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
Devonshiregal · 10/08/2025 02:34

Kittybythelighthouse · 10/08/2025 00:20

This times a million, There is way too much literal witch trial logic on show around this case. It’s…disconcerting.

But I haven’t seen this response for more
‘unattractive’ murder suspects/convicted murderers. Have you?

It’s like the guy who ran over those people in Liverpool - because he was a white half decentish looking family man with a job the reaction was muted - disbelief and oh he must’ve been having a psychotic breakdown, it must’ve been ptsd etc etc. if he’d been a scrawny, pasty, stringy haired guy who looked like he played video games by himself while wanking to only fans all day and night, the reaction would’ve been far different. it would’ve been ohhh he must’ve been bullied at school and he’s crazy is and that’s why he did it. And had he have been a brown skinned kid with any soft of vaguely Muslim vibe it would’ve been ohhh he’s a religious nutter extremist.

It’s purely look based bias.

And you’re saying this that and the other to defended her, fine but you’re doing this while point blank ignoring some very glaring facts such as she wrote crazy shit in that diary that is really not what you write during your average journaling session! She literally said things like she killed them and couldn’t care for them. I’m sorry but no way is that just ohhh I was upset so I randomly wrote that down. What a load of old tosh. And really, if some 65 year old man with a beer belly, matted hair, smoker’s yellow fingernails and bulgy eyes wrote this having been accused of killing babies, would you believe him?? Could you genuinely say you’d believe him if he said oohh I was just distressed so randomly had some strange sessions where I wrote down fake murder confessions but I didn’t actually do it your honour I swear….? No. You wouldn’t. Even if that gross looking man was actually a real sweat heart. Because it is, in fact, lookism. If that’s a word…

Kittybythelighthouse · 10/08/2025 02:45

Devonshiregal · 10/08/2025 02:34

But I haven’t seen this response for more
‘unattractive’ murder suspects/convicted murderers. Have you?

It’s like the guy who ran over those people in Liverpool - because he was a white half decentish looking family man with a job the reaction was muted - disbelief and oh he must’ve been having a psychotic breakdown, it must’ve been ptsd etc etc. if he’d been a scrawny, pasty, stringy haired guy who looked like he played video games by himself while wanking to only fans all day and night, the reaction would’ve been far different. it would’ve been ohhh he must’ve been bullied at school and he’s crazy is and that’s why he did it. And had he have been a brown skinned kid with any soft of vaguely Muslim vibe it would’ve been ohhh he’s a religious nutter extremist.

It’s purely look based bias.

And you’re saying this that and the other to defended her, fine but you’re doing this while point blank ignoring some very glaring facts such as she wrote crazy shit in that diary that is really not what you write during your average journaling session! She literally said things like she killed them and couldn’t care for them. I’m sorry but no way is that just ohhh I was upset so I randomly wrote that down. What a load of old tosh. And really, if some 65 year old man with a beer belly, matted hair, smoker’s yellow fingernails and bulgy eyes wrote this having been accused of killing babies, would you believe him?? Could you genuinely say you’d believe him if he said oohh I was just distressed so randomly had some strange sessions where I wrote down fake murder confessions but I didn’t actually do it your honour I swear….? No. You wouldn’t. Even if that gross looking man was actually a real sweat heart. Because it is, in fact, lookism. If that’s a word…

I think she’s a fairly ordinary looking nurse and it’s a massive amount of cope to frame the very credible international experts raising doubts as if “they just fancy her” She isn’t Helen of flipping Troy.

You may have a point if we were all just wringing our hands and saying “but she’s blonde and white!” Yet, no one is. Are they?

What’s actually happened is that the prosecution case has been dismantled brick by brick by an international panel of far superior experts - many of them non-white btw - and that’s something that concerns us all. The case doesn’t live in a vacuum. We all need the justice system to be fair and rigorous.

Can we discuss the actual facts now please?

OP posts:
kkloo · 10/08/2025 03:00

@Devonshiregal

It’s like the guy who ran over those people in Liverpool - because he was a white half decentish looking family man with a job the reaction was muted - disbelief and oh he must’ve been having a psychotic breakdown, it must’ve been ptsd etc etc. if he’d been a scrawny, pasty, stringy haired guy who looked like he played video games by himself while wanking to only fans all day and night, the reaction would’ve been far different. it would’ve been ohhh he must’ve been bullied at school and he’s crazy is and that’s why he did it. And had he have been a brown skinned kid with any soft of vaguely Muslim vibe it would’ve been ohhh he’s a religious nutter extremist.

It isn't like that at all, you're discussing a case there where it was 100% certain that crimes had been committed and they also knew who committed them.
It's very normal for people to make assumptions about motive in those circumstances.

If there was concrete evidence that Letby murdered babies and attempted to murder more and people were saying 'ah maybe she was just having a breakdown' then you might have a point that people were going easy on her based on the fact she was white, but that's not what is going on here.

People are debating guilty versus innocent or more commonly guilty versus case not proven. Not based on what she looks like, based on the fact that the evidence is not very strong.
The strength of the evidence is like something you'd expect to see in a miscarriage of justice from decades and decades ago that was only being looked at again now, not something that could put someone away on a whole life tariff in 2022/2023.

FolkWays · 10/08/2025 03:05

I have not changed my mind since listening to the very lengthy trial and the many, many items of meticulously analysed cumulative evidence against her.

I am struck by the effect that social media, a 24-hour media needing eyeballs and armies of amateur detectives are having on the justice system in undermining it.

When a defence lawyer - and Letby had one of the best practising in this country - has no true exculpatory evidence, all he can do is try to decontextualise individual pieces of evidence and suggest there may be some alternative explanation for each (without the sum of the alternatives being coherent) than that his client did what they did. It sometimes works to introduce doubt in the minds of a jury, especially where evidence is complex. It did not work in Letby's defence, which is why she is now serving multiple whole-life tariffs.

High-profile killers attract grim fandoms and Letby has had the mainly male equivalent of Ted Bundy's cheerleaders since they decided a blonde, young nurse could not have done what she very clearly did. From the off, they based their beliefs on a fundamental misunderstanding of evidence and have been joined by the kind of columnists and fading public figures who don't do the research but like to be loudly controversial. As well as a couple of people who are rightly scared they are themselves implicated in facilitating her crimes.

There is no further story for media to pursue when Letby is simply serving her sentence for the rest of her life. Media therefore have considerable cynical interest in floating a 'miscarriage of justice' speculative narrative to keep the thing running. In doing this, they continue to torment the parents who have endured the murder of their newborn babies and the years leading to the gruelling evidence at trial of the nurse who killed them.

Lucy Letby is a psychopath, psychopaths do not provide meaning. She is guilty, she is where she belongs.

kkloo · 10/08/2025 03:06

Kittybythelighthouse · 10/08/2025 02:45

I think she’s a fairly ordinary looking nurse and it’s a massive amount of cope to frame the very credible international experts raising doubts as if “they just fancy her” She isn’t Helen of flipping Troy.

You may have a point if we were all just wringing our hands and saying “but she’s blonde and white!” Yet, no one is. Are they?

What’s actually happened is that the prosecution case has been dismantled brick by brick by an international panel of far superior experts - many of them non-white btw - and that’s something that concerns us all. The case doesn’t live in a vacuum. We all need the justice system to be fair and rigorous.

Can we discuss the actual facts now please?

Edited

Yep I don't like to insult another womans looks but seeing as we have people spouting nonsensical comments on here about rich men fawning over her because she's some kind of blonde bombshell, let's call a spade a spade, she's very ordinary looking, a very plain jane, 'beige' as the media liked to call her after she was convicted. No ones looking at her thinking she's some great beauty. All these comments about how she's 'blonde', it would barely even register to me that she was blonde if people didn't repeatedly say it, because even her hair was plain.

Now I've set myself up for more of the comments about how maybe I'm not biased because she's blonde and beautiful, but instead I'm biased because she's so ordinary looking and I don't want to believe an ordinary looking person can do something like that 🥱

I would have no issue at all believing it no matter how ordinary she looked or how beautiful she was or even if she was the whitest of white or the blondest of blonde....as long as the evidence was actually convincing.

Hexwood · 10/08/2025 03:07

If anything being blond has been a hindrance to her, the amount of people pathologically obsessed with her hair colour is bizarre. Poor woman shouldve dyed her hair brown when she had the chance.

kkloo · 10/08/2025 03:31

@FolkWays

From the off, they based their beliefs on a fundamental misunderstanding of evidence

Such as? For those who think these convictions are unsafe, which evidence have we fundamentally misunderstood?

I'm sure you're going to take the easy way out and say all of the cumulative evidence but after making such a claim, please name at least a few pieces that doubters have fundamentally misunderstood.........

kkloo · 10/08/2025 03:32

Hexwood · 10/08/2025 03:07

If anything being blond has been a hindrance to her, the amount of people pathologically obsessed with her hair colour is bizarre. Poor woman shouldve dyed her hair brown when she had the chance.

Ah..........but she'd still be 'pretty and white'.

RigIt · 10/08/2025 03:56

Nchangeo · 10/08/2025 01:22

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.

If she had told her barrister she was guilty he would have withdrawn. He couldn’t have continued to represent her.

I’m struggling to understand how you found the panel’s evidence compelling - and their argument is that no murders occurred, the babies’ deaths were all explainable - yet still think she is guilty because “some parts are just too weird”. If you don’t think any murders occurred surely it’s irrelevant how “weird” anything else is?

MyrtlethePurpleTurtle · 10/08/2025 04:18

Andthatrightsoon · 09/08/2025 20:48

I don't know if she's guilty or not, but I'm not happy with the safety of the conviction. Unfortunately courts don't discover absolute truth, but 'best guess'. In this case, I think they haven't done a good enough job of it.

'Best guess' is not good enough for a criminal conviction - it's behind reasonable doubt

MyrtlethePurpleTurtle · 10/08/2025 04:21

I had previously thought the conviction 'unsafe' - now, having heard in full the expert testimony of the medical panel led by the man whose paper was used by the prosecution against Letby (and who was appalled the paper has been misunderstood and/or misrepresented), I now think it's not even a question of 'not guilty' but a gross miscarriage of justice.

I mean, when even the Royal Statistical Society dryly wade in about flawed statistical data and methodology, something stinks about the Letby case (and not just the sewage water regurgitating in the hospital sinks).

But how much easier to believe that a random lone Single White Female went rogue and murdered those she was tasked to care with - rather than a systemic issue of a failing hospital, literally a shitty hospital, understaffed and with consultant rounds well below what was required, is to blame.

ThreeLocusts · 10/08/2025 04:33

Lougle · 09/08/2025 21:06

I don't think the conviction is safe. I was a NICU nurse. I can't imagine how I would defend myself in a complex cascade of accusations over a long period of time. Care isn't as linear as people think it is. Nurse A is assigned patient X but gets patients Y & Z's drugs out at the same time as patient X's so that nurses B&C don't have to leave their patient. Nurse C covers for Nurse A while they use the loo. Nurse D covers Nurse B, the emergency buzzer goes and Nurse B ends up looking after patient Y & Z while Nurse A helps with the emergency. The nurse in the Special Care room has to leave her 6 stable patients for 10 minutes while she makes up a batch of feeds. She has no idea who might have gone into the room in that time... The phone rings and patient W's parents are calling because they can't visit and need an update on their baby.

There are so many variables and don't get started on swipe card data. Someone forgets their card, so shares someone else's card. An agency nurse can't get into or out of anywhere unless a kind nurse swipes them in and out.

"2 years ago, on a Wednesday, why does the swipe card data show you doing x?" Couldn't possibly tell you.

Thanks, that's very informative

ThreeLocusts · 10/08/2025 04:40

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.

Tbh I don't think she's attractive, despite being blond. That 'flatness' shows even in photos. Could be overwhelm though, surely doesn't prove guilt.

I've suffered severe consequences from reckless decisions made by NHS doctors and have no problem believing thay she was scapegoated for systemic failures.

Discoprincess6 · 10/08/2025 04:40

IamtheDevilsAvocado · 09/08/2025 21:01

I think even if she were released tomorrow as an unsafe conviction.... It would be a mad decision to let her return to nursing.

I still would not want her anywhere near vulnerable patients.

I'm unsure how legal this would be? Would the registration authorities be allowed to ban her?..... If it was an unsafe conviction?

They’ve already removed her registration so she wouldn’t be allowed to be a nurse at the moment.

if her conviction was overturned and she was not guilty, she would have to reapply to join the list to practice as a nurse. A panel would review this to decide yes or no.

If yes, she would more likely be given conditions placed on her registration that she would have to comply with for a certain amount of time.

Eventually after meeting all of these conditions for that period of time, with no further issues, a separate panel would convene to review everything. They could then impose more conditions for another period of time or remove the conditions whereby she could practice fully as a nurse.

this would also depend on her finding someone to employ her. I’m assuming one of the conditions would be that she wasn’t allowed to complete bank work, not work unsupervised and have workplace supervisory reports submitted.

IamtheDevilsAvocado · 10/08/2025 04:52

Yuja · 09/08/2025 21:13

I don’t know either way, but I do not think it has been proved beyond unreasonable doubt, therefore the conviction is not safe

As many others have said - the only person who 'knows' is Letby herself.

Bloody awful if she's innocent.

I think the whole trial and conviction does need urgent review both for the families and LL herself.

I didn't follow the trial closely, but what stood out for me was reported evidence that SEEMED compelling but was only correlational at best....

And we all know that correlation doesn't mean causation..!

placemats · 10/08/2025 04:56

FolkWays · 10/08/2025 03:05

I have not changed my mind since listening to the very lengthy trial and the many, many items of meticulously analysed cumulative evidence against her.

I am struck by the effect that social media, a 24-hour media needing eyeballs and armies of amateur detectives are having on the justice system in undermining it.

When a defence lawyer - and Letby had one of the best practising in this country - has no true exculpatory evidence, all he can do is try to decontextualise individual pieces of evidence and suggest there may be some alternative explanation for each (without the sum of the alternatives being coherent) than that his client did what they did. It sometimes works to introduce doubt in the minds of a jury, especially where evidence is complex. It did not work in Letby's defence, which is why she is now serving multiple whole-life tariffs.

High-profile killers attract grim fandoms and Letby has had the mainly male equivalent of Ted Bundy's cheerleaders since they decided a blonde, young nurse could not have done what she very clearly did. From the off, they based their beliefs on a fundamental misunderstanding of evidence and have been joined by the kind of columnists and fading public figures who don't do the research but like to be loudly controversial. As well as a couple of people who are rightly scared they are themselves implicated in facilitating her crimes.

There is no further story for media to pursue when Letby is simply serving her sentence for the rest of her life. Media therefore have considerable cynical interest in floating a 'miscarriage of justice' speculative narrative to keep the thing running. In doing this, they continue to torment the parents who have endured the murder of their newborn babies and the years leading to the gruelling evidence at trial of the nurse who killed them.

Lucy Letby is a psychopath, psychopaths do not provide meaning. She is guilty, she is where she belongs.

So you sat in the trail daily? You sound unhinged.

GarlicLitre · 10/08/2025 05:09

Does any of this sound familiar?

At ten o’clock this morning, a 24-year-old nurse is due to step into the dock for the beginning of a trial which has already been the focus of extraordinary emotion, media interest and political manoeuvre.

The police say she murdered four of the children in her care and attempted to murder nine others. The press have been drawn to the case not only by allegations of multiple murder, which remain rare in Britain and particularly rare where women are concerned, but also by the distant scent of anxiety in high places. For this is really two trials.

The first is a straightforward criminal trial in which the jury will have to decide whether the string of incidents was simply an unlucky cluster of natural events or whether there was foul play and, if so, who was responsible. In search of clues to the truth, they will be led deep into the undergrowth of medical science:

Behind the scenes, however, there is a second trial which began as soon as the children began to fall ill and which is entirely political. In this shadow trial, it is the National Health Service which is in the dock, accused of being so understaffed and overstretched and so thoroughly commercialised that the deaths and near-deaths of 13 children could take place in the heart of an NHS hospital without anyone being able to act.

Although this second trial has been running for nearly two years, it has until now been conducted entirely behind closed doors. In public, the NHS defence has amounted to nothing more than insisting on its right to silence.

.......................................................

It's from the 1993 trial of Beverley Allitt. If you don't know about this case, look her up. She's still in prison, under a judge's recommendation never to be released.

Allitt administered large doses of insulin to at least two of her victims and a large air bubble was found in the body of another, but police were initially unable to establish how all of the attacks were carried out.

She never gave an explanation.

CoralCrow · 10/08/2025 05:09

kkloo · 10/08/2025 03:00

@Devonshiregal

It’s like the guy who ran over those people in Liverpool - because he was a white half decentish looking family man with a job the reaction was muted - disbelief and oh he must’ve been having a psychotic breakdown, it must’ve been ptsd etc etc. if he’d been a scrawny, pasty, stringy haired guy who looked like he played video games by himself while wanking to only fans all day and night, the reaction would’ve been far different. it would’ve been ohhh he must’ve been bullied at school and he’s crazy is and that’s why he did it. And had he have been a brown skinned kid with any soft of vaguely Muslim vibe it would’ve been ohhh he’s a religious nutter extremist.

It isn't like that at all, you're discussing a case there where it was 100% certain that crimes had been committed and they also knew who committed them.
It's very normal for people to make assumptions about motive in those circumstances.

If there was concrete evidence that Letby murdered babies and attempted to murder more and people were saying 'ah maybe she was just having a breakdown' then you might have a point that people were going easy on her based on the fact she was white, but that's not what is going on here.

People are debating guilty versus innocent or more commonly guilty versus case not proven. Not based on what she looks like, based on the fact that the evidence is not very strong.
The strength of the evidence is like something you'd expect to see in a miscarriage of justice from decades and decades ago that was only being looked at again now, not something that could put someone away on a whole life tariff in 2022/2023.

Paul Doyle the former royal marine who mowed down the crowd in Liverpool doesn't seem to have got much press attention though...

Zanatdy · 10/08/2025 05:49

I was always very uneasy about this case. I didn’t follow it 100% so didn’t have a strong opinion. Now I am 100% sure this is an unsafe conviction. Someone sentenced to the rest of their natural life in prison on a theory, with no evidence, and even worse, incorrect evidence. My friend’s daughter was born at that hospital, and was left severely disabled due to errors on their part, so I don’t exactly hold it in high esteem anyway. They admitted liability.

SiameseBlueEyes · 10/08/2025 05:52

I must admit I thought the fuss was about her looking so wholesome. Then I talked to my final year medical student son. He was absolutely adamant that it would be almost impossible for a nurse or doctor to do this and not be caught almost immediately in a NICU. He said they said she used insulin because no other toxins were found. He also said the death rate fell because they stopped taking such high risk babies at the particular hospital. And those scribblings about the baby deaths were some therapy exercise a long time after the deaths. My son is not the sort who thinks the best of people so I was really surprised he was firmly of the view that it was a witch hunt.

Typicalwave · 10/08/2025 05:57

I do not think the conviction is safe and havent done for a while

Zanatdy · 10/08/2025 06:06

Kittybythelighthouse · 10/08/2025 00:25

He was not contacted by either defence or prosecution. He was retired and peacefully running a farm in Canada, minding his own business. He never wanted to be an expert witness. Post conviction someone drew his attention to the case in a newspaper article because his research was the only diagnostic evidence used to convict on the air embolism charges. He inserted himself into the case because he was appalled at how the prosecution misused the research.

Edited

I am sure I read that he was contacted by a lawyer in the original trial but didn’t see the email. Sure I read that when he did the panel press conference. He was clearly more alerted to it when he found out that someone has been convicted of murder based on a misinterpreted opinion of his medical paper.

mbizzles · 10/08/2025 06:08

Lucy Letby is innocent. There is SO much wrong with this case that I cannot condense it into a pithy paragraph here - but if you have the time and inclination, read the Lucy Letby special reports on Private Eye (available online - Dr Phil Hammond is now up to part 25 or something!). Also, go onto YouTube and search for the latest interview with Michele Worden - she was a senior nurse on Lucy's unit for many years, who was made redundant and replaced with newly qualified - i.e. cheaper - nurses, one of whom was Lucy. She is incredibly articulate and provides such in-depth knowledge, which, given the fact she worked in the same unit for many years, is well worth listening to. She also warned of the dangerous staffing levels on the unit years before this came to pass, which is partly why she is passionate about speaking out.
I find it hard very to believe that someone who is totally up-to-date with EVERYTHING that has come out about this case would still think she is guilty. Or even she is "not guilty", but not necessarily innocent.
Lucy Letby is innocent.

FlatWhiteExtraHot · 10/08/2025 06:09

Devonshiregal · 10/08/2025 02:34

But I haven’t seen this response for more
‘unattractive’ murder suspects/convicted murderers. Have you?

It’s like the guy who ran over those people in Liverpool - because he was a white half decentish looking family man with a job the reaction was muted - disbelief and oh he must’ve been having a psychotic breakdown, it must’ve been ptsd etc etc. if he’d been a scrawny, pasty, stringy haired guy who looked like he played video games by himself while wanking to only fans all day and night, the reaction would’ve been far different. it would’ve been ohhh he must’ve been bullied at school and he’s crazy is and that’s why he did it. And had he have been a brown skinned kid with any soft of vaguely Muslim vibe it would’ve been ohhh he’s a religious nutter extremist.

It’s purely look based bias.

And you’re saying this that and the other to defended her, fine but you’re doing this while point blank ignoring some very glaring facts such as she wrote crazy shit in that diary that is really not what you write during your average journaling session! She literally said things like she killed them and couldn’t care for them. I’m sorry but no way is that just ohhh I was upset so I randomly wrote that down. What a load of old tosh. And really, if some 65 year old man with a beer belly, matted hair, smoker’s yellow fingernails and bulgy eyes wrote this having been accused of killing babies, would you believe him?? Could you genuinely say you’d believe him if he said oohh I was just distressed so randomly had some strange sessions where I wrote down fake murder confessions but I didn’t actually do it your honour I swear….? No. You wouldn’t. Even if that gross looking man was actually a real sweat heart. Because it is, in fact, lookism. If that’s a word…

This sums up very well what I have thought from the very beginning. If she’d been male, brown, fat, ugly or old, no one would give a damn whether her conviction was “unsafe”. Or indeed if it had been the elderly who’d been targeted rather than premature babies.

Many, many people expressed disbelief right from the start that she could have possibly been involved, because she was young, pretty and middle class. How many people were this bothered about the convictions of Beverley Allitt, Colin Norris or Victorino Chua?

Please create an account

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

This thread is not accepting new messages.