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.

Those professionals had very limited experience of the types of children who died on the ward

What does that mean? You mean because it was so unusual whatever was happening on that unit? Because they had no experience of a serial killer attacking babies and causing rare injuries before? Well I agree with you there.

Well seemingly he didn't give much of a fuck whilst the trial was ongoing when it actually mattered...

He thinks all of his clients are innocent but they're all hopeless cases. He's friends with Michael Stone (killer of Lin and Megan Russell) he's not a professional lawyer in any sense of the word. Just compare him to her original barrister and it's like night and day in professionalism. And he doesn't have all the evidence as she hasn't waived privilege. He's just useful for making some of the public think she's a victim just because he says so.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/lucy-letby-conviction-canadian-doctor-1.7451325

A good summary of Shoo Lees involvement and when he became aware of the case.

Because a low proportion of the hospital's intake had been level 2 or above, over the years, and the seven consultants all worked mostly in the paediatrics department, not with any type of neonate.

When the hospital was taking a smaller proportion of acute cases (before April 2015) they saw about three deaths a year. On average the consulltants must have been seeing one each every two years. They weren't particularly experienced with dying babies. They were used to healthier babies and older children.

He saw one headline about the outcome of the trial at the time. This is because he lived in Canada where it was not a big news item. Until he knew that inaccurate theories of air embolism had been cited, he had no reason to get involved.

You can't possibly be unaware that he's said he didn't know at the time.

So, does he ignore the misuse of his research when the 40 year old man gets convicted of killing multiple babies or not? If you're going to change the timeline for your hypothetical, you'll need to say how and give reasons.

Of course he has all the evidence. This is handed on with or without waiver of privilege.

Well he doesn't yet have Dewi Evans's new report to the police, or the obstetrics notes his medical panel has requested, or anything further that the prosecution has disclosed. But he has whatever Ben Myers had, and of course the new evidence that has emerged since.

He does have all the information, it's just ridiculous to think otherwise. And as has been said repeatedly you wouldn't know if she waived privilege to the CCRC or not because if they asked and have received it they wouldn't go announcing it to the public.
And also, if they ask her to waive privilege to them and she does the public might still never find out anything about why she didn't call experts etc. because it only becomes public if the waived material is relied on in court proceedings.

Also, Dewi Evans has changed his mind on 3 babies cause of death since the trial ended. Kind of undermines the confidence given to his expert opinion in the first place.

Firefly how many times do we have to discuss this, you still insist on going back to points that have no bearing on if she is a serial killer. They were HER HO sheets, not to be filed in the notes. Why do you think out of 217 HO sheets only 17 related to babies in this trial what is that proving? As for looking up anyone on FB my 82yr old mom does , is she a serial killer? These points you keep bringing up over & over again, has nothing to do with the facts of the medical evidence. Dr Evan’s medical hypothesis have been pulled apart, & others with more qualifications & experience than him & the police put together have provided another more explainable reality than a serial killer with no motive. Substandard care. End of.

Actually there were reports from other parents in 2017 of rashes in babies the police wouldn’t investigation because Lucy wasn’t there they were only looking up until 2016, so much for caring about children.

Yes and the bacteria found at Countess of Chester hospital (including in the lung of one of the babies LL was convicted of suffocating) that was the same bacteria that caused deaths at the Glasgow hospital scandal DOES cause skin rashes. Specific details as to what those skin rashes looked like are not yet available, but we do know for a fact that contaminated water commonly causes skin rashes.

Maybe it’s because people have more understanding of the medical evidence than members of the public you included deciding she is guilty because she has searched FB ffs.

Yes, hypoxia and/or sepsis.

Rashes don’t mean air embolism. Are you going to acknowledge that?

Totally. They should have had a jury of neonatal nurses who could understand medical evidence more.

This argument only works if the defense's argument is 'look how sweet and innocent and normal she is - she would never do that.'

But no one is saying that. People are focused on the prosecution's inconsistencies and lack of evidence, the lies and false conclusions, the cherry-picked and misinterpreted data.

There is actually no focus on LL as a person at all from people who question the verdict. That only comes from those who uphold it.

I think that would be a bad idea. You need lay people to oversee the entirety of the evidence not get bogged down in medical evidence only. Then you'd have the biases of nurses who think the NHS scapegoats them regularly, recipe for disaster.

Of course they have a bearing on if she's a killer if they're trophies? You choose to see them as completely innocent, that's your prerogative. Doesn't mean people are wrong to view them suspiciously. If she DOES turn out to be a killer the handover sheets won't be so innocent will they?

As for looking up anyone on FB my 82yr old mom does , is she a serial killer?

Probably not unless she's a nurse in a position of power being a voyeur over her patients and their families' grief. Please tell me you recognise the vast difference between someone who is a professional (at least supposed to be) doing this and your mother doing it.

These points you keep bringing up over & over again, has nothing to do with the facts of the medical evidence.

The experts can't agree so it's stalemate on that.

Dr Evan’s medical hypothesis have been pulled apart, & others with more qualifications & experience than him & the police put together have provided another more explainable reality than a serial killer with no motive.

He has 30 years experience! Are you a neonatal expert to declare all these other experts are so much more experienced than him? If he was saying what you wanted to hear you'd be singing his praises. It sounded mad when he claimed he was disliked because he's not from the big city (or whatever he said) but the way his career has been torn down I'm beginning to think he was right. And I don't care what's "more explainable"-I care about what actually happened.

The experts can't agree so it's stalemate on that.

You're not exactly covering yourself in glory on this thread @Firefly1987 but this particular thing you've said is really quite stupid.

The experts speaking for the defence (listed at jollycontrarian.com/index.php/Lucy_Letby:_those_experts_in_full) have decades if not centuries more relevant experience than Dewi Evans. You would not expect a man of his generation to have specialised in neonatology, and he is obviously more of a general paediatrician, since we see him giving evidence across different age groups in other cases.

This, combined with the fact that he has not practised in almost 20 years, does make him less qualified to comment on the case than the various neonatologists who are just one category in McDonald's lists of experts working pro bono on the case.

So every nurse midwife who took home handover should be regarded with suspicion?
not sure anyone would be in position of power at 82…
how many are standing up to defend Dr Evan’s theories, where as many esteemed people more highly educated than Dr Evan’s are backing Dr lees & the panels findings.
you even I with my limited knowledge question death by overfeeding, or air down a nasogastric tube. You know he made about £100k from this trial, Dr Lee & members of the panel paid for their own airfare & worked on this pro bono.

lets use your argument what are you going to say when she is found innocent, & I am not saying she is but the evidence Dr Evan’s used is questionable since then he has retracted some of his theories. why would the police sack the statistician? Why was the coroner not informed these were suspicious deaths even though they were ruled a natural death at PM.

it would be unconscious and why they are fighting for her to be innocent perhaps - the unconscious bias comes first

there is no way on this earth this amount of circus would have been made for a black African women

it’s just one view but shouldn’t just be disregarded in discussion if people wnlant to acknowledge it

It is a sad state of affairs if this would have been ignored in a black African woman, but I think it's unlikely that all of the medical experts concerned, some neither white nor British, have been biased by Lucy Letby's race to this extent.

So we are left with the possibility that this case represents serious problems with our justice and health systems that will affect everyone, black or white. It's well known in fact that black women have worse outcomes in childbirth.

There will inevitably be injustices affecting white women in a country where white people make up most of the population. In like for like cases, you could discuss who gets most attention. But in a case with such obvious flaws, I would be careful not to impute racism (even subconscious) to those taking an interest in the case. It's simply not a necessary driver and the suggestion is divisive where injustice and failing healthcare systems are a problem for us all.

I asked upthread but didn't get an answer. If Letby were Black African/anything other than a white woman, does this mean Shoo Lee wouldn't care that his paper had been misinterpreted in a serial killer trial? Obviously a serial killer of babies was always going to be a colossal news story when found guilty, which means the mechanism for him to find out would exist regardless. So what does he do?

I'm interested to hear exactly how people think this alternative would've played out.