To agree with the Guardian about the Netflix coverage of the Lucy letby case?

[justwandered]

https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2026/feb/04/the-investigation-of-lucy-letby-review-netflix?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other]]

I honestly don’t think I’ve come across a show in such poor taste before and I am no stranger to stories about murder and the like.

It crosses a huge line in terms of stripping individuals of their dignity.

I don’t plan on watching it but when I turned Netflix on the other night to put a TV show on for my children there it was - horrid and completely unnecessary.

Right so just because MOJ happen, this must be one by default?

I agree. I personally feel very disquieted by her and she was actually described as "expressionless" by colleagues. She was of course failed, initially in a final-year student nurse placement due to a perceived lack of empathy and a "cold" demeanor. The examiner said it was the only time she had ever failed someone for that.

And the defence approach has always baffled me, it was bizarre.

Nothing to do with Internet detectives. The author of the paper the prosecution based their case on refuted their interpretation of his work and said there was no evidence she'd done anything wrong, along with a panel of international experts. Dr Jayaram has already been found to have lied and said she didn't call him for help when she did. This was a failing hospital and the NHS has form for scapegoating during coverups. 'Convicted in court' means nothing if it's an unsafe conviction, as has happened in this circumstances many times.

You think a panel of international (and racially diverse) neonatal medical experts, including the author of the paper the prosecution based their argument around, defended her using scientific evidence just because she is white and they found her attractive? That's the first conclusion you reach?

Yeah that assessor actually said she didn't think Lucy had the qualities to be a nurse...even the second one didn't really want to pass her but she had technically reached her competencies by then so didn't have much choice. It must've been very obvious there was something not right with her. She should've been weeded out right then, it's an absolute tragedy that she wasn't. I wonder if that's where her rage came from and her assertion that she "wasn't good enough to care for them" on her note.

I posted this earlier:

I don’t think there is any contradiction in saying that Lucy Letby’s status as a young, attractive, white middle-class woman who was described as nice, garnered a lot of public attention and support that made professionals of all backgrounds take an interest in the case.

I also posted this:

As soon as she was convicted the case against her was being questioned. I think that’s unusual. It’s a situation that invites professional curiosity.

I would just say that the public mood on an issue shouldn’t be discounted. The issues with the Horizon IT system in the Post Office scandal were publicly known and reported many years before the ITV drama. It was the drama bringing the issue to the attention of Joe Public that really started the justice process.

I wasn’t referring to the international panel of neonatal professionals who reviewed the case. They came into the picture later, long after many concerns were raised about Letby’s conviction. Some people explicitly said that they didn’t think she looked like a serial killer. I believe her appearance contributed to interest in the case generally and conscious/subconscious support for the position that she is a victim of a miscarriage of justice, even before people have critically examined the case.

It's interesting the arguments put forward by those who think she's guilty are very much a repeat of all the things that don't prove anything such as the notes, not crying at the right time, wanting to cuddle her cat etc.

If you mean me, I did say that the notes, crying etc are not proof of wrongdoing.

How on earth could she have been “weeded out” just because of two people’s gut feelings? Do you think they should have complained to the NMC because she didn’t look or sound ‘right’?

I wonder if she’ll be kept in prison to save face . This is one of the highest profile crimes I can remember and if she is wrongly convicted it will call into question confidence in the whole judicial system .

Those who are more familiar with the expert evidence that casts doubt on the convictions, what have they said about the two babies who died from insulin? I understand the air embolism theory is disputed but there were two deaths that could only have been from a deliberate injection of insulin. Even the defence and Letby herself acknowledged this, according to the documentary.

According to this article the notes were written before she was arrested?

You also pointed out that LL was emotionless when talking about the babies who died. Your implication was clear.

The wrong test was carried out to provide evidence of exogenous insulin being administered. This wasn't really challenged and I'm afraid it's the ignorance of some of the people involved in the criminal case and in the unit who did not know or understand this. This is the reason that it wasn't acknowledged and Lucy Letby agreed with it. It's a very specific test that needs to be carried out and it wasn't ordered or performed. They used different test which has high failure rate and cannot distinguish between insulin made by the body and synthetic insulin.

In addition, no insulin was found to have been tampered with or gone missing on the unit. There is some query about whether she would have had opportunity to administer it to a feed bag.

By the time she was arrested she had been under investigation for a very long time and on antidepressants. Admittedly, I have not watched the documentary, but I can understand perhaps that she was resigned to being found guilty no matter what happened.

No one can say with 100% certainty whether she was guilty or innocent but the evidence that she was convicted on is very very poor.

There is however plenty of evidence that that hospital unit was run in a terrible manner. Had high rates of maternal death compared with the average. She certainly cannot being blamed for the deaths of those mothers.

If anybody cares to they should watch the press conference run by Professor Shoo Lee. It s a depressing hour and a half of a catalogue of failings by a facility meant to care for babies.

True. But perhaps still preferable to the thought that someone intentionally set out to end my baby's life.

Letby’s slightly deadpan demeanour certainly didn’t help her, but as someone who doesn’t react to things how ‘most’ people traditionally do, I get frustrated at the people who are convinced she did it because “she didn’t look sad/upset”
Not everybody reacts to things in identical ways.
It actually wouldn’t surprise me if she has ASD. I’m not normally one to armchair diagnose someone but as someone with Asperger’s myself, I recognise some of the traits.

I picked out which bits of the documentary gave interesting new information.

What you infer from it is your prerogative.

This is a very important point. People being condemned for not meeting specific emotional display standards in a situation is potentially really disablist. It may not have been in this case, but it will be in some.

So a question for people convinced of her innocence - do you think it’s just a stitch up? And if so, a stitch up by whom?

Read back your post yesterday at 21.25.

At least have the balls to say what you mean.

I think it’s also important to remember that the “expert panel of neonatologists” who held a press conference have not been exposed to all the evidence the way the experts in the trial have.

And not all academics are doing good things out the kindness of their heart. I work in academia and I can quite assure you many are just as much of a fame seeking and salacious charlatan as your average Love Island contestant. Many claim to have knowledge they don’t actually have and would sell their granny for an opportunity to be on TV

21.25 or 21.35?

Here is my post from 21.35, which acknowledges that the new bits I found interesting was not proof of wrongdoing.

I still believe she is guilty though.

Some things that were interesting in the documentary:

• that LL organised the handover notes of her designated babies from her shifts in chronological order in a box marked ‘Keep’.So many people defending LL have said that she would have just shoved the handover notes in a bag without much thought. But organising them in chronological order shows there was thought behind it. Not proof or wrongdoing but an interesting update.
• That there were other notes where she said ‘murder’,’murderer’ and ‘they will never know what happened’, that were not just on the infamous yellow post it note. Again, not necessarily proof but it shows that the public hasn’t seen all the evidence against her.

What exactly do I need ‘balls’ for?

I must say im surprised by the amount of racism and misogyny on this thread by people claiming that we only care because she's white youngish and pretty.
Those of you claiming that we only care because of her race, age and so called beauty need to give your head a wobble and look at yourself because if you can look at all the problems with this conviction and honestly still believe that we only care because of her race, age and alleged beauty (i dont think she was pretty) or her hair colour then you are a racist misogynistic idiot

What I said. I’m being clear enough.

Look, I’m not engaging with you anymore and therefore won’t further derail the thread.

I'm not convinced of her innocence but I don't think that her conviction is safe there's too many problems with the evidence that was put to the trial and witnesses who lied either on the stand or during the investigation too feel that she had a fair trial and think she should be retried

So you’ve got nothing 🙄

Next time, either explain what you meant or admit you were talking crap.