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.

I don’t think so. As far as I can tell the line had tissued, so nobody thought there was anything wrong with the bag itself?

I thought the documentary basically cemented her innocence.

People don't want to hear the very strong argument for her guilt so just put there hands over their ears.

@Firefly1987
If there is a very strong argument for her guilt then I certainly haven't heard it, I've heard the same weak arguments over and over and over though.

You are so off the mark with this. This is absolutely nothing to do with her.

the only thing that matters in this case is the medical testimony of some retired old crank that deliberately contacted the police to help out, because he had already decided when reading about it in the paper that she was guilty and he was the man to help convict her. Think about it. He decided, BEFORE reading anything and contacted them - despite being retired since 2009.

His medical testimony against a panel of internationally recognised world leaders in neonatologists, not just your average bunch, but some of which who’ve published 400 peer reviewed research papers, complete experts, leading the field, who absolutely say categorically - there were no murders….. none. And that there was general medical incompetence.

this is the only thing that matters. this and only this.

No murders. No crime of murder.

Everything else doesn’t matter. She could be fucking blue coloured for all I care. It’s irrelevant. And so is all the bits of information and peoples opinion around the fact. Information cherry picked to make her look guilty. Selective representation of fact. To paint a picture.

it is absolutely shocking the amount of people on here that can’t distinguish between whats irrelevant and what isn’t. No murders means exactly that. And all this hearsay against a women who’s been wrongly convicted, is just stopping actual justice being done….

it is absolutely shocking the amount of people on here that can’t distinguish between whats irrelevant and what isn’t. No murders means exactly that. And all this hearsay against a women who’s been wrongly convicted, is just stopping actual justice being done….

It is shocking, yes. It makes me think the jury process needs to be revisited.

What do those who believe she is innocent make of the fact Letby was proved to be texting when she was supposed to be feeding the babies?
A 2 hand job that takes time? The baby projectile vomiting that the other nurse hadn't seen before or since?
Do you believe the mother who saw blood all over her baby's mouth was lying?
Who poisoned 2 babies with insulin if not Letby?

I can’t find anything to say this.
it would again be very unusual for a line that was for nutrients to tissue it’s not the same as IV fluids and would be more dangerous for it to be a canula that could easily tissue being used so likely a form of central line.

if the central line has tissued and the babies glucose was low then that wouldn’t be suprising - tpn in neonates / small babies is given 24 hours a day and even a short time off can cause levels to drop
along side the medical info regarding the way they tested for insulin.

I thought the documentary was balanced, although I didn't like the use of AI either.

I do understand the argument that the evidence against LL is not beyond reasonable doubt. However the idea that none of the babies were ever harmed intentionally is far too much of a stretch for me.

The insulin thing has been addressed by the panel. I’m not a scientist but they are - plausible explanations have been put forward.

I don’t think the mother is lying but I do think recollections can vary as the palace famously said.

Texting doesn’t = murderer.

Well obviously texting doesn't equal murder.

What it DOES show is that she wasn't correctly feeding the baby. Either not giving them the milk at all, or plunging the whole milk in at once.
The feeding required 2 hands at all times, the feeder would absolutely not be able to have their hands free to be texting, and it was proven in court that she was.

She wasn't proved to be texting while she was supposed to be feeding babies.

Nurses noted down routine tasks like that to the nearest 15 minutes, not exact times. So if she sent a text at 23.16 and started feeding a baby at 23.17, she would have noted that the baby had a feed at 23.15. The prosecution frequently made claims they didn't prove, which she didn't admit. That's how they operate when they are trying to discredit someone.

The prosecution certainly gave their own version of events

Good point about peripheral vs. central. The reports suggest that the long peripheral line tissued (in one baby) so presumably the baby had two IV access points - one for the PN and the other for everything else, including supplementary glucose (unless they were receiving the PN peripherally). The tissuing would have meant that insufficient glucose was being administered, hence the hypoglycaemia.

Nevertheless, there has been absolutely no suggestion that anyone thought at the time that the hypoglycaemia was unusual for a neonate or that there had been any tampering with the PN bag, so it’s not true to say it was discarded against protocol.

I’m not sure what you mean by “along side the medical info regarding the way they tested for insulin”.

Is there a reason why that was specifically addressed to people who believe she's innocent then? Because that claim sounds like it would be more relevant to a fitness for practice hearing than discussion about a murder conviction.

Because I believe you have to look at the picture as a whole, like jigsaw pieces, as evidence of her guilt.
I was wondering how it could be explained.

Why would I ask those who believe she is guilty?

tube feeding only requires one hand for the most part - bolus feed (gravity) milk is poured into an open syringe, this can take while but also these tiny babies were having small amount. pushing the milk from a syringe, also one handed. feeding from a baby bottle, 2 handed

These were prem and poorly babies so I'm guessing they were tube fed, so texting and feeding possible (but obviously not ideal)

@PistolPacker Letby had a credible explanation for the blood on that baby ‘s face (child E).

And she wrote that she had given the feed at 8:30pm yet was texting at 8:29, 8:31, 8:34 and 8:38.
She actually stated herself in court she would only ever use 2 hands to do it.
Lying doesn’t make you a murderer though obviously.

What was the credible reason? And the full hour time difference between the mother’s recollection and Letby’s?

Ok but again, how does this particular jigsaw piece (if it is) function as evidence of guilt?

It's not a binary choice between only asking people who think she's guilty and only asking people who think she's innocent either. And that wouldn't be the case even if you knew it had happened as opposed to it being a claim the prosecution made, plus could explain why you thought it was relevant.

Did you read my explanation about nurses rounding times for routine tasks to 15 minutes?

That 8.30 isn't meant to be an exact time. Even if it were, she could have stopped and started for any number of reasons, including the child feeding slowly or seeming uncomfortable. And of course she would not remember that completely trivial stuff timed to the minute years later. Nobody would, would they?

I don’t know what else to add? I believe she was either withholding a feed or giving it too fast. Because she’s cruel/evil? And that it’s evidence towards her being guilty of the murders of babies.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/nov/14/mother-tells-lucy-letby-trial-she-heard-babys-horrendous-screams

As mentioned already, recollections can vary.

They can indeed, and I’m more inclined to believe the mother given how adamant she was and her reason for knowing the time.

She thought that the child's nasogastric tube might be rubbing his throat. In practice, the child was probably showing the first observed effects of the gastro-intestinal haemorrhage that killed him. As his nurse Lucy Letby could not know that and of course she called the registrar on duty.

It's been said that the mother's phone records prove that there was an hour's delay calling the doctor. However, her phone records for that evening are one hour out of sync with everybody's: Lucy Letby's, the registrar's and the midwife's. So they don't seem to be reliable. It's been suggested that this may be due to reporting in GMT vs British Summer Time.