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.

Yes those waving "classism and racism" where were you when Rotherham; Bolton,; Govanhill, Telford, Oxford, Rochdale police officers; social services; councillors; community leaders whatever the fuck that is were shit scared to.point the finger at a group of perpetrators because of colour, religion, tribalism. Betray betray betray.

So a possible miscarriage of justice must continue because of the grieving parents?

They have had access to the same evidence that was shown in court and more. They have everything the prosecution had and the full transcripts (which of course the prosecution did not have) and the evidence that has come out since the trial. The prosecution is obliged to disclose all relevant evidence to the defence so this is what they were working from. Could I ask what you think they were missing?

Whilst I agree that reports of the Netflix documentary do make me uneasy about the intrusiveness of it, even just the one small snippet I gleaned (haven't watched, just read reports) cast further doubt on the prosecution case.
The prosecution barrister was adamant that Lucy was lying about having been arrested and taken down to the police station in her pyjamas. Video evidence proves that Lucy wasn't lying.
Many other questions about the case too, most puzzling of which is why the defence didn't call an expert witness.

People tend to have a greater affinity for those who are like them. It isn’t conscious for the most part. It may be an uncomfortable thought for you but that doesn’t mean it isn’t true. I’m sure there are academic studies on this but we see this in everyday life, on Mumsnet and in reality TV shows.

No-one is saying that concerns about the conviction ONLY came about due to her demographic profile. I’m saying her demographic profile brought a huge amount of scrutiny that has brought the problems with her case to a wide audience very quickly and prominently, in a way that wouldn’t have happened with others. In a similar way that not all people who go missing are reported on equally.

@QOrion Yesterday you posted:

Having said that, it’s undeniable that a lot of the sympathy for Lucy Letby is because she reminds the Great (white) British public of their daughters, nieces, granddaughters and goddaughters. That’s what got so many people, professionals and laypeople, reviewing the case, unpaid, in their spare time.

So now you’re saying she’s been scrutinised and not sympathised with?

Yep point out how racist and misogynistic their arguments are and watch the back peddling in real time

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.

@JoyfulSpring It’s always the same on these Lucy Letby threads. The same old ‘no smoke without fire’ brigade seem unable to deploy critical thinking. It’s always about her looks, her demeanour, the cuddly toys, no apparent ex-boyfriend from her past, and the handwritten notes as if that’s the clincher. It’s laughable. You can’t have a reasoned discussion.

fgs This.

I am sick of hearing this regurgitated shite about Lucy letby’s beauty and everyone being racist for being concerned about failures in the legal system.

Always by the same people who are obsessed with race themselves and see everything through a racial lens. They make a concerted effort to notseem racist, hence the scandals you mentioned being able to happen.

edit to add: Im not white and look nothing like Lucy, but anyone could find themselves in a legal situation, and having to facing rubbish experts is what causes miscarriages of justice.

I did not like the way the police woman in that documentary seems to believe because LL can recall policy and procedures accurately but not details of specific babies care among baby deaths that had happened months/years previously on a ward with high numbers of baby deaths means she’s hiding stuff!!

I could answer questions like that in my job. We learn the procedures we follow every day know the protocols and could say what we would or should do if xyz happens for jobs we do. I couldn’t answer questions on specific incidents among many from a couple years ago without looking up my records ffs.

and those post it notes never seem to be quoted with the parts that directly contradict the guilts sounding part. She was told to write to process her feelings by occupational health after she was removed from the ward the job she loved, she knew she was being investigated. And I can’t see how anyone working in a ward that’s failing knowing proper staffing would save more lives wouldn’t feel guilty about their part in that. I think that’s why the consultants put the blame on her they can’t face their part in it and are protecting themselves flinging mud at her. LL said herself she wondered if the consultants were covering up their mistakes.

and those who go on and on about her being middle class. Did you see the house she lived in? Her parents house. Normal size house for people her parents generation to have bought when houses were not the ridiculous price of today. They are not middle class to me watching the arrest footage just normal people lower middle class maybe but not affluent!

she comes across as possibly autistic to me. People get a different vibe from her do assume she must be guilty but actually she’s just different. If I were to base my opinions on vibes I’d say that white male retired consultant in that documentary is giving off coving incompetence vibes to me but that’s not evidence is it

Those poor girls were betrayed, not just by timid authorities but also by the general public. Their sad stories didn’t provoke anger and a strong desire for justice from the public until their cases were used in more recent immigration debates.

I think they were viewed as a demonstrations of ‘Broken Britain’, Vicky Pollard type characters that middle class Britain didn’t want to be associated with. They came in handy, though, in the fight against the wrong type of immigrant.

They didn’t call any expert witnesses to give evidence at trial but they did instruct, and receive reports from, numerous experts.

Interestingly she was also referred to in this thread as plain and homely by someone else who was convinced her looks are the only reason anyone has concerns about the conviction.

Made me wonder, what sort of appearance is acceptable for a female who's challenging her criminal conviction? I'd like to know what features I ought to be looking out for before I'm allowed to register concerns about the ability of our legal system to promptly sort out miscarriages of justice.

Has Letby ever actually said herself that she was advised to write down her feelings as part of a therapeutic process? I thought what she said in court was that it was just something she had always done. Like “collecting paper”.

I’m definitely not saying that. There is scrutiny, yes, but also a lot of sympathy. I think a sense of affinity led to the conviction being scrutinised in ways and in a timescale other cases don’t get. I don’t know how many times I can say pretty much the same thing. I do need to get on with life now so I can’t respond to every post.

Respectfully, they have. They received all of the evidence. The only thing they haven’t had is cross examination, but quite frankly, given the depth of their review and confidence in their findings I’m not sure that a barrister with no medical knowledge or training is somehow going to trip them up. They have been extremely clear and consistent with their findings. I’m not sure why you’re using “ “ either. You might not agree with them but they are, objectively, all experts in the field. Dr Shoo Lee literally wrote the paper used as evidence int he first trial. That isn’t claiming to have knowledge they don’t have.

The irony of questioning the integrity of the panel who all have solid credentials in the field and are working pro bono conducted a systematic and blind review for a case in a different jurisdiction while ignoring the prosecution’s star witness’ behaviour from day one…Dewi Evans the paediatrician (not neonatologist) that inserted himself into the case because it “sounded like his kind of case” for a hefty fee (the extra money he flippantly commented that “keeps his daughter in horses”), that is such a medical star that he found hard evidence of foul play after ten minutes with a file and a coffee despite even the post mortem showing no evidence, would be genuinely quite funny if it wasn’t such a serious topic.

That’s not having all the evidence.
Not all evidence is publicly available.

How have they received all of the evidence if they were not involved in the case?
Because not all evidence is publicly available

They have been instructed by the defence. The prosecution and police are obliged to give the defence copies of all evidence used for the court case. That includes all the medical notes and anything else Evans and the prosecution witnesses had access to, as well as all police interviews. Separately, Lucy Letby's defence has transcripts from the trial and the documents from the Thirlwall Inquiry which the prosecution didn't have. They aren't working from documents in the public domain.

Its been scrutinised because of the number of babies allegedly murdered and how high profile the case and trial were not because of her race, age or alleged beauty.
You can back peddle and twist your statements all you like but your contempt towards her because of her race, age, class and alleged beauty shine through in all of your posts. Maybe you should look at yourself and why you are so comfortable with making those assertions with zero evidence

Because they were given it by the defence when they signed up for the panel. Their strict condition for doing the panel was that they would publish their findings if they thought her guilty too, but the defence brought them in and gave access. They weren’t just using articles and what was freely available in the public domain but the disclosure from the trial. They may not have had the non-medical evidence because it wasn’t relevant, but they had what they needed to conduct a deep review of the medical history of the children and the workings of the ward.

So they’ve received information from an entirely biased source?

Imagine the frothing the Lucy Fan Club would be in the prosecution got a load of “experts” to do a panel press conference saying she’s definitely guilty

Sigh. You do understand that the defence has the prosecution evidence too, don’t you? That’s how disclosure works. Both sides have to share their evidence ahead of time.

No. They've received evidence from the police and prosecution, through the defence.

This is how all criminal cases in the UK work.

No they received all the evidence from both the defence and the prosecution because of discovery don't from biased sources and they only agreed to do it if they could release their report regardless of whether it proved her innocent or guilty