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.

That makes it even less sensible to address it only to people who disagree with you then? Because they obviously don't think she's cruel/evil. And it's now also been explained to you that this isn't actually a known fact, just something the prosecution claimed, and there's another potential explanation. Have you seen it?

Obviously someone having been found guilty doesn't mean everything the prosecution said was a fact, in the same way that being found not guilty wouldn't mean that about the defence.

The registrar treating the baby and the midwife looking after the mother on a separate ward would also have needed to randomly change records by an hour for this to work. Their notes were shown as part of the Thirlwall Inquiry, so after the trial.

It does look as if the times provided by the mother weren't accurate, though I'm sure she believed they were.

I’ve not actually seen that about the time before to be honest. I think I’m going to have more of a read up on things (I did follow the court reporting at the time).

I remember thinking the timings thing looked bad for Letby initially, but the clinical staff all having the same ones does make me think it's more likely than not they're right.

I felt the opposite. The documentary confirmed to me that she is guilty.

Have a read of both the expert panel reports, and the Private Eye reports. Both are written by people with an understanding of the medical facts in context, and they both conclude that there is no evidence that any of the babies were murdered or deliberately harmed. There is plenty of evidence of sub-optimal care.

If the babies died of natural causes, or even malpractice, Letby’s allegedly weird or possibly unprofessional conduct becomes irrelevant to a criminal trial.

I completely agree.

That chip you carry on your shoulder is dangerous.

Right ? Since when should people be discriminated for being blonde and white .

She has brown hair now anyway

so clearly that changes everyone’s mind

It's not evidence at all. It's just your opinion. Don't you understand the difference?

Do you understand what "I believe" means?

Yes. Do you know the meaning of the word 'evidence'?

Yes. And I believed the evidence presented at trial which stated that was exactly what she was doing, or rather it was put to her that is what she was doing.

Evidence is just information that can be used either on a standalone basis or as part of a wider body to prove something or help make a decision. It’s absolutely reasonable that information about potentially cruel behaviour could be considered as part of the body of evidence in this case.

Although am now standing by for a barrage of “being cruel is not proof of murder!” posts.

Potentially, but the grounds for presenting the nursing notes as evidence of poor or cruel practice were slim to vanishing point. That doesn't mean the prosecution can't throw it and see if it sticks.

But as you say, it's just information - Here are some times. Here are some texts. A long way from proving anything.

If the international panel of neonatal experts had found her guilty and Dewi Evans, retired pediatrician, had found her innocent - no one would give his medical opinion any credibility.

The whole trial was badly run by people unqualified in the medical area. It’s ridiculous.

Her first defence team failed her.

The unit was understaffed and staffed by inadequate neonatal doctors - but you can’t say that.

It was downgraded for being medically inadequate.

She is an archetypal scapegoat.

The thing which was confusing to me , but perhaps I misunderstood? ,was that the documentary implied that a large amount of handover sheets in chronological order were found in the box marked keep. It made the point of stating that there were over 200 handover sheets. Probing this detail, in court notes it appears that the handover sheets were scattered between locations , with some being at her own property, some in bags . Only five handover sheets were in the box marked keep, which was at her parents house , where she was staying ? Which would make their being in chronological order less intentional perhaps ?

The whole blonde and white argument is ridiculous and doesn't stand up in any way.

It conveniently ignores the fact that initially most people thought she was guilty, because either they followed the trial which lacked a defence, or they only followed the damning headlines or they didn't really follow at all but just would have assumed well if she was on trial and been found guilty then presumably the evidence was strong.

It was when people started to point out the issues in the evidence that people started to have doubts.

Yeah I'm interested in this point too. It was that part in the documentary that I found the most compelling towards guilty (because storing them chronologically seems like they were kept as trophies and were of great importance), but it was definitely said in court that some were found in bags underneath her bed.

You are showing your lack of understanding about legal procedure. Evidence is shared by both prosecution and defence. The defence team have the prosecutions evidence and vice versa. The original defence team are no longer instructed and so would’ve passed their files to the new defence team. The new defence team will have ALL the evidence.

The court documents state some were found in a Morrisons bag, some in an Ibiza bag, and doesn’t mention as far as I can see where the other 200 or so were, but does say they were found. It definitely states that there were FIVE handover sheets in the box marked keep in the wardrobe at the parents house, none of which related to the babies involved in the case . I don’t think that was clear from the netflix doc but perhaps I misinterpreted.

Everyone seems to have come away from the Netflix documentary thinking that Lucy Letby kept a significant number of handover sheets (not five!) in a box marked keep, and that she told the court she couldn't remember baby D even then. Neither are true, from court records. I think Netflix played a bit fast and loose here for entertainment purposes.

Even if this was the case, how is keeping 250 handover sheets, 246 of them not relating to the babies in the trial, a sign that she was keeping trophies?

Plenty of people believe she was far more prolific in terms of harming babies than the ones that made it to court. It feeds the narrative that she was an offender on the scale of Shipman and with the cunning of Machiavelli. So many people were very disappointed to hear there would be no further charges, which of course thoroughly undermines the narrative.