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.

Why are the police allowed to give footage to programme producers? I find it unethical.

I just watched the first few minutes and had to turn off.

I have no idea why it is legitimate to broadcast an arrest?

The flaws is this case are too many to mention. She absolutely did not get a fair trial because her original defence team failed to defend her adequately and didn’t call sufficient medical witnesses. No one is saying why they failed their client in this way. Her new barrister will not explain the failure of the previous team.

The unit she was in was proven to be inadequately staffed as it was immediately downgraded.

I believe the prosecution medical expert was only a retired pediatrician. The panel assembled by the new defence team are international neonatologists. Why would they say this evidence sucked if it was good evidence?

To me it is an obvious miscarriage of justice & most likely it was perpetrated by the people who didn’t close the unit when it was evidently not fit for purpose and taking too many complex cases.

As Phil Hammond said - the millions of pounds wasted on this extraordinary case could have been spent on upgrading these neonatal units to be fit for purpose. And now it will be harder to recruit good staff and reassure them that they are trusted.

It's pretty dubious, isn't it? Even if one is of the view that convicted criminals are fair game, that doesn't include her parents.

You don’t have a clue how it works, do you?

Chuckle.

You do realise that this could be equally applied to Ravi and Dewi don't you?

That aside, I think it's worth noting that Dewi Evans was an acolyte of Roy Meadows and Southfield, and has been involved in contested child protection cases underpinned by accusations of FII (previously known as MSBP). Secrecy in the Family Court arena means we can't fully know what havoc he may have wrought in people's lives elsewhere

I think he was drawn to the prospect of praise and recognition like a moth to a flame - and the hourly rate must have helped as well.

She absolutely did not get a fair trial because her original defence team failed to defend her adequately and didn’t call sufficient medical witnesses. No one is saying why they failed their client in this way. Her new barrister will not explain the failure of the previous team

This is one of things I keep coming back to. I just don’t understand what has gone on in this regard.

Well she's right where she belongs. Actually laughing at "she didn't get a fair trial".

That’s not a failure to have a fair trail - it’s having a crap defence.

You can’t say it wasn’t fair because the prosecution was more convincing than the defence, because that’s every trial with a guilty verdict.

Maybe the defence team didn’t get any expert witnesses on the stand because there were none who could reasonably defend her under cross examination. She had a VERY good and reputable defence team, who have apparently refused to answer why they didn’t call any experts. I don’t think it’s dodgy, maybe it’s simply indefensible from an expert POV.

Have you not heard of Angela Cannings and Sally Clarke? Two women whose convictions for murdering their infant children were subsequently overturned, it being found that expert testimony was seriously flawed?

We know there was expert evidence her previous team didn't use, at least one who wanted to be called. Nobody outside that team knows why. The best guesses are that it was a tactical decision that turned out to be wrong (there was a good article linked to upthread with more detail) but it's not something we're going to get clarity on. If you think about it, there are lots of reasons why the defence now wouldn't want to make previous tactical decisions public, when the case is still very much ongoing. If you don't actually need to do it in order to bolster your defence, then it's a risk for no benefit.

Fwiw I don't think we can necessarily assume it was a fuck up. It could have been. Equally, I used to have a role involving assessment of other legal professionals work, and the tactical side can be really hard to call in an unusual matter.

Another good point - none of us know the rationale for the decision not to do so, but it seems unlikely to be a mistake or an assumption they wouldn’t need any.

So if you’re saying the panel have seen absolutely everything, including the transcripts, I have two questions.

Why is the original defence expert who did sit through the whole trial saying that they have either got some things wrong or are obviously not aware of some things that had already been addressed at trial?

And secondly how do such eminent experts have the time to read through that much information on a pro bono basis. That’s potentially months of work. Either they’re not that busy despite their eminence (Lee is the only one who is retired I think?) or maybe they haven’t actually considered it all.

Also, just to note in case others are not aware, the Lee and Tanswell paper was just one of 18 references cited in Dewi Evans’s report on the air embolism cases.

The best, and most obvious, guess is that the defence did not call any of their experts as they would not have been able to support her defence under cross-examination (and we don’t even know if their original reports were supportive of her defence). This could well be the case if, just plucking an example off the top of my head, she had actually done the things she was being accused of...

Hall has made a few comments questioning some of the international panel's conclusions. Some seem to be based on misunderstanding their statements. But the experts aren't playing a game where they have to avoid anything argued at the trial. Their task was to decide from the evidence about the most likely cause of death, not to make up new causes to win the case. In some cases of course, they are working from evidence that has come out since the trial anyway.

I could certainly read a few hundred pages of complex evidence in my area in my spare time over a couple of days (instead of posting on Mumsnet I guess). Look at their publication rate. They are internationally recognised experts partly because they can process and analyse complex information quickly and relatively easily.

And secondly how do such eminent experts have the time to read through that much information on a pro bono basis. That’s potentially months of work. Either they’re not that busy despite their eminence (Lee is the only one who is retired I think?) or maybe they haven’t actually considered it all.

This is a pretty silly reach. Neither you nor anyone on here is going to be able to comment with authority on their schedules or other commitments.

The supposed key difference between criminal court and family court is the former demands "beyond reasonable doubt" and therefore should be more dependent on facts and material evidence as opposed to expert "speculation".

In the family court it's all done on the "balance of probabilities" so grave life changing decisions and opinions can be made "fact" with impunity and very little recourse based solely on expert opinion in some cases.

In Lucy Letby's case it seemed the latter standard was applied.

As it unfolded I kept waiting for the concrete evidence to be revealed because no case this grave would have been brought without solid evidence... and like alot of others, I waited in vain, through pyjamas, post it notes and misappropriated paperwork and shredder confusion, and on her conviction, also like many others, I was utterly gobsmacked. Not because of her physical attributes, not because of unwillingness to "believe" a nurse could do that (I've met a few nurses who had very sadistic undertones) but because the evidence was so poor.

I'd still like to know if the original pathologists should be investigated for negligence, as missing 7 murders, and possibly more, if we believe the guilty salivators, is breathtakingly substandard work.

And if the deaths were "suspicious" surely inquests would have been the first step to establishing that.

Nothing, but nothing, about how this case makes sense, nor does it inspire any sort of faith or confidence in either our legal or medical authorities.

Well, it's one guess. And certainly it's a possibility.

But claims like 'best' and 'most obvious' need to be quantified in order to have any value. You don't do your point any favours by overstating it.

It would also be the case if they couldn't (then) combat the prosecution position in insulin results, as now they can. In those circumstances, calling Hall for some children and not others, which Myers asked to do, would have been sensible. We don't have an inside explanation, which is quite normal. But there's no reason to believe there's a smoking gun.

For information, here are comments by Dr Michael Hall who wanted to be called by the defence and wasnt.

https://archive.ph/6ceBo

He wanted to challenge the prosecution and is concerned the court didn't hear the whole truth.

Even if that’s true re Hall why didn’t they call any of their other witnesses?

Surely they wouldn’t think that they didn’t need to present expert testimonies? Like k say she had a very good KC.
I’d always support re-trials on the basis of an inadequate defense but I’m really not sure that’s what happened here.

I honestly don't think she ever stood a chance of having a fair and unbiased trial. Yes she has been found guilty by a jury of her peers, but the case was so high profile and emotive that I think it's impossible that those jurors didn't go into it with some degree of bias to start with. I mean, who wants to be the first one to stand up and say they don't think the suspected child serial killer is actually not guilty?
As for her not being allowed a retiral, there are a lot more people now who are questioning whether she's actually guilty than there were to begin with and that's why she's not getting one. Is she was to be found not guilty now then they would have to admit they made a massive fuck up and that's not likely to happen. Much easier to let an innocent woman spend the rest of her life in prison.

Would the same reasoning not apply - they're arguing no case to answer?

Then why call the plumber? Or put Letby herself on the stand?