Lucy Letby: have you changed your mind?

[Kittybythelighthouse]

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 couldn’t agree with you more. The damage that’s been created is massive. Multiple lives have been devastated. The whole situation is a horror.

Quite possibly, or to seek out some other profession giving privileged access to vulnerable babies.

It depends on whether you speculate that she's a misunderstood heroine or a self-appointed angel of death.

I was always immensely sceptical of the case against here. To me, it didn't pass the sniff test, albeit I hadn't sat in the courtroom.

I also anticipated a shift in public opinion about the case when she was found guilty.

The more I've learned about the case, the terrible tragedies that occurred, the hospital and its staff, the more I've come to believe that there's been a grave miscarriage of justice.

I believe she will eventually be freed, whether she's declared innocent I don't know..I think it's more likely that the conviction will be deemed unsafe (or whatever the appropriate legal term is) but I do hope she is found not guilty, because I'd like to see those responsible at the hospital charged for their parts in the deaths of those poor babies.

Justice still needs to be served, for the infants harmed, the parents and families whose lives have been destroyed and, yes, finally, even for Lucy Letby.

Whenever I think of this case, my thoughts always turn to the poor children & their families.

It is not ‘beyond reasonable doubt’, it needs a new trial.

That’s a very biased source. Do you know that one of the Daily Mail podcast hosts was paid by Cheshire constabulary for ‘publicity’ while the trial was ongoing? Have you watched the expert panel? Links below.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/05/11/letby-podcaster-in-conflict-of-interest-row-over-payments/

https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x9dikge

Yes I watched the panels. They are very convincing and for a second I did think she was innocent.

Like a pp I then looked again and some parts are just too weird.

I want to know a full timeline really of when she knew she was suspected of murder, when colleagues confronted her, when her parents got involved, when they police searched, when police told her, arrested her, etc. Every essential part all neatly arranged in a chronological format.

Perhaps her lawyer had no defence for her because she told them she was guilty? Is it not true in those cases the lawyer cannot mislead the court. But can use other ways to pick apart a trial.

What parts are “weird”?

”I want to know a full timeline really of when she knew she was suspected of murder, when colleagues confronted her, when her parents got involved, when they police searched, when police told her, arrested her, etc. Every essential part all neatly arranged in a chronological format.”

This seems like you have reasonable doubt and would be in favour of a review of the case?

The memento thing for me is the weirdest.

It’s one thing doing that and just being a weirdo. It’s another thing keeping all that when you are being accused of being a serial killer. But maybe the time line doesn’t work there and that’s why I want to see details exactly of all the timelines and nitty gritty.

I have no idea if she should be retrialed. I don’t have the full fact, just info from this here and that there.

Re the documentary: it didn't change my mind at all, in fact I was a little wary of it because it seemed to me that it would only be made if it suggested her innocence and so I was wary of bias.

Two things I did take from it:

1. the body camera footage of her arrest.
   Previously, clips from this have been shorter and Lucy Letby is very emotionless in them. The longer footage shown in the documentary clearly shows her shock and fear. She was tearful. She then seemed to emotionally shut down.

2. it's said that Dr Dewi Evans heard about the deaths at the hospital & then contacted the police himself saying he was the man they should consult.
   This struck me as arrogant and unusual and I have questions...

Is this how police typically obtain expert consultants?
Shouldn't the police approach appropriate experts not the other way around?
Did the police not do any due diligence on his suitability to pass judgement?
Did they not seek advice from other experts to test his conclusions? Especially those better qualified?

...if not, why not?

Dewi Evans struck me as someone with an overinflated sense of his own intelligence. Nothing I've heard him say, or his subsequent statement for the documentary has relieved me of this opinion. In fact, it's reinforced it.

In his own words, he spent 10 minutes looking through the reports the police sent him. Immediately formed his own conclusion and then didn't test it.

Gobsmacking to be honest.

Yep and misleading. I only listened to the latest one because I wanted to hear exactly what McDonald had said about her 'waiving privilege' because they've basically told their listeners that because she hasn't waived legal privilege that that means that Mark McDonald hasn't been able to see any of her previous defence reports etc.

Mark McDonald did try to tell her that she was confused and didn't know what 'legal privilege' meant, but no, she thought she knew better than him and told the listeners that of course she knew what it means, it means that Myers isn't allowed to answer any of McDonalds questions

Could it be that she was psychologically affected by those incidents and brought their papers to figure out what went wrong. I am very surprised by Dr lee’s finding and he is a very respected name in neonatal medicine. He and other experts reviewed each case.

Any view on the actual evidence, report and concerns since?

That’s not the way you conclude someone is guilty or not. Because there is corruption in NHS. What about the in depth review done by Dr Lee and other experts and coming to a different conclusion?

I've never felt that it was proven beyond reasonable doubt that crimes were actually committed.

This whole thing has a very uncomfortable feel about it.

@Spookyspaghetti I think it's an interesting point you raise about whether she'd have elicited as much support had she been a man.

I suspect not, for no other reason than good old fashioned sexism.

While the trial was ongoing, I reflected long & hard whether the fact that she was attractive, white & blonde was influencing my difficulty in seeing her as guilty. I don't believe so. Her appearance doesn't change my scepticism over the narrative of her behaviour, the circumstantial evidence or the chart showing she was present for all the deaths it includes.

It's not just the circumstantial nature of the evidence against her, it's how it doesn't seem to have been subjected to any form of resilience testing. It's come across..juvenile & lacking in rigour.

What? Don’t understand what you mean. “Fun to be around”

Not everyone has same reaction. Also she could have been impacted psychologically.

Exactly, it definitely hasn't been proven that crimes were actually committed.

If Letby ends up being exonerated we know that they're not going to say, it wasn't Letby so now we need to find the real killer, they'll drop the idea of there being a murderer entirely.

Why would you bring her ethnicity into this? She was arrested and denied retrial twice despite her ethnicity? Do you think so because you are from a different ethnicity?

It's notable how many conclusions as to her guilty have been based on someone's previous experiences...

One person has experienced abuse covered up in hospitals...and thinks she is guilty.
Another has seen misconduct & gross negligence covered up...and thinks she is innocent.

Someone cannot believe any HCP would take home their handover notes because they wouldnt, others can (and do)

So many people believe she's guilty because she remained relatively calm in the footage of her arrest. Never mind that they didn't see her actual arrest, or that the officers approached it in such a way as to maintain calmness, or that people react in different ways...

@ChitterChatter1987 so many people have been judged guilty because they've not reacted the way people think they should have reacted. So many.

Men & women, but especially women.

You only have to look at how women are still victim-blamed for sexual assault or accused of lying about rape to see that.

Women not reacting how people think they should because of ingrained expectations which are not based on fact, is an age old trope dating back centuries.

And it's meaningless.

That’s not how you conclude someone is guilty.

I don’t think the evidence in any way supports a conviction. This has been a terrible miscarriage of justice

You are being too emotional to have an objective argument. Instincts don’t solve such complex cases.