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.

Ask her to go and wait elsewhere, maybe an office. Deal with the crisis. Then notify her superiors. Possibly involve security. Advise her to leave the premises. Possibly advise her to engage her Union rep. Go to the police as soon as possible.

Obviously I'm guessing, but I fail to believe there aren't procedures where patients appear to be at immediate risk.

But it's a moot point given the circumstances were, by his own later admission, different to how he initially described them.

Yes. And of course if he was scared to do all that, he could have said, "Is everything okay, Lucy"?

He had a lot of options short of waiting 13 months to mention it to a HR manager as part of a meeting about his feelings on being accused of bullying a junior nurse.

I always thought it very interesting that he never mentioned it to anyone with any medical qualification, like the nursing manager, Dr Brearey etc.

Presumably because they'd have said, why didn't the alarm go off? (It did). Wasn't that tube the wrong size? (It was) Shouldn't she have started by observing the baby anyway, and calling you in? (Yes).

Just clarifying the timeline. LL starts working at the hospital in 2012, qualifies as an intensive care neonatal nurse in Spring 2016.

They then allege she attacks the following babies, using the following methods:

A Murder 8 June 2015 Air embolus
B Attempted murder 9/10 June 2015 Air embolus
C Murder 14 June 2015 Air via nasogastric tube
D Murder 22 June 2015 Air embolus
E Murder 4 August 2015 Acute bleeding/air embolus
F Attempted murder 5 August 2015 Insulin poisoning
G Attempted murder 7 September 2015 Overfeeding with milk
G Attempted murder 21 September 2015 Overfeeding with milk
I Murder 23 October 2015 Air via nasogastric tube/air embolus
L Attempted murder 9/11 April 2016 Insulin poisoning
M Attempted murder 9 April 2016 Air embolus
N Attempted murder 3 June 2016 Throat trauma
O Murder 23 June 2016 Injury to liver/air embolus
P Murder 24 June 2016 Air via nasogastric tube

Letby is then taken off duties on 30 June 2016.

It just seems implausible to me that she qualifies in a particular specialty and then immediately goes balls to the wall on her murder spree. She was supposed to be doing three a week in some weeks.

Also, it's a really mixed bag of methods, I thought serial killers usually had an MO and kept using a tried and tested method of murder.

I wonder what they decided the October -- April gap was due to, when she'd apparently been so bloodthirsty that she was doing several a month beforehand.

Stop confusing people with ... facts,

I watched the first 30 mins and I had to turn it off, found it too distressing. The first baby they spoke about was born at 37 weeks so not really premature (it used to be classed as ‘full term’ anyway) and was in perfect health really, just needed a little support breathing. She crashed suddenly and couldn’t be resuscitated which the experts said was unexplainable.

She was the only one on shift when each baby died too which is pretty damning. I also thought she seemed kind of cold in the police interview snippets I saw, saying no comment a lot. If you’re innocent, surely you’d be passionately expressing this as best as you could.

I’m not sure why so many people think she’s innocent in truth. Perhaps because she’s white and middle class.

Did the babies stop dying in the two years from these reasons between them taking her off the shift and arresting her?

Letby’s removal from the ward co-incided with the downgrading of the unit so that it no longer took the sickest babies or multiple births.

While Letby was there they were taking babies who should not have even been born at Chester or should have been transferred to a specialist centre. Most of the babies who died or collapsed would not have been at Chester if they had been born post July 2016.

Baby D? Baby D was not well at all. She was born after PROM, for which the mother was not given antibiotics, and the mother’s own testimony to Thirlwall shows that Baby D was sick (pneumonia) right from birth and the hospital was not taking the mother’s concerns seriously.

Shoo Lee’s panel concluded that she might not have v died if her mother had been given antibiotics when she should have, or if the staff had reacted in a timely manner to the parents’ concerns. It’s a horrible tragedy.

The idea that she died from an inflicted air embolism isn’t supported by any evidence.

She was also alleged to have attempted to murder baby J (jury couldn’t reach a verdict) in Nov 15 and then attack on baby K (guilty at second trial) was in Feb 16.

If you believe she’s guilty (and I appreciate lots of people on this thread don’t) then it’s really not hard to imagine that she also harmed or attempted to harm babies that were either never identified or that there was not enough evidence to charge her with.

I’m glad it is now at least acknowledged that post mortems didn’t find foul play as they weren’t looking forensically - earlier it kept being argued here or elsewhere no murder at post mortem proves LL innocence

I've never seen a male serial killer, of which there are many. Being accosted in his jammies and criticised for having cuddly toys on his bed.

Armchair detectives solving crimes after watching a bit of Netflix and reading a couple of dubious articles written by questionable reporters.

It could be true that she's guilty and there are "missing" cases which explain the gap. I find it quite hard to imagine that a qualified nurse could attempt to harm one of those tiny prem babies and fail at it. I think even a complete blundering idiot could.

Harmed but unnoticed or harmed but not attributed to her? Possibly. Especially given the state of the ward at the time. But if the attraction was the attention that treating them brought, then that's a fail too. I know we don't need to find a motive to consider murder, but close-up repeated murders for no reason using several different methods I find a bit of a stretch.

I had PROM with one of mine, The hospital told me I wouldn't be leaving until baby was born, put me on oral antibiotics straight away and had my temperature checked every 4 hours, I was then put on intravenous penicillin when I was induced, my baby was checked for infection as soon as she was born and also stayed a couple of extra days so she could be watched even though she had no sign of being unwell.

COCH was failing at the most basic of things, and then when there was consequences for that, babies becoming unwell and dying, they feign ignorance and say it's completely inexplicable and must be someone deliberately harming babies.

Yes a lot of people believe that most of the babies would still have been there because the limit was over 32 weeks, but important to note that that limit only applies to single babies, it's higher for twins and presumably higher again for triplets, so most would not have been there.

@kkloo how convenient, considering twins and triplets were her favourites.

But he wasn't sure of what he was seeing at the time. He only had a hunch that suspicious things were happening around her and whether she might be doing something deliberately. If this was anyone else you'd probably be the first to say that a victim/witness might not realise what they're seeing at the time. It's not like one moment of total realisation she's a serial killer there and then.

I think they've all said they regret not acting sooner haven't they? It's not exactly like a situation they face everyday...people on here struggle enough with the idea she's a serial killer and that's after two trials.

people on here struggle enough with the idea she's a serial killer and that's after two trials.

And people think she IS a serial killer because she kissed the cat

He only had a hunch that suspicious things were happening around her

His best course of action was definitely to wait for her to murder more babies until he could be certain then.

https://herald.wales/national-news/new-email-casts-doubt-on-key-letby-evidence/

I'm sorry, but "I can't sleep at night" Jayaram perjured himself, according to the emails.

And people think she IS a serial killer because she kissed the cat

No, based on a little thing called a 10 month trial...

His best course of action was definitely to wait for her to murder more babies until he could be certain then.

Well that's what everyone on here convinced of her innocence would do...

https://lawhealthandtech.substack.com/p/lucy-letby-the-trial-for-baby-k

Worth reading for the uninformed. ... mentioning no names....

That's not quite right. The Cheshire Coroner, interviewed at Thirlwall, stated that the process would have been the same except observed by a police officer. Since the pathologists found natural causes of death in 6 of 7 cases, one would assume they would have found them still. However, the consultants' failure to report any concerns about unnatural deaths does suggest that, at that time, the concerns did not exist.

I meant it was you guys - maybe not you but one of the other supporters arguing nothing at post mortem - = no murder

which isn’t true

I thought you believed they didn’t report as they were covering own work

What kind of a weird comment is that!
It appears the truth is inconvenient for those who want to believe she's guilty.

There's another thread where LL's demeanour when she was arrested is called into question as " an innocent person wouldn't behave like that"
Some people arrive at very very odd conclusions and don't appear to be concerned about evidence. Some people are 60/40 in favour of her guilt but don't realise this would be an innocent verdict.