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 · 12/08/2025 12:54

The other thread has had a lot of really interesting discussion but we are running out of pages so here’s a new one for those who are interested in continuing the conversation.

Whether you’re sure she’s guilty, sure she isn’t, or are somewhere in between, I’m interested in hearing how your opinion has evolved (or hasn’t!) since you first heard about the case,

Please try to be respectful - this is a heated topic. Its a matter of huge public interest with a lot of strong opinions, but we are all adults and can disagree with each other in a respectful manner.

Old thread is here (the poll still has a few days left):
https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/_chat/5388914-lucy-letby-have-you-changed-your-mind?page=38&reply=146359313

Page 38 | Lucy Letby: have you changed your mind? | Mumsnet

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 y...

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/_chat/5388914-lucy-letby-have-you-changed-your-mind?page=38&reply=146359313

OP posts:
Thread gallery
31
Kittybythelighthouse · 18/08/2025 14:01

This reply has been withdrawn

This message has been withdrawn at the poster's request

Oftenaddled · 18/08/2025 14:08

This reply has been deleted

This message has been withdrawn at the poster's request

Oh no, Dr Ventress was a registrar who didn't do any of that and doesn't have anonymity.

Oftenaddled · 18/08/2025 14:13

Dr Ventress is the junior doctor who had no suspicions of Lucy Letby and gave evidence at both the trial and Thirlwall that Child G's stomach contents weren't suspicious. She was the doctor present for that incident.

For whatever reason, Dr Brearey, who was not present, has consistently misquoted her on this issue and ignored her evidence.

Kittybythelighthouse · 18/08/2025 14:21

This reply has been withdrawn

Message withdrawn by MNHQ

Oftenaddled · 18/08/2025 14:24

Dr Ventress gave a statement to Thirlwall about her time at Chester which shows how little suspicion there was around Letby's activities. She was never involved in accusing Letby of anything. Here are some of her comments to Thirlwall:

On Child E

Child E's death may have been a surprise, but I do not remember anyone raising
concerns. I knew from previous experience that sometimes a baby's condition can
change very quickly, and they can die, for example, from overwhelming sepsis and so
I assumed something like that had happened.

On Child F, one of the insulin cases:

From reading the notes, the initial general thoughts of the medical team for the cause
of the low sugars combined with tachycardia was possible sepsis, for which Child F
was appropriately treated. It seems that on the morning review, it was noted that the
leg with the long line had become swollen and so there was a concern that the line had
extravasated and was the reason assumed for the low sugars at that time. The morning
review took place after the Grand Round, but I can't recall who was present during the
review. The plan was to move the TPN to a peripheral line and insert a new long line.
Lines extravasating is a known complication, and so there were no concerns that
anything untoward had happened. I was not surprised by his presentation and did not
have any concerns to raise.

On Child G

Child G's deterioration was not expected as she had been stable previously. However,
unexpected deteriorations are not infrequent in any NICU (Neonatal Intensive Care
Unit), especially in babies born extremely premature like Child G and it can happen for
several reasons. The most common reason being infection, which was later shown to
be the case for Child G.

22. In terms of Child G's large projectile vomit'; it is hard to comment on the issue with no recollection of the incident. Babies vomit frequently for many reasons, and the
description of vomits is extremely subjective. I don't give much attention to how big or
projectile the vomit is reported for a single vomit. Rather, I would assess the baby's
condition and that would impact my management more than the description of the vomit. I cannot recall if I saw the vomit myself or if it was just reported to me by a nurse.

On Lucy Letby:

31. I was not aware of any suspicions about Letby while I was working at COCH. I only
became aware that she had been removed from clinical practice during a conversation
with Nurse T after I had left. I did not report any concerns or suspicions as I didn't have
any.

She comes across as a balanced and thoughtful person not inclined to dramatise things in hindsight.

thirlwall.public-inquiry.uk/evidence/inq0018066-witness-statement-of-alison-ventress-dated-26-04-2024/

Oftenaddled · 18/08/2025 14:25

This reply has been withdrawn

This message has been withdrawn at the poster's request

Oftenaddled · 18/08/2025 14:27

Please think about editing @Kittybythelighthouse . This is a great thread and it would be a shame to have it taken down. We shouldn't try to identify anyone with a court order granting anonymity here.

Kittybythelighthouse · 18/08/2025 14:28

Oftenaddled · 18/08/2025 14:27

Please think about editing @Kittybythelighthouse . This is a great thread and it would be a shame to have it taken down. We shouldn't try to identify anyone with a court order granting anonymity here.

This came out at Thirlwall so I didn’t think it was hidden any longer. I can’t edit now but will see if it can be deleted.

OP posts:
Oftenaddled · 18/08/2025 14:32

Kittybythelighthouse · 18/08/2025 14:28

This came out at Thirlwall so I didn’t think it was hidden any longer. I can’t edit now but will see if it can be deleted.

Thirlwall messed up all sorts of redactions - at least two of the children's names were online at one point, but they were removed and are still protected by court order. And this definitely wasn't the two doctors you suggested who both gave evidence under their own names and weren't among Letby's accusers. It's such a mess it would be easy to confuse it all, I know!

Yes, I'm sure the posts can be deleted, thanks.

BlueandWhitePorcelain · 18/08/2025 14:33

I have always had mixed feelings about - imo, the police have historically arrested some vulnerable person/people and fitted them up for a high profile crime. Like Timothy Evans, the Birmingham Six, the Guildford Four, Stefan Kisko….I’ve always suspected Michael Stone was fitted up for Levi Bellfield attacking the woman and children - can’t remember their names.

I don’t know if Lucy Letby was scapegoated for a unit, poorly staffed that was taking on babies too complex for its staff and resources; and who died because of poor care?

I am glad I wasn’t on the jury, who sat on her case!

Typicalwave · 18/08/2025 14:34

Oof if her name was accidentally uploaded as one of the many accidental uploads made by Thirwall I could understand MN removing.

I’ve had my curiosity met anyway.

Lucky her being granted lifelong protection. Hope she does some good with it.

Oftenaddled · 18/08/2025 14:37

Typicalwave · 18/08/2025 14:34

Oof if her name was accidentally uploaded as one of the many accidental uploads made by Thirwall I could understand MN removing.

I’ve had my curiosity met anyway.

Lucky her being granted lifelong protection. Hope she does some good with it.

It's definitely not either of the names that were posted, @Typicalwave . One was a junior doctor who took no part in accusing Letby. The other was a consultant who left before the accusations began. Neither was involved in the 2014 case. Neither had their identity protected. Both gave evidence at the trial and at Thirlwall under their own names.

What Thirlwall posted and has not been redacted is that Dr V / B was the person responsible for accidentally killing a baby. On the assumption this didn't happen more than once, journalists made the connection with baby Noah in 2014.

So Thirlwall revealed that Dr V/B was responsible for the 2014 incident (probably) but the two names posted were not Dr V/B.

Typicalwave · 18/08/2025 14:43

Oftenaddled · 18/08/2025 14:37

It's definitely not either of the names that were posted, @Typicalwave . One was a junior doctor who took no part in accusing Letby. The other was a consultant who left before the accusations began. Neither was involved in the 2014 case. Neither had their identity protected. Both gave evidence at the trial and at Thirlwall under their own names.

What Thirlwall posted and has not been redacted is that Dr V / B was the person responsible for accidentally killing a baby. On the assumption this didn't happen more than once, journalists made the connection with baby Noah in 2014.

So Thirlwall revealed that Dr V/B was responsible for the 2014 incident (probably) but the two names posted were not Dr V/B.

Edited

Making it abundantly clear that the two names posted had no bearing on my curiosity being satisfied.

Oftenaddled · 18/08/2025 14:46

Typicalwave · 18/08/2025 14:43

Making it abundantly clear that the two names posted had no bearing on my curiosity being satisfied.

Thank you!

So many colleagues and friends and family members dragged into this mess - the human cost really has been awful.

Typicalwave · 18/08/2025 14:48

But still, must be nice to have made such a mistake and be protected whilst others are left under such scrutiny for much less. Again, I hope she realises the immense privilege and she uses that freedom for the greater good

Oftenaddled · 18/08/2025 14:51

Typicalwave · 18/08/2025 14:48

But still, must be nice to have made such a mistake and be protected whilst others are left under such scrutiny for much less. Again, I hope she realises the immense privilege and she uses that freedom for the greater good

The court orders granting anonymity, beyond the children and their parents, are a really odd feature of this case. Particularly Dr A/U, whose children were doing GCSEs. It's unprecedented, apparently.

surprisebaby12 · 18/08/2025 14:52

The fact it’s still being questioned when courts have found her guilty of like 8? separate murders of babies is horrifying. The police and experts investigated for many years. Let the families grieve in peace! She doesn’t deserve any further attention.

Kittybythelighthouse · 18/08/2025 14:52

Oftenaddled · 18/08/2025 14:51

The court orders granting anonymity, beyond the children and their parents, are a really odd feature of this case. Particularly Dr A/U, whose children were doing GCSEs. It's unprecedented, apparently.

It’s totally unprecedented and it hinders accurate reporting in all sorts of ways.

OP posts:
Typicalwave · 18/08/2025 14:59

surprisebaby12 · 18/08/2025 14:52

The fact it’s still being questioned when courts have found her guilty of like 8? separate murders of babies is horrifying. The police and experts investigated for many years. Let the families grieve in peace! She doesn’t deserve any further attention.

Really? Do you think it’s ok for people to be hung (yes, they died and were later exonerated) or to have their lives destroyed on the basis of ‘guilty, sorry no takes’ ees’ backs’ ees?

Really?

Kittybythelighthouse · 18/08/2025 14:59

surprisebaby12 · 18/08/2025 14:52

The fact it’s still being questioned when courts have found her guilty of like 8? separate murders of babies is horrifying. The police and experts investigated for many years. Let the families grieve in peace! She doesn’t deserve any further attention.

The amount of crimes alleged or the extremity of the allegations doesn’t have any bearing on whether something is or isn’t a miscarriage of justice. 900 postmasters were found guilty by courts. Juries make mistakes. If this a miscarriage of justice it has tremendous repercussions in terms of what it exposes about the justice system and policing (even the media). We have every right to discuss it as it affects all of our lives.

OP posts:
Typicalwave · 18/08/2025 15:01

Kittybythelighthouse · 18/08/2025 14:52

It’s totally unprecedented and it hinders accurate reporting in all sorts of ways.

Men wanting to dip their nib in the office ink and then wanting to be protected is no surprise. I’m afraid I’m not surprised at the establishment protecting them either.

Wintersgirl · 18/08/2025 15:04

FrippEnos · 13/08/2025 09:01

I am always amazed at these responses.
How should she have behaved?
I doubt that there is a fixed pattern of behaviour for these situations, and given the medication that she was on these could be highly skewed.

And in these situations we really need to have more than a "gut" feeling.

I know, Paula Vennells, (Post Office scandal) bawled her eyes out and guilty as fuck...

Typicalwave · 18/08/2025 15:08

Typicalwave · 18/08/2025 14:59

Really? Do you think it’s ok for people to be hung (yes, they died and were later exonerated) or to have their lives destroyed on the basis of ‘guilty, sorry no takes’ ees’ backs’ ees?

Really?

I mean let’s face it, anyone convicted and then later having their conviction reversed in some way has only a partial effect, so there’s always that. It follows them the rest of theif life

And then we have the fact that the time those exonerated in some form is seen as some sort of benefits street story, where they’d have just been ‘dossers’ anyway and so the compensation they receive is rated as if they were on job seekers allowance (minus their board and keep for the privilege of being incarcerated at the monarch’s pleasure)

please do feel free to look up those awful injustices - one I recently read spent 25 years in prison from the age of 15 - the state stole his life and then threw him out and told him he’d have only been a Nobel was layabout anyway, start again you ingrate.

What a jolly fun time

Oftenaddled · 18/08/2025 15:15

Typicalwave · 18/08/2025 15:08

I mean let’s face it, anyone convicted and then later having their conviction reversed in some way has only a partial effect, so there’s always that. It follows them the rest of theif life

And then we have the fact that the time those exonerated in some form is seen as some sort of benefits street story, where they’d have just been ‘dossers’ anyway and so the compensation they receive is rated as if they were on job seekers allowance (minus their board and keep for the privilege of being incarcerated at the monarch’s pleasure)

please do feel free to look up those awful injustices - one I recently read spent 25 years in prison from the age of 15 - the state stole his life and then threw him out and told him he’d have only been a Nobel was layabout anyway, start again you ingrate.

What a jolly fun time

Edited

Yes, or someone like Andrew Malkinson, wrongly convicted and imprisoned for 17 years.

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2024/nov/14/andrew-malkinson-justice-wrongful-conviction-compensation

Almost every day I’m having to jump through some hoops for the authorities. I’m really struggling here. It really feels unjust on top of what they’ve done, because they said all the platitudes: ‘It’s appalling’, ‘poor Mr Malkinson’, blah blah blah.

“OK, it’s easy to say that … but you don’t mean it, because you do nothing, you just leave me to rot.”

Malkinson applied to the official compensation scheme for miscarriages of justice in September. Last week he received a letter advising him that the average wait for a decision on acceptance on to it was 31 weeks, which would take him until April.

There would then be a further wait to see if any interim money could be provided before any eventual payout sum was decided on.

Andrew Malkinson says he has been ‘left to rot’ after wrongful conviction quashed

Exclusive: Malkinson, who spent 17 years in jail, told he must wait months to learn if he is even eligible for compensation

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2024/nov/14/andrew-malkinson-justice-wrongful-conviction-compensation

Oftenaddled · 18/08/2025 15:17

I think they have just - just! - stopped charging bed and board, @Typicalwave , but they have called maximum amounts paid out too. But you'll be relieved to hear that everyone gets 14 pounds to tide them over, on release ...

Please create an account

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

This thread is not accepting new messages.