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 thread 4

990 replies

MistressoftheDarkSide · 28/08/2025 21:20

With thanks to the original poster @kittybythelighthouse and @Tidalwave for continuing the discussion.

OP posts:
Thread gallery
53
Firefly1987 · 01/09/2025 20:32

Kittybythelighthouse · 01/09/2025 20:21

I would love to see @Firefly1987 engage with some content that challenges her thinking. I have watched quite a bit of CS2C. I know what the people I don’t agree with think. On a fundamental level you have to do this to fully understand your opponent’s position and therefore engage in good faith.

Firefly, would you be willing to read some of the private eye articles on this case, or listen to John Sweeney’s podcast? We can do a trade. You give us something to listen to/read and we give you something?

I don't understand what you can have again CS2C when the majority of his vids are court transcripts-like how can you argue with anything that was said in court?!

Imperativvv · 01/09/2025 20:53

You know you're arguing with some things that were said in court though, right? Because that includes statements made by the defence claiming that LL wasn't guilty.

Firefly1987 · 01/09/2025 20:56

Imperativvv · 01/09/2025 20:53

You know you're arguing with some things that were said in court though, right? Because that includes statements made by the defence claiming that LL wasn't guilty.

Are you saying he never read out ANYTHING from the defence?

Kittybythelighthouse · 01/09/2025 20:59

Typicalwave · 01/09/2025 20:27

‘You’ll never guess what’ is beginning to tread a line so thin an electron microscope would have difficulties defining the stop point - except for the fact no one gives a shit about a person convicted…

Apl I can say is I’m grateful I didn’t end up going into medicine of any kind - health/social care is fraught enough

Edited

I’m sure the student intake numbers for neonatal nurses must be suffering. You’d have to be very naive or half mad to go into something like that post Letby.

Imperativvv · 01/09/2025 21:02

Firefly1987 · 01/09/2025 20:56

Are you saying he never read out ANYTHING from the defence?

No, that's why my post didn't mention him and was about you. I'm not familiar with CS2C and have no comment to make.

My question was whether you understand that anyone who takes a view on whether LL is guilty, which includes you, is arguing with something that was said in court?

MistressoftheDarkSide · 01/09/2025 21:03

Firefly1987 · 01/09/2025 20:32

I don't understand what you can have again CS2C when the majority of his vids are court transcripts-like how can you argue with anything that was said in court?!

I just facepalmed so hard I think i did myself a mischief.

Of course you can argue about what was said in court. Alot of what was said in court was pure speculation. Unless you mean we're saying things that were said in court weren't actually said. The confusion that we have over some aspects is because we can't see a full transcript, so some things have come via the press.

BTW this CS2C chap, has he got a full court transcript? I've seen figures quoted of £100000 to obtain a full one. Did he pay for it?

I'm watching videos by a channel called Lucy Letby analysis. He uses portions of court transcripts. I fact tonight's video is about the tortuous opening of Lucy Letby s questioning by Nick Johnson, and his scrutiny of the handover sheets. She wasn't on trial for poor handling of "confidential material" but you'd have thought so from the transcript.

The very first question he asks her is why she only cried for herself, not the babies, yet previous questioning had seen her break down and a recess being necessary when she re-lived one of the baby's deaths.

It's witch trial tactics pure and simple. However she answered or reacted it would have been wrong because NJ is a very skillful barrister.

OP posts:
Kittybythelighthouse · 01/09/2025 21:18

Firefly1987 · 01/09/2025 20:32

I don't understand what you can have again CS2C when the majority of his vids are court transcripts-like how can you argue with anything that was said in court?!

“how can you argue with anything that was said in court?!”

Good grief. Do you still not understand that the British justice system is adversarial? Do you know what that means? We’ve been over this lots.

CS2C only presents the prosecution’s case. True-crime audiences (like you) often expect a “case against” the defendant rather than balance, because that’s more exciting. Presenting prosecution arguments is dramatic and builds a clear villain-victim narrative, which is more entertaining to true crime fans whose primary interest is entertainment, not research, or the truth.

Including the defence’s longer, technical challenges would bog down the format and risk undermining the punchy narrative. Defence evidence is much harder to reconstruct without full transcripts, because it was covered less consistently in the press. By presenting only one side as if it’s verbatim, CS2C gives viewers a false impression, but he gets lots of views.

P.S: I’m pretty sure that CS2C used the Chester standard reporting rather than the full transcripts. If he were presenting the actual transcripts, we’d expect to see all parties’ exchanges: prosecution, defence, and judge. Instead, his content is heavily tilted toward the prosecution case only. A real transcript would have messiness and formal court structure, where’s CS2C mirrors the cleaner Chester Standard reporting.

Kittybythelighthouse · 01/09/2025 21:24

@MistressoftheDarkSide ”However she answered or reacted it would have been wrong because NJ is a very skillful barrister.”

Precisely this. I know that not everyone has been in a courtroom (lucky for them) but surely people understand the concept of an adversarial trial?! It’s like some people never even attended a debate at school. NJ would argue that black was white if it would give him an advantage. That’s how it works.

Firefly1987 · 01/09/2025 21:44

Kittybythelighthouse · 01/09/2025 21:18

“how can you argue with anything that was said in court?!”

Good grief. Do you still not understand that the British justice system is adversarial? Do you know what that means? We’ve been over this lots.

CS2C only presents the prosecution’s case. True-crime audiences (like you) often expect a “case against” the defendant rather than balance, because that’s more exciting. Presenting prosecution arguments is dramatic and builds a clear villain-victim narrative, which is more entertaining to true crime fans whose primary interest is entertainment, not research, or the truth.

Including the defence’s longer, technical challenges would bog down the format and risk undermining the punchy narrative. Defence evidence is much harder to reconstruct without full transcripts, because it was covered less consistently in the press. By presenting only one side as if it’s verbatim, CS2C gives viewers a false impression, but he gets lots of views.

P.S: I’m pretty sure that CS2C used the Chester standard reporting rather than the full transcripts. If he were presenting the actual transcripts, we’d expect to see all parties’ exchanges: prosecution, defence, and judge. Instead, his content is heavily tilted toward the prosecution case only. A real transcript would have messiness and formal court structure, where’s CS2C mirrors the cleaner Chester Standard reporting.

He paid for the court transcripts.

CS2C only presents the prosecution’s case.

Er...

True-crime audiences (like you) often expect a “case against” the defendant rather than balance, because that’s more exciting. Presenting prosecution arguments is dramatic and builds a clear villain-victim narrative, which is more entertaining to true crime fans whose primary interest is entertainment, not research, or the truth.

How do you know what true crime audiences expect when you don't have the least bit of interest in it?! And I've said I thought she was most likely innocent before trial so I was hoping for the opposite actually.

Including the defence’s longer, technical challenges would bog down the format and risk undermining the punchy narrative. Defence evidence is much harder to reconstruct without full transcripts, because it was covered less consistently in the press. By presenting only one side as if it’s verbatim, CS2C gives viewers a false impression, but he gets lots of views.

Or it's because they didn't call any experts apart from a plumber.

- YouTube

Enjoy the videos and music that you love, upload original content and share it all with friends, family and the world on YouTube.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3GFhhJERsn8

Firefly1987 · 01/09/2025 21:46

@MistressoftheDarkSide BTW this CS2C chap, has he got a full court transcript? I've seen figures quoted of £100000 to obtain a full one. Did he pay for it?

I believe so, yes.

Kittybythelighthouse · 01/09/2025 22:09

Firefly1987 · 01/09/2025 21:44

He paid for the court transcripts.

CS2C only presents the prosecution’s case.

Er...

True-crime audiences (like you) often expect a “case against” the defendant rather than balance, because that’s more exciting. Presenting prosecution arguments is dramatic and builds a clear villain-victim narrative, which is more entertaining to true crime fans whose primary interest is entertainment, not research, or the truth.

How do you know what true crime audiences expect when you don't have the least bit of interest in it?! And I've said I thought she was most likely innocent before trial so I was hoping for the opposite actually.

Including the defence’s longer, technical challenges would bog down the format and risk undermining the punchy narrative. Defence evidence is much harder to reconstruct without full transcripts, because it was covered less consistently in the press. By presenting only one side as if it’s verbatim, CS2C gives viewers a false impression, but he gets lots of views.

Or it's because they didn't call any experts apart from a plumber.

“He paid for the court transcripts.”

According to him. But did he? If so, why are all the asides and interjections etc missing in a way that happens to mirror the Chester standard trial reporting? I’m not convinced, but that doesn’t really matter either way.

I said that I have not listened to all of CS2C, because I don’t consider him to be a serious or trustworthy source. He doesn’t have anything I can’t get elsewhere and I cannot stand his voice acting/framing. I’ll give you this one defence video (though I haven’t listened to this either yet btw) but it looks awfully thin. Is that all he covered? Myers direct examination of Letby took about 8 days of court time. Anyway, what would I get from CS2C in your estimation that I haven’t already got from reading all the available transcripts myself? I’m not keen on giving this rubbernecking grifter clicks.

“How you know what true crime audiences expect when you don't have the least bit of interest in it?!”

How do you know how serial killers think when you are (presumably) not one?

That said, I obviously have some interest as this current discussion is technically true crime. I draw the line at other people’s misery being turned into entertainment though, which is what CS2C profits from and you enjoy consuming.

“And I've said I thought she was most likely innocent before trial so I was hoping for the opposite actually.”

I’m not surprised you think she’s guilty, given that all you engage with are prosecution arguments and you appear to have trouble grasping the nature of the adversarial trial system. Pick anyone you personally think was wrongly convicted and read the prosecution arguments against them. They will sling everything they can at the defendant and make them look guilty as sin. Those are just allegations. It’s how adversarial trials work. It’s wild how incapable you apparently are of understanding this simple fact.

“Or it's because they didn't call any experts apart from a plumber.”

The plumber was indeed called while no experts were. However, we know for a fact that this isn’t because the prosecution evidence was solid, or the defence wouldn’t have been able to find anyone to disagree with it. Far from it. I don’t know why you keep simply highlighting that there was something gravely wrong with this trial and acting like it’s a boon for your side.

Kittybythelighthouse · 01/09/2025 22:13

Firefly1987 · 01/09/2025 21:46

@MistressoftheDarkSide BTW this CS2C chap, has he got a full court transcript? I've seen figures quoted of £100000 to obtain a full one. Did he pay for it?

I believe so, yes.

I think it’s very doubtful and far more likely he’s simply using the Chester Standard reporting, which is fine as it was reasonably thorough, but I think he dishonestly said he paid for transcripts in order to get more views. I could be wrong, but it seems iffy.

Firefly1987 · 01/09/2025 23:26

@Kittybythelighthouse I have no reason to disbelieve him other than the fact the transcripts are supposedly insanely expensive! I think he actually went to court for some of the time as well.

Lighteningstrikes · 01/09/2025 23:35

No

Typicalwave · 02/09/2025 08:07

Kittybythelighthouse · 01/09/2025 22:13

I think it’s very doubtful and far more likely he’s simply using the Chester Standard reporting, which is fine as it was reasonably thorough, but I think he dishonestly said he paid for transcripts in order to get more views. I could be wrong, but it seems iffy.

Do you know who did pay for the transcripts? Rachel Aviv

Typicalwave · 02/09/2025 08:09

I agree @Kittybythelighthouse with what you think True Crime audiences expect, because I am a True Crome fan. Love it.

PinkTonic · 02/09/2025 08:58

I’ve read the transcripts that are in the public domain and even if he does have them, he’s still only parroting the prosecution allegations and adding his own commentary. I listened to his episode after the Shoo Lee press conference, in which he wilfully misrepresented the panel’s findings before attempting to argue with them. His reading of the medical findings was halting and peppered with mispronunciation and his arguments just exposed his ignorance, his inferior intellect and his biases. I don’t know who would take him seriously or why.

Typicalwave · 02/09/2025 09:25

Firefly1987 · 01/09/2025 20:32

I don't understand what you can have again CS2C when the majority of his vids are court transcripts-like how can you argue with anything that was said in court?!

Are you still operating under the mistaken belief that everything a prosecutor says in court is true?

That’s not his job.

His job is to prove his case - whether it’s true or not is a irrelevant

Here’s an example of how a criminal case in a court in the UK works:

A boy points and says, ‘She broke the window!’ That’s like the prosecution. But maybe she didn’t — maybe the wind blew it shut, or another kid did it. That’s why the other side gets to explain, and an adult decides who’s telling the truth. Court works the same way — the first story isn’t always the right one.

Rayqueen · 02/09/2025 09:40

After watching the documentary I'm even more convinced it's a set up how it could be a serious court case in this day and age with no proof, proper witnesses, physical evidence, and then the witnesses you did have retracted all they said on the stand after the guilty verdict I will never understand

Kittybythelighthouse · 02/09/2025 10:15

Firefly1987 · 01/09/2025 23:26

@Kittybythelighthouse I have no reason to disbelieve him other than the fact the transcripts are supposedly insanely expensive! I think he actually went to court for some of the time as well.

He’s an inept nasty little ambulance chasing gorehound who profits off people’s pain. He’s totally unqualified to comment on any of this. His presentation and analysis is naive, juvenile, unprofessional, and distorted for clicks. Do you think he gives any of his money to the parents? Look what he did for views in the Nicola Bulley case, and with Jay Slater. He's the modern equivalent of a Victorian Penny Dreadful though at least those vultures could draw. He’s vile and you’re giving him clicks and views willingly because you find it entertaining.

Even if he did buy some of the transcripts, and I don’t think he did, so what? The transcripts are available elsewhere. He manipulates them. He edits them. He includes his own stupid commentary (I mean stupid literally, not merely as a pejorative btw) He only includes what suits the narrative he wants to present.

Lots of people went to court. Everything he has from the transcripts are available elsewhere.

Trusting sources with no standards and a track record of failure just because they echo your prejudices is lazy and dangerous. This is just junk food for people who’ve already made up their minds. The worst part is citing him when others are bringing real journalism and world-class expert criticism.

His business model is to sensationalise, simplify, and keep the audience hooked. You lap it up, clinging to biased narratives that flatter your prejudice, however weak the prosecution’s case looks when properly examined.

True crime, murder stories, courtroom drama, and the hunt for justice have always captivated audiences. I am interested in some elements of that too, hence this conversation. But for some, like you, it’s only about the thrill of moral certainty. Not the truth. The idea of a witch, a monster, an irredeemable villain makes the world feel neater. Watching someone ‘evil’ be condemned, whether or not they are guilty, gives a feeling of order and control. It’s the same mob instinct that’s fuelled witch trials and moral panics for centuries. When complex cases are reduced to black-and-white narratives, which is what you seek and what you peddle here, justice has nothing to do with it. It’s just theatre for the outraged, and grist for YouTubers cashing in on other people’s tragedies.

But by all means continue to flog CS2C as if he’s anything but a trashy ambulance chaser while you ignore our sources of real expert opinion, and world-class, fact-checked, investigative journalism. They may be less entertaining, but they have integrity and if all your side has left is the trashy and the sordid history shows us how this is all going to end.

Kittybythelighthouse · 02/09/2025 10:19

PinkTonic · 02/09/2025 08:58

I’ve read the transcripts that are in the public domain and even if he does have them, he’s still only parroting the prosecution allegations and adding his own commentary. I listened to his episode after the Shoo Lee press conference, in which he wilfully misrepresented the panel’s findings before attempting to argue with them. His reading of the medical findings was halting and peppered with mispronunciation and his arguments just exposed his ignorance, his inferior intellect and his biases. I don’t know who would take him seriously or why.

I trued listening to that episode last night. I couldn’t make it through to the end. So naive and juvenile - and from a place of zero experience. It’s painful. Embarrassing that people lap it up.

Kittybythelighthouse · 02/09/2025 10:26

Typicalwave · 02/09/2025 08:07

Do you know who did pay for the transcripts? Rachel Aviv

This! The New Yorker, an actual credible source world famous for their fact checking did pay for the entire transcript but @Firefly1987 doesn’t want to read that piece because it challenges her beliefs.

There were people who attended witch burnings to bay and jeer and feel morally superior. There were people who saw it for what it was. I’m afraid it’s pretty obvious which side of the fence some of those in this thread would have been on. At least now we have the lessons of history behind us, whereas then they didn’t know any better, not that it seems to make a difference.

Kittybythelighthouse · 02/09/2025 10:28

Typicalwave · 02/09/2025 08:09

I agree @Kittybythelighthouse with what you think True Crime audiences expect, because I am a True Crome fan. Love it.

I like a bit of true crime too but I’ve realised that there are true crime fans 📰 🧐 👩‍⚖️ and then there are true crime fans 🩸 🔪 😈

Kittybythelighthouse · 02/09/2025 10:36

Rayqueen · 02/09/2025 09:40

After watching the documentary I'm even more convinced it's a set up how it could be a serious court case in this day and age with no proof, proper witnesses, physical evidence, and then the witnesses you did have retracted all they said on the stand after the guilty verdict I will never understand

Quite! I don’t think there has been a case in British history where the expert evidence has been so thoroughly demolished by superior experts. As you say, even the prosecution lead expert witness started walking back his murder methods, but she was already convicted for them! It’s totally unprecedented. Even e.g the Birmingham Six case was less egregious.

Insanityisnotastrategy · 02/09/2025 13:09

@@Firefly1987 Have you read the New Yorker article, just out of interest?
An archived copy is available here if you wanted to:
<a class="break-all" href="https://archive.ph/www.newyorker.com/magazine/2024/05/20/lucy-letby-was-found-guilty-of-killing-seven-babies-did-she-do-it" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">https://archive.ph/www.newyorker.com/magazine/2024/05/20/lucy-letby-was-found-guilty-of-killing-seven-babies-did-she-do-it