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.

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.

From what I remember from the documentary, she was arrested the first time in the blue Lee Cooper tracksuit. The woman police officer checks that Lucy is ok to leave the house in it.

The second time LL was arrested, the documentary shows her in a nightie but again the woman police officer does help her get dressed, and LL seems to wear the same blue Lee Cooper tracksuit on, with a dressing gown on top.

So why do you think she was arrested in her pyjamas?

I thought the police arresting her were very gentle and kind to her.

The other point to consider is that there isn't a vast pool of expert witnesses who might have the expertise in this case who can be called upon at the drop of a hat and who can devote the time to a case like this and who would be willing to get involved in such a potentially contentious case. I would be surprised if the number of qualified exoerts who might fit the bill in the UK is in double figures.

What inference might have been drawn from Lucy Letby not appearing?
As for calling the estates manager, I understand that this was primarily to confirm facts on which Lucy Letby had been accused of lying.

According to the Netflix documentary, her therapist encouraged her, after her arrest, to use writing as a tool to process the trauma. She also wrote that she was innocent and hadn't harmed anyone, but that wasn't presented as evidence. It's dangerous to leap to the conclusion that it's incontrovertible proof. That is why it's vitally important that people accused of the most egregious crimes, are well represented at trial. They are supposed to look beyond the rudiments. Luckily we don't have trial by Mumsnet.

Here are a couple more informed discussions of why Lucy Letby's first defence team may have decided not to call experts. It's clear that legal commentators don't struggle to understand this or consider it a smoking gun

https://unherd.com/2024/07/the-questions-haunting-the-lucy-letby-trial/

https://davidallengreen.com/2024/07/the-lucy-letby-case-some-thoughts-and-observations-what-should-happen-when-a-defence-does-not-put-in-their-own-expert-evidence-for-good-reason-or-bad/

These are from earlier days than the articles by Phil Hammond at Private Eye or the blog series by Jolly Contrarian which I've already linked

No therapist told her to write that, and Letby herself didn’t claim she’d been told to write it by any therapist.

She said she was writing down the way she felt. She didn't say, and wasn't asked, who might have advised her to do it. Probably several people. It's common advice.

Certainly not to write “I killed them” though hey.

Why not? That's what people were saying about her at work

Weird as all hell imho. Why write that?
What do you make of the 200+ purloined handover sheets, kept in chronological order? In a box that had KEEP written on it?
Kept in the box the shredder “she didn’t have” came in?

Naught so queer as folk ...

I meet people who behave very differently from me every day of the week. It has nothing to do with murder

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/article/2024/sep/03/i-am-evil-i-did-this-lucy-letbys-so-called-confessions-were-written-on-advice-of-counsellors

Better look into legal proceedings against the Guardian amongst others as it appears they have fabricated this entire article, oh, and their legal department needs firing if you think "no therapist told her" to write her thoughts and feelings down for processing purposes, and they've published this. The named counsellors must have a solid case .... 🙄

And your opinion on the handover sheets kept all neat and in order?

I find your username weird as hell. I surmise you intend to commit murder with a pistol, and your character is dubious.

(I don't really obviously, but this is the standard of logic you're applying)

If I was being hounded at work to the point a grievance had been filed (and upheld) I’d keep my paperwork in order.

Sure “Mistress”.

She absolutely wasn’t supposed to have ONE of those handover sheets at home, so…

Now say thank you.

(Also, not a dominatrix)

Good response to a ridiculous comment.

@MistressoftheDarkSide what on earth are you on.

So she shouldn’t have had any of the handover sheets at home. It doesn’t make her a murderer, though.

The side of truth and justice, plus logic and critical thinking mainly.

And you?

And you get to truth and justice by mocking people's user names whilst ignoring your own?

Alone it doesn’t, obviously. What reason could you give for her to keep them? Stored in a box with KEEP written on them?

If their position was that there was no case to answer then probably not nearly as much inference as would have been drawn from her going no comment on questions about the handover notes and post-its. Lots of people on this thread seem to think going no comment is standard legal advice for all police interviews (it’s really not).

From memory there was a fair amount of surprise in legal circles when it was confirmed that she would be giving evidence, particularly as the defence had not called any other witnesses apart from the plumber.

Oh FFS I was making a point about making devils out of irrelevant details, particularly pertinent when respected experts are concluding no murders have occurred, therefore any speculation about her character or actions becomes moot.