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'm fairly open-minded on the question of whether Lucy Letby should have left baby C's family alone. Having a nurse checking in on them could be interpreted as caring or interfering - I don't think we have any chance of getting an account of that unbiased by subsequent accusations.

If she overstepped the mark and blundered in where she wasn't wanted, I wouldn't see that as pointing to murder.

Already asked you but you didn't answer, if this was the case, why did the majority believe she was guilty at the start, even though she was still a young white female?
When people assumed that the case had some depth to it and the evidence showed she did it then no one had any difficulty thinking she was guilty even though she was young, female and white.

People started to doubt when others started to discuss issues with the evidence and point out how it was flawed and how murder hadn't even be proven in the first place.

For your theory to make sense everyone must have thought she was guilty until they saw she was white and young and female, which obviously isn't the case because her pics were printed on all the articles at the time when most assumed guilt.

Sure if you are only ever prepared to excuse everything she did. To others who can see the patterns in her behaviour, it shows she was way overinvested in the grief of these families. She had no reason to be in there so why was she?

If this was a guy overly fixated on one of his patients who was then sexually assaulted on the ward at night would you say ah well what he was doing beforehand was totally innocent he was just checking on his patient and got it wrong he's not guilty of sexual assault? Like hell you would!

Careful, FF, you might do yourself a mischief with that reach.

That would depend whether he was guilty of sexual assault

@Oftenaddled he'd obviously be the prime suspect...and very likely to be the perpetrator. And in the LL case I doubt the consultants even knew about her obsession with the families when they decided to "scapegoat" her. All the patterns of disturbing behaviour came out later-what a coincidence! They sure managed to pick someone who acted like a guilty person and had a whole parade of red flag behaviour. So many coincidences!

What obsession with the families? Looking them up 2 or 3 times on average on Facebook?

@Firefly1987 and the main point before any accusation/ arrest/ trial of this odd member of staff would surely have to be
Was there actually a crime committed
If yes, sure you would look for evidence, if not......

These LL threads are like a recurring nightmare.

🙄no what I've just been talking about

What's the actual alternative if (like so many on here think) you can't prove it? Leave her on the unit? What about safeguarding, what about the lives of those babies IF she is a serial killer? You can't remove her without good reason and you can't leave her on there if she's killing babies. Really would like to know what others here would do in the consultants' situation.

If the consultants truly believed she was a serial killer, they were right to report her to the police (though it is odd that they waited so long)

But they should have stepped back from playing any part in selecting or assessing cases after that, because they knew that their practice had been criticised and they knew that they had a serious conflict of interest.

And Dr Jayaram should not have shared Dr Lee's article on air embolism with the police without pointing out that it dealt with a different type of air embolism from any that Lucy Letby could have inflicted, since Dr Gibbs had already pointed this out to him and his colleagues.

If there’s no proof a murder happened then there is no case to answer.

And of course, the consultants should have told the coroner immediately about suspicions around the deaths, to ensure that the children would have full forensic autopsies with the full range of tests.

It's notable that they did not do this even for the triplets, despite filling in the information for the post-mortems after demanding that Lucy Letby should be removed from the ward. They did not even request toxicology tests.

Why didn't they want these two children (babies O and P) to have exhaustive and forensic post-mortems?

You don't KNOW that, that's the whole point. You can't leave her on the unit and see if she kills more babies.

I have no idea how to respond to this level of bizarre thinking. Are we living in Minority Report now?

@EyeLevelStick I know right
I've given up trying to make the point now
I hope the people who have the unenviable task of examining the reports etc are a bit more open minded......

I didn't know this, that's insane.
What was there explanation for that?

Why can't you answer simple questions? There is doubt over the convictions (from some people) this is not proof she is innocent. I'm asking how you would safeguard these babies and make sure no one is harming them. You can't take any chances with babies lives.

Welk, if I was a doctor, traumatised to nightmare status by "catching her redhanded" I would have implemented basic safeguarding protocols there and then. But, of course, he didn't actually did he? Catch her I mean. Or anything else constructive.

If they truly believed it they should have reported her, but they should also have been completely honest about the state of the hospital.
But of course most of the fault there lies with the police who should have investigated that properly.

Why can't you answer simple questions?

That literally made me laugh out very loud (sorry DP)

What sort of basic safeguarding protocols? At least you and @kkloo have attempted to answer what should've been done differently! You really need to expand on what he could've done though.

There's never been an explanation, and I don't think the question was asked at either the trial or Thirlwall. However, when Dr McPartland was asked to review the deaths in 2017, she pointed out that toxicology had not been ordered and it was too late to do it now.

We know that the children had post-mortems, and that the consultants would only have had to express concern to have a forensic post-mortem.

We know that the post-mortem form for baby O did not inform the coroner's office that the child's blood tests showed he bled dramatically after Dr Brearey performed an unusual and risky procedure. The pathologist doesn't review all medical notes though they can request more info. They work on the summary the hospital sends them.

We don't know what information was on baby P's form, but we know that both Dr Evans and Dr Bohin at the trial criticised aspects of his resuscitation.

We know that Dr McPartland, acting from the full medical notes which the pathologist did not have, sent back an explanation of the two deaths which categorised them as involving:

1a. Significant suboptimal care that is possibly relevant to the outcome,
1b. Failures in care to recognise problems and
1c. A failure to act appropriately

We know that baby O's notes showed that no consultant had attended his collapse and resuscitation for 40 minutes, when it was supposed to be five.

And we know that Shoo Lee's panel considered that baby O's death was caused by shock and haemorrhage after a liver hematoma was ruptured and went unrecognised by the treating team, possibly exacerbated by Dr Brearey's operation.

We know that the panel said baby P's death was caused by the team's poor management of his condition. Both children were affected by ventilator pressures that were too high, and baby P also received a higher than intended dose of adrenaline.

So - I don't think the doctors were plotting to blame Lucy Letby for these events and have her locked up. But I don't think they were committed to a full and open analysis of what went wrong for those two children either.