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.

There is not a single expert left standing that believes any baby was harmed intentionally

What is the evidence for this?

I would be prepared to put money on the fact that they didn't call the witness because they realised his evidence was discredited and would harm Letby's case.

I'm not sure what you mean here - please can you explain?

I meant the defence should have called their own expert witness because the prosecution's expert witness was wrong.

Well I don’t trust the justice system to be infallible. The last year there are figures for is 2022 when 62 convictions were overturned in England and Wales. We now know of many people who were hanged and proven later to be innocent. I personally remember the Guildord four being freed after many years in jail ,

Which means nothing, because it's not like you've any idea.

I started watching it but didn’t even last 10 minutes. I could feel the way it was going. I recommend listening to the podcast Lucy Letby: Was There Ever A Crime?

@Aquarius91 there was a huge separate independent investigation to the case with lots of leading doctors and people who worked in that hospital where it was determined the hospital were covering up their own errors and no murders took place. Also lots of professionals weren’t called to present evidence that would have shown she may not have done it. She was massively let down by her defence team. It’s not TikTok and conspiracy theories - it’s a widely reported independent investigation by a panel of experts and leading figures in the NHS.

What investigation are you referring to here?

@rubbishatballet it was a report published a year ago by a doctor who’s papers had been used in her trial inaccurately, details here: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ce8y28ny1n0o

Theres also a very good Redhanded podcast that breaks down each argument and piece of evidence. None of the 14 experts on the panel concluded Lucy was guilty, and other doctors came forward to say they not called as witnesses even after coming forward with evidence that supported her defence.

Okay, so this was the expert panel report. Not independent as commissioned by the defence, and not an investigation but a review of the medical evidence. There was also no one involved who had worked at the hospital.

If it wasn't so grim, it would really make me laugh that people think that Ben Myers, an enormously qualified and experienced barrister didn't call witnesses because he just couldn't be arsed, or was incompetent or something. If there was anyone he could have put on the stand that would have thrown even reasonable doubt on the case, he would have. OBVIOUSLY.

Yes, so this!!

@rubbishatballet yes in the report they did speak with people who worked at the hospital - I’ve listened to the analysis of the report, not just read the bbc article. I didn’t say it was a commissioned investigation or done by the hospital, I was replying to Aquarius91 who was shouting ‘TikTok conspiricy theorists’ - it’s not a conspiracy, it’s an expert panel report that digs extensively into the case, who had involvement in the prosecution and felt evidence was presented misleadingly. It’s been widely reported on and I’m always surprised on these LL threads when people haven’t heard about it.

Did you watch documentary? It showed they were in a box marked keep and the police said they were in chronological order.

LL said she kept them because she didn’t know how to dispose of them as she didn’t have a shredder.

Even though there was a nice shredder in the corner of the room.

There was a shredder in a room. But people have pointed out that you don't shred confidential waste from work in a little home shredder. You'd have to bring it back in some time.

Keep, as in don't throw out, yes, because you can't throw out confidential waste.

Chronological order - either she organized them, or she just put them in in the order she brought them home.

We were certainly told carrier bags before, and I don't know if I would take Netflix more seriously than other sources. It sounds as if they exaggerated the situation with Lucy Letby not remembering baby D before referring to notes. So I'm assuming they just mean that the handover notes were in rough chronological order, which they would be, if you put them in a bag or box one at a time after bringing them home.

There’s been a lot of discussion on this thread, and many others, about the expert panel report. It was definitely commissioned by the defence (her new barrister Mark McDonald) and there was no one involved who had been part of the prosecution.

Are you sure you’re not confusing some of the details with the service review undertaken by the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health which was commissioned by the hospital in 2016?

I don't know how many people think that. It's certainly not a choice between "he had nothing useful to add" and "he was an awful lawyer who didn't bother". There are a number of possible reasons for his strategies which legal commentators understand no problem, but in the circumstances, we can't know which applied for sure. It's a pity none of the documentaries we have have gone into this instead of going over the same points

I've posted links before but putting them together for anyone who is interested

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/

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

https://jollycontrarian.com/index.php/Lucy_Letby:_the_missing_defence_evidence

And a journalist perspective from Phil Hammond at Private Eye

www.private-eye.co.uk/pictures/special_reports/lucy-letby-28.pdf

She had them in several different boxes (including the box the shredder came in!) and a couple of bags. She also moved house with a load of them - why not just take them back to work at that point if that was always her plan?

And why did she say that she hadn’t disposed of them because she didn’t have a shredder at home?

I don't believe they spoke directly to people who had worked at the hospital, but they used the prosecution expert reports, the medical files and the trial records which would have included statements from people working at the hospital.

As you pointed out, even the short summaries we have include information from Countess of Chester staff on settings for machines on the ward. But I don't believe they interviewed them directly.

I've got bags of stuff I need to take into work to shred. Why haven't I taken it in yet? I must be a murderer I suppose

It’s not all about her just keeping these notes,
It’s the whole picture around the notes, which is
-filing them in chronological order
-putting them in a box she marked “KEEP”
-lying to the police when asked if she had a shredder.

All of her behaviour around these notes, leads to questions, especially the lying under police caution.

Why would they not be in chronological order if they arrived that way?

Some people label boxes. I don't. Keep - don't throw out. It's not sinister.

Well I assume that if they are patient confidential and you’re aware that some relate to suspicious deaths and collapses in your workplace, if you’re arrested on suspicion of murder you will: (1) tell the police that you’ve been meaning to take them back to work to shred, (2) won’t tell them that the reason you haven’t shredded them is because you don’t own a shredder even though some are stored in the box which the shredder in your house came in, and (3) won’t say that the reason you have them is because you “collect paper” - not the content mind you, just the paper.

I'm very curious about why her supporters/PR people are working so hard to sway public opinion when it doesn't change anything. Even if every single person in the UK believes she's innocent (which most don't - she's a safely convicted baby murderer) it won't change the process.

Looking forward to the CCRC shutting it down later in the year as they have with her lawyer's other unsuccessful clients.