a doctor that she would be found guilty even though there was no evidence but why? easy pickings.

Oftenaddled · 10/08/2025 13:24

boopthatdog · 10/08/2025 13:22

Has Jayaram not opened himself up to a charge of perjury now given what he said on the stand v what has emerged in emails ?

If you look at the history of miscarriages of justice, usually nobody else is prosecuted after the truth comes out. The assumption is that they can't have a fair trial. In Jayaram's case I'd imagine we'd get a "not in the public interest".

Oftenaddled · 10/08/2025 13:27

Is it not a bit presumptuous to be telling Shoo Lee, Neena Modi, Martha Cohen and their international, multiethnic panel that they only care about Lucy Letby because she's a white woman.

Do we really think people of all nations and races centre white British people to that extent?

EasternStandard · 10/08/2025 13:29

boopthatdog · 10/08/2025 13:22

Has Jayaram not opened himself up to a charge of perjury now given what he said on the stand v what has emerged in emails ?

I’m wondering why this isn’t a factor now.

nomas · 10/08/2025 13:32

Leafy3 · 10/08/2025 12:15

Supposition.
Not evidence.

That she is a serial killer is a fact.

nomas · 10/08/2025 13:33

Neodymium · 10/08/2025 13:15

It was proven by the footnote on the insulin test that said this test is not suitable for forensic use. It’s literally on the website for the company that did the test for that test.

Anything outside the court is irrelevant, hence LL is locked up.

Oftenaddled · 10/08/2025 13:37

nomas · 10/08/2025 13:33

Anything outside the court is irrelevant, hence LL is locked up.

That's why people want to bring new evidence and arguments to court.

Kittybythelighthouse · 10/08/2025 13:39

nomas · 10/08/2025 13:32

That she is a serial killer is a fact.

A legal fact, yes. Just as Sally Clark was once legally a multiple baby killer, but then eventually she wasn’t. Unfortunately the change came too late and she died shortly afterwards.

OP posts:
Typicalwave · 10/08/2025 13:40

nomas · 10/08/2025 13:33

Anything outside the court is irrelevant, hence LL is locked up.

And which is why we have a system that allows appeals, retrials and the quashing of convictions if evidence that can pass scrutiny comes to light causing the original conviction to be called into question.

That’s how it works.

MargaretThursday · 10/08/2025 13:40

When I first heard the story I thought "no smoke without fire" she's clearly guilty.
As the trial went on, I began to wonder, and thought that the evidence seemed odd, and thought that she was going to "get away with it".
After the trial I looked further into things like the statistics and felt very uncomfortable that it seemed that her conviction at best was not sound.

What I've notice since the trial is her accusers don't seem to have anything really compelling against her; they also get aggressive about people supporting her - which to me is a sign of them not having a good reason why they think she is guilty. The things they say:

  1. It's not fair on the parents to rehash it. Think of the poor parents. Think of poor Lucy if she didn't do it.
  2. She took handover notes home and wrote confessions of guilt. But many nurses have said that they have also taken notes home and we now know the confessions of guilt were alongside protesting her innocence, and she was advised to do that by her counsellor. But I find those one of the compelling arguments for her innocence. If she had been guilty, she'd have hidden them, got rid of them, asked her parents to put them in her loft etc. The mere fact she kept them says that she could not conceive that they could be used to show she was guilty.
  3. Repeating things that have been disproved. Like she was there for every collapse, etc
  4. Saying her demeaner showed she was guilty. That's really objective isn't it?
  5. Accusing people who are questioning of only doing it because she's young, white and blond. And the only people who bring that up are the people who are against her.

But the other thing that really makes me wonder is that whenever a positive story comes out about her. The news conference, another nurse saying she was popular etc. Then immediately several negative stories come out, often not directly accusing, but implied guilt: "we're investigating other hospitals where she worked" was one. The implication you're clearly meant to get from that is that she was killing children - clearly totally undetected by staff and post-mortems, at other places first.

If the prosecution was confident that she was guilty and the evidence was enough then they wouldn't need to do this. They clearly are trying to coverup something, even if it's the quality of their evidence.

Anyone who thinks she's guilty and the court case was well done, should not be concerned about a retrial, because they can submit the same evidence again and it would be just as valid and incriminating a second time.

Kittybythelighthouse · 10/08/2025 13:43

nomas · 10/08/2025 13:33

Anything outside the court is irrelevant, hence LL is locked up.

Well, it’s not irrelevant given that the CCRC exists and is currently reviewing the case.

That aside, are you arguing that it would be okay to keep someone innocent locked up in spite of exonerating evidence merely because bureaucratic process has been followed? If you’re a private citizen and not some kind of bureaucratic robot that’s a very odd stance to take.

OP posts:
Kittybythelighthouse · 10/08/2025 13:44

MargaretThursday · 10/08/2025 13:40

When I first heard the story I thought "no smoke without fire" she's clearly guilty.
As the trial went on, I began to wonder, and thought that the evidence seemed odd, and thought that she was going to "get away with it".
After the trial I looked further into things like the statistics and felt very uncomfortable that it seemed that her conviction at best was not sound.

What I've notice since the trial is her accusers don't seem to have anything really compelling against her; they also get aggressive about people supporting her - which to me is a sign of them not having a good reason why they think she is guilty. The things they say:

  1. It's not fair on the parents to rehash it. Think of the poor parents. Think of poor Lucy if she didn't do it.
  2. She took handover notes home and wrote confessions of guilt. But many nurses have said that they have also taken notes home and we now know the confessions of guilt were alongside protesting her innocence, and she was advised to do that by her counsellor. But I find those one of the compelling arguments for her innocence. If she had been guilty, she'd have hidden them, got rid of them, asked her parents to put them in her loft etc. The mere fact she kept them says that she could not conceive that they could be used to show she was guilty.
  3. Repeating things that have been disproved. Like she was there for every collapse, etc
  4. Saying her demeaner showed she was guilty. That's really objective isn't it?
  5. Accusing people who are questioning of only doing it because she's young, white and blond. And the only people who bring that up are the people who are against her.

But the other thing that really makes me wonder is that whenever a positive story comes out about her. The news conference, another nurse saying she was popular etc. Then immediately several negative stories come out, often not directly accusing, but implied guilt: "we're investigating other hospitals where she worked" was one. The implication you're clearly meant to get from that is that she was killing children - clearly totally undetected by staff and post-mortems, at other places first.

If the prosecution was confident that she was guilty and the evidence was enough then they wouldn't need to do this. They clearly are trying to coverup something, even if it's the quality of their evidence.

Anyone who thinks she's guilty and the court case was well done, should not be concerned about a retrial, because they can submit the same evidence again and it would be just as valid and incriminating a second time.

Every word of this.

OP posts:
Worryiswarranted · 10/08/2025 13:49

nomas · 10/08/2025 13:33

Anything outside the court is irrelevant, hence LL is locked up.

I’m sceptical about the expert witness regarding the insulin . Not sure what happened it’s been kept very quiet but he was under investigation, only allowed to practice under supervision then relinquished his GMC registration? There was a lot going on at GOSH and UCLH where he worked too

Toddlerteaplease · 10/08/2025 13:49

@SealHouse I’ve heard the same evidence as everyone else on this thread. I’m also a paediatric nurse.

nomas · 10/08/2025 13:52

Oftenaddled · 10/08/2025 13:37

That's why people want to bring new evidence and arguments to court.

I was refuting that her being a serial killer is a supposition. She is a convicted serial killer.

nomas · 10/08/2025 13:53

Kittybythelighthouse · 10/08/2025 13:39

A legal fact, yes. Just as Sally Clark was once legally a multiple baby killer, but then eventually she wasn’t. Unfortunately the change came too late and she died shortly afterwards.

Legal facts are all that matter in the law.

nomas · 10/08/2025 13:55

.

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