Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

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
hardliquormixedwithabitofintellect · 10/08/2025 13:55

How is the conviction unsafe?

placemats · 10/08/2025 13:55

Paediatric nurse is very different to neonatal nurse. As you well know @Toddlerteaplease

Toddlerteaplease · 10/08/2025 13:56

@placematsits not that different!

nomas · 10/08/2025 13:56

Typicalwave · 10/08/2025 13:40

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.

Yes, of course we do, no one has said otherwise?

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

nomas · 10/08/2025 13:57

Kittybythelighthouse · 10/08/2025 13:43

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.

No, our legal processes are there for a reason.

But she is currently a convicted serial killer.

Toddlerteaplease · 10/08/2025 13:57

The majority of Neonatal nurse are paediatric nurses.

Oftenaddled · 10/08/2025 13:58

nomas · 10/08/2025 13:56

Yes, of course we do, no one has said otherwise?

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

She's a convicted serial killer, is fact. She's a serial killer, is supposition.

Kittybythelighthouse · 10/08/2025 13:58

nomas · 10/08/2025 13:53

Legal facts are all that matter in the law.

Fascinating. Luckily there are processes within the law to overturn legal facts. The CCRC, who are currently reviewing the case, is one such example.

That aside, I refer you to the rest of my comment:

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:
Chipotlego · 10/08/2025 13:59

Kittybythelighthouse · 10/08/2025 13:18

Not sure what point you’re making here.

I thought she had appointed a serious team to push for appeal, not him. He has said himself that he doesnt have access to the previous defence strategy which is interesting. Im sure we will be hearing a lot more from him on his numerous media appearances and press conferences in the coming months even if this doesnt go anywhere.

placemats · 10/08/2025 14:00

Toddlerteaplease · 10/08/2025 13:56

@placematsits not that different!

Neo natal nurses deal exclusively with new born babies, especially those who are premature and require specialist nursing care. Paediatric nurses are those who nurse between the ages of after 1 year to teenager - with specialisms within that age range.

Edit for extra word.

SealHouse · 10/08/2025 14:01

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.

You being a "paediatric nurse" is irrelevant.

You said "Nope. Still guilty. Never doubted it from the moment I first heard about it". Which is odd, given that when Letby was first arrested in 2018 there was no evidence in the public domain, the full case against her only became apparent at trial in 2022. So, again, I hope you never serve on a jury since you have admitted making up your mind about her guilt when you couldn't possibly have known anything about the evidence.

Leafy3 · 10/08/2025 14:03

nomas · 10/08/2025 13:32

That she is a serial killer is a fact.

That is, at best, debatable.
If you need an explanation as to why, this thread is a good place to start. The journalism from Private Eye is a good second place to go and from there you can research further.

RightOhThen · 10/08/2025 14:05

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.

I’m really disturbed by how often this is brought up by people who believe LL is guilty. Either you believe everyone is entitled to a fair trial or you don’t. I’m beginning to think that’s its projection and people who say this don’t believe she is entitled to a fair trial because she’s blonde and white.

Givemethesun · 10/08/2025 14:06

Thotnbg · 09/08/2025 23:45

@Givemethesun just to answer your question my baby spent 6 weeks in NICU. He was at one of the most renowned in the UK. You can't sleep at thier bedside we could sit next to him 24/7 but could not sleep at his bedside , they did have rooms for families who had travelled far.

A lot of the Dr's and nurses were wonderful , and saved my babies life . Some, I hated leaving my baby in the care of. During our stay we sadly seen mistakes happen, when my baby was moved to low dependancy care it was one nurse or healthcare assistant to 3 or maybe even 4 babies , they were very understaffed and it was clear to see. I'm so glad my baby is home now and feel so blessed .

I do think nurses could have easily harmed the babies without it been seen by another nurse.

Edited

Thanks for writing back and sorry that your son was in nicu. Glad to hear he made it home safely and healthy.

heroinechic · 10/08/2025 14:10

Oftenaddled · 10/08/2025 12:59

What if you don't think she's any more likely to be a child killer than anyone else, though?

People always ask this question as a gotcha. Go on, if you really believed she was innocent, you'd say yes, but you don't, do you?

If they aren't willing to hear the answer, yes, I really do think she's innocent, they shouldn't try to win cheap points asking the question.

Thinking she is innocent is one thing, but thinking she’s no more likely to be a child killer than anyone else (in the context of her being a convicted child killer) is brainless in the extreme.

Burden of proof for a criminal offence: beyond reasonable doubt.

Burden of proof for a civil matter: balance of probabilities.

Burden of proof for looking after my child: any indication that they might be unsafe.

It doesn’t have to be proven, it doesn’t even have to be likely. If you have reason to think that someone is potentially unsafe and you let them look after your children, you aren’t safeguarding your children.

Catpuss66 · 10/08/2025 14:15

Booboobagins · 09/08/2025 23:23

She's as guilty as F.

Her behaviour is psychopathic/sociopathic.

The no emotion expressions are tell tale signs.

Leaving out she was heavily medicated this had been going on not including the bullying & harassment by doctors for over 2 years. Obviously being supported with her mental health. Just for one minute just imagine you were innocent & accused of these crimes how do you think you would react?

Kittybythelighthouse · 10/08/2025 14:22

Chipotlego · 10/08/2025 13:59

I thought she had appointed a serious team to push for appeal, not him. He has said himself that he doesnt have access to the previous defence strategy which is interesting. Im sure we will be hearing a lot more from him on his numerous media appearances and press conferences in the coming months even if this doesnt go anywhere.

He didn’t say that he “doesn’t have access to the previous defence strategy”. He said that it was not his role to dissect the decision‑making of the trial defence team.

This is a carefully neutral position, a tactical way to preserve privilege without legally exposing internal planning and the strategic/tactical choices made by Letby’s original defence team at trial.

He acknowledges that certain decisions (like not calling experts) will inevitably be a focus for others, but he’s not making public judgements about them or revealing any privileged reasoning.

He essentially said that he hasn’t (and, under privilege constraints, cannot) investigate or comment on why that strategic choice was made. That makes perfect sense from a tactical pov. Or you could choose to think he’s just really stupid. Time will tell, but I doubt it.

OP posts:
nomas · 10/08/2025 14:27

Kittybythelighthouse · 10/08/2025 13:58

Fascinating. Luckily there are processes within the law to overturn legal facts. The CCRC, who are currently reviewing the case, is one such example.

That aside, I refer you to the rest of my comment:

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.

I already answered that?

Chipotlego · 10/08/2025 14:27

Kittybythelighthouse · 10/08/2025 14:22

He didn’t say that he “doesn’t have access to the previous defence strategy”. He said that it was not his role to dissect the decision‑making of the trial defence team.

This is a carefully neutral position, a tactical way to preserve privilege without legally exposing internal planning and the strategic/tactical choices made by Letby’s original defence team at trial.

He acknowledges that certain decisions (like not calling experts) will inevitably be a focus for others, but he’s not making public judgements about them or revealing any privileged reasoning.

He essentially said that he hasn’t (and, under privilege constraints, cannot) investigate or comment on why that strategic choice was made. That makes perfect sense from a tactical pov. Or you could choose to think he’s just really stupid. Time will tell, but I doubt it.

He has also said he doesnt have access, I know quite challenging to keep up with someone doing the media rounds and off the cuff comments really, which is why its not usually done. I dont think hes stupid, hes definitely been clawing for attention for a while and this is a great platform for him. Someone who seriously has her interests at heart would be professional from start to finish. All entitled to our own opinions, mine isnt any more wrong or right than yours.

nomas · 10/08/2025 14:28

Leafy3 · 10/08/2025 14:03

That is, at best, debatable.
If you need an explanation as to why, this thread is a good place to start. The journalism from Private Eye is a good second place to go and from there you can research further.

How patronising. She is a convicted serial killer so you’re wrong.

nomas · 10/08/2025 14:31

Oftenaddled · 10/08/2025 13:58

She's a convicted serial killer, is fact. She's a serial killer, is supposition.

You’re wrong.

A supposition is a belief held without proof or certain knowledge. The court was satisfied beyond all reasonable doubt that she is a serial killer.

Leafy3 · 10/08/2025 14:31

nomas · 10/08/2025 14:28

How patronising. She is a convicted serial killer so you’re wrong.

🙄

Catpuss66 · 10/08/2025 14:34

Heylittlesongbird · 10/08/2025 00:06

I've said I think her guilty and I do.

Not because of her flatness or lack of emotion. I can well believe that an innocent person would shut down in the face of this accusation. I genuinely believe that my daughter would in this situation and she would elicit no sympathy.

I always felt for Louise Woodward when she appeared to be convicted, in part, because of a lack of emotion. And I felt her conviction was wrong.

No-one from Letby's life stepped forward for her. No other nurses, not the doctor she was allegedly involved with. The circumstantial evidence appears overwhelming. The way she tried to interact with the parents of deceased children with a sense of excitement is disturbing. She shouldn't have had the handover notes, certainly not to that level. Her desire to get straight back in to the sickest babies jars as unusual behaviour. There is so much more.

The police worked the case by creating corridors of information and not talking to each other whilst a team each took a baby to investigate. Then when they put the evidence together they all came back to Letby from their independent enquiries.

And I get the argument that the NHS cover up. I've worked in it since the early 90s. However, in my experience they cover up by closing ranks and working together, denying the problem. Not by phoning the police and asking for help.

I genuinely don't want to see an innocent person in prison. I haven't seen anything to convince me her conviction was wrong. But, if a team out there can convince the justice system to look at it again and have convincing evidence, then fair play to them.

Actually people did step forward but they were threatened by the trust. Doctors were scared to speak for the defence as a previous doctor spoke out against a theory she was struck off the GMC register she did get reinstated but her career was over. Her best friend stood up for her but got so harassed she had to stop. The doctor she was friends with you think he would have ever been employed again if he had come forward. I always said if this was the Mafia they would have witness protection, but this is the nhs, judicial system & police how could they ever be wrong?

so you have not listened to the expert panel just going on media headlines. Maybe listen to the complex information they have to say. Working in the nhs for a long time does not automatically mean you have an understanding of things medical you could work in estates.

Kittybythelighthouse · 10/08/2025 14:34

Toddlerteaplease · 10/08/2025 13:56

@placematsits not that different!

As I understand it Neonatal nursing is very specialised, because caring for a newborn (especially a premature or unwell one) is fundamentally different from caring for an older child. Neonates have unique and often complex physiologies. They aren’t just miniature children - their organs are immature, their immune systems underdeveloped, and their thermoregulation, circulation, and breathing mechanisms are different from older children. A 24-week preterm infant is physiologically very different from a full-term newborn. As a result:

  1. Vital signs can change rapidly. Small mistakes in fluid volumes, drug dosages, or oxygen levels can have severe consequences.
  2. Monitoring is constant, with a focus on subtle signs — a tiny colour change or a brief desaturation can be significant.
  3. Neonatal nurses are trained to use and troubleshoot highly specialised equipment: ventilators, CPAP machines, incubators, infusion pumps delivering microscopic volumes.
Etc etc.
OP posts:
nomas · 10/08/2025 14:34

Leafy3 · 10/08/2025 14:31

🙄

The ‘she is innocent just because I say so’ lot are out again.

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