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 got an error too but someone shared a link which works

<a class="break-all" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20260207203103/www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2026/02/07/letby-police-ignored-other-baby-deaths-on-unit/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">https://web.archive.org/web/20260207203103/www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2026/02/07/letby-police-ignored-other-baby-deaths-on-unit/

@kkloo thank you - I'm also getting error messages with that one oddly .....

Any sign of the evidence to support this - probably not worth waiting as it's already been demonstrated this was not the case, 21 out of 257 is not "a lot", and the box contained 0, zero, nada. You make claims but when challenged rarely, very rarely provide evidence to support them, and totally ignore people who have already given a possible explanation. The times nurses record things not being minute accurate for example, or the unit being downgraded.

Looks as if Chester could have done with listening to the warnings about their practice that came from the RCPCH review.

People often say that the consultants' manager threatened to support them to the GMC over Lucy Letby, but what he actually said (not to them) was that if they kept trying to block efforts to improve safety, the only option left would eventually be a report to the GMC.

Oh sorry that's a pain, maybe try a different browser? Or hopefully it will work for you later.

Here is the Telegraph link as a tinyurl - seems to work

<a class="break-all" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20260207203103/www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2026/02/07/letby-police-ignored-other-baby-deaths-on-unit/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">https://tinyurl.com/yc7t5a8t

Why is he saying they used his paper wrong? Didn't they just use it as a reference for the rashes, none of which he saw on the babies in the Letby case to know if they matched as none were photographed to my knowledge?

She didn’t keep them on purpose ( except the ones in the box for statement writing) in 2015-16 we ( talking general nhs) went home in uniform & our handover sheets were in our pockets. Not unusual practice. I am if you looked around my house now sure you might find one in paperwork somewhere, been left the nhs for a good few years. Things had started to change but small district hospitals were a bit slower to change than bigger teaching hospital. Hope that helps.

Errr..... you've just answered your own question about why use of the paper was problematic....

Well that would discount using a paper for any court case surely...

She still would need a certain amount of time to do the feed even if she started early so if she's texting "non-stop" that would prove problematic. Did she even offer this as a reason or are you just making excuses on her behalf again?

No, they mixed up embolism through arteries (characteristic rash) with embolism through veins (no characteristic rash).

He didn't need to see photos of the babies' rashes to know that they weren't the rashes he described in his paper as caused by embolism through arteries, because nobody ever claimed the children had embolism through arteries.

It's like if I write a paper saying, these children have chicken pox. We've tested them and they have this rash. Therefore the rash is a symptom of chicken pox. And you write to me and say my child has measles and a rash that sounds like that, so their chicken pox rash proves they have measles, doesn't it?

I don't need to see photos to know you've misunderstood me in that case. (And photos don't exist - it's a rare and brief phenomenon).

How do you think she was feeding a baby? doubt it was with a bottle, if very prem & in the highest risk room would have thought baby would have had a tube in situ & milk was put down the tube via a syringe. You only tend to use one hand as it might have only been a 5 ml syringe not sure how you would use it with 2 hands.

There's no reason to assume the child was fed all in one go, or she didn't finish feeding him, or another nurse didn't take over, or ghf text messages sent immediately, or the time was more than approximate. Nobody (including her) would know, eight years later.

It's really a desperate reach by the prosecution and like a lot of their claims, you can see the weaknesses when you stop and look closer.

But surely in that event you would either throw the paper away or take it back for proper confidential waste destruction, not store it away, carefully or otherwise?

@Oftenaddled

I am somewhat curious to know why MNHQ have hidden your comment at 23. 37 ......

Oh I tried to turn the Telegraph into a tinyurl. It worked but I guess they have to check they are safe links and whoever does that comes back online tomorrow.

The link at the reddit link works fine for me though ...

Ah, makes sense 😊 thanks 😘

My phone keeps telling me the archive link isn't a safe connection....

Wasn’t such a big deal then, usually didn’t have names in usually had bed spaces A2 etc then an abbreviated text 4hrly obs, D&V etc if we had drugs to give at specific times you would write times so you ticked them off as given. Remember this was just for our info not anyone’s else’s so it made sense to us, each person had their own way of writing, this wasn’t something that was filed in the notes.

If she has been denied an appeal twice, that means the legal people who look at these things independently in quite some detail, have adjudicated that nothing in the appeal had been judged as sufficient enough to grant an appeal, twice.

Of course there have been cases of unsafe convictions in the U.K., but the appeals system is there to safeguard against that and for the most part it works as it should. I don’t know why people are so keen to let this particular woman off the hook when others haven’t garnered the same support.

Maybe we know more about the medical info given than the legal people, wonder how many neonatal nurses they had on that panel?

thought just came did they have any neonatal nurses for the prosecution? If doctors had to look after a bay of sick children how long do you think they would last? Most of them unless anaesthetists don’t know how to put up a bag of fluid up.

This article is a good look at why people are particularly concerned about this case - basically because of the volume of experts who came forward spontaneously confused about the science presented at court. Most campaigns around miscarriages of justice don't start this way

https://theconversation.com/why-calls-to-review-lucy-letbys-case-are-so-different-from-other-miscarriage-of-justice-campaigns-239465

As you'll know, a request for an appeal has to be launched quickly and based on legal procedure at the relevant trial. Problems with the science commonly emerge more slowly and are a matter for the CCRC, which is now examining the case. So it's an unusual one but there are explanations.

Unless you have seen all the medical notes and have seen and heard all the evidence given at the trial, you certainly don't know more than the "legal people".

I was glad to see they got a neonatal nurse on Shoo Lee's international expert panel