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.

Not really. Serial killers do have certain types of victims. Things were happening on that unit that was disproportionately affecting twins/triplets and they were collapsing of completely unrelated things. Around one nurse, of course.

Some people are 60/40 in favour of her guilt but don't realise this would be an innocent verdict.

Maybe they realise that it's just a stupid mumsnet discussion and has no bearing on what they'd think if they listened to 10 months worth of evidence in court.

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

As suspected you obviously don't actually read any other replies, you can also add cried at the wrong time and didn't cry at the right time.

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

If I suspected anyone of hurting babies I would instantly report them, and live with it if I was wrong. I note the silly dig again.

A natural cause of death at postmortem is usually taken as an indication there has been no murder. If there are compelling new discoveries, this can be overturned of course. The prosecution's case for doing so was unscientific and, in the eyes of neonatologists following the trial, based on physical impossibilities.

I certainly think that, if the consultants had wanted to make the pathologist aware of the operation undertaken on baby O, they would have been able to do so. Certainly, it was their legal obligation to do so.

Equally, if they believed that baby O's death was suspicious, it was their legal obligation to report this immediately to the coroner and to raise it in the paperwork they sent to the coroner's office.

I can't really see any explanation for these facts beyond: they didn't then think the death was suspicious, and they didn't want to mention the procedure which was followed by intensive bleeding.

Neonatal mortality and morbidity also disproportionately affect twins and triplets, of course.

Did anyone answer whether there's a forensic pathologist on the expert panel?

Exactly, and with the jury there was only 3 unanimous guilty verdicts, I imagine the hold out juror has serious concerns about the 3 they thought she was guilty of now, baby O and the insulin cases.

We don't know what way the 12th juror would have gone if they had been there for the verdicts, they may also have been unconvinced for most or all also.

If there's a retrial they need 10-2 for a majority verdict so if only 3 were unconvinced it would be a mistrial.

A retrial, that's optimistic...

Have you read that analysis I linked to about Baby K? It's based on the evidence presented at court.

If you weren't worried that there was a possibility of it then you wouldn't be on all of these threads.......

I'm not worried in the slightest. Also nothing to do with me, would think it'd be terrible for the parents though. Just from a psychology perspective it's amazing how you can't all see who the person is you're defending. I think that's what keeps me coming back, just disbelief that you can argue for her innocence.

Do you not realise that if you weren't here arguing with people and saying 'what about this' and 'what about that' that there wouldn't be pages and pages and pages of people explaining it to you and what was wrong with the evidence and instead the threads would be a lot lighter and only updated when there was updates in the news or new news articles?

If you don't want it being discussed then you're going the wrong way about it because you're part of the reason why it's being discussed so much.

Just like when Liz Hull criticised MM about being so public and he said 'hold on now Liz, you're doing the exact same thing with your blog and podcast'.

Did MM need to alert the media when he dropped the submission off at the CCRC? No he didn't, but did Liz Hull and whoever showed up have to actually turn up and report on it? Also no. They chose to, because then they have something to write about and do podcasts about.

Yes, on the international panel. Dr Cohen is a trained forensic pathologist, specialising in neonatal and paediatric cases.

We don't have a full list of who is on the UK panel as far as I know.

You could say pessimistic. The CPS may decide not to try to defend the charges, in which case Lucy Letby will be exonerated without a retrial.

It's even more amazing that you simply refuse to acknowledge anything which doesn't fit your confirmation bias, you ignore anything which is an uncomfortable truth, make claims which can't be backed up.

As @kkloo pointed out - the person worrying at this is you.

I would guess 90%+ of the thread(s) contents are rebuking your dubious points, and some of them have been rebuked many times and no doubt in the next day or so you will make the same points again so they can all be rebuked again.

just disbelief that you can argue for her innocence.

once again - people are arguing for a retrial, while there's a lot of feeling LL is innocent, I think most people want the conviction, if she did in fact "do it", to be sound, it currently isn't even close.

If you don't want it being discussed then you're going the wrong way about it because you're part of the reason why it's being discussed so much.

Never said I don't want it discussed, I draw the line at some people declaring she's almost certainly innocent though when they have no idea.

Just like when Liz Hull criticised MM about being so public and he said 'hold on now Liz, you're doing the exact same thing with your blog and podcast'.

She's a journalist it's literally her job, he's a barrister. Maybe he should've gone into journalism instead and then his love of the limelight might've made more sense. Ever seen Ben Myers acting like this? No he's never spoken out at all. Because he's actually professional. Which is one of many reasons why I know who is the much better barrister.

It's even more amazing that you simply refuse to acknowledge anything which doesn't fit your confirmation bias, you ignore anything which is an uncomfortable truth, make claims which can't be backed up.

You do the same. And everything I post I get told is wrong. Just because I believe what was explored at and reported on at trial. Sorry but in this day and age there's so much misinformation. And all my claims can be backed up-but you know why it's hard to find sources? Because 99% of things on google now are about why she's innocent and I have to wade through tons of crap to get to the sources I'm looking for.

As pointed out - the person worrying at this is you.

On the contrary-I personally would welcome a new trial, her to be found guilty a THIRD time and for all this innocence nonsense to finally go away. But it's not for me to say-I'm not involved in it. And I still don't think it'd go away as people would then demand another trial and pick apart all the things they think was wrong with it. They're not going to be happy until a jury finally agrees with their view she's not guilty. The UK doesn't have a bottomless pit of money to do infinite trials.

once again - people are arguing for a retrial, while there's a lot of feeling LL is innocent, I think most people want the conviction, if she did in fact "do it", to be sound, it currently isn't even close.

If you would genuinely be happy just to have a retrial and accept the verdict then fine. I just don't see that happening because you've argued you're right all this time and I don't see you accepting another view.

Many have more of an idea than you do because they know a lot more about the case than you.

She's a journalist it's literally her job, he's a barrister

And is she doing the job out of the goodness of her heart or is to make money and maybe a name for herself?

There was no reason for Liz Hull to go to the CCRC to speak to MM except for because she's trying to make material out of the outrage, if she was that outraged herself she wouldn't give him the publicity.

MM is a barrister and handling a miscarriage of justice case which is obviously different than if he was representing her in the courtroom. Surely you can see the very obvious differences between BMs job when he represented her and MMs job when he's now representing her.

@Firefly1987
Sorry but in this day and age there's so much misinformation. And all my claims can be backed up-but you know why it's hard to find sources? Because 99% of things on google now are about why she's innocent and I have to wade through tons of crap to get to the sources I'm looking for.

You're using the trial reporting as your sources and think that that backs up your claims, even though pretty much all of the new stuff that is coming out is showing why those claims were misleading and why the narrative spun at court simply wasn't accurate.

Have you read the analysis I linked regarding Baby K and why do you think Ravi Jayaram gave evidence in court that didn't reflect the medical notes made at the time?

You do the same. And everything I post I get told is wrong. Just because I believe what was explored at and reported on at trial. Sorry but in this day and age there's so much misinformation. And all my claims can be backed up-but you know why it's hard to find sources? Because 99% of things on google now are about why she's innocent and I have to wade through tons of crap to get to the sources I'm looking for.

I'm open to anything, showing innocence or guilt but I've asked you twice (and others have asked for other things) to back up some of your claims and you simply ignore it. If sources are so hard to find, as you claim, does that mean you actually are just making things up ? From my looking at google and the likes, admittedly cursory, there are plenty with your views "Baby Murderer", and yet weirdly they don't have any hard evidence either - only "the jury found her guilty so she must be". You obviously haven't read the Baby K article either.

On the contrary-I personally would welcome a new trial, her to be found guilty a THIRD time and for all this innocence nonsense to finally go away. But it's not for me to say-I'm not involved in it.

For someone "not involved in it" you sure invest a lot of time repeating the same things

f you would genuinely be happy just to have a retrial and accept the verdict then fine. I just don't see that happening because you've argued you're right all this time and I don't see you accepting another view.

Talking to yourself or me ?

And why exactly do you think you can trust stuff that has come out much later rather than what was tested in a UK court? And what about when the CCRC rejects all the "new evidence" are you going to accept her guilt then?

I read about half of it. I'd have to go back and see what was said about baby K in court to make much of it. Maybe you should do the same.

What makes you think I haven't? Plus, the article is partly based on what was said in court. Plus further more detailed analysis of what it meant.

I'm open to anything, showing innocence or guilt but I've asked you twice (and others have asked for other things) to back up some of your claims and you simply ignore it. If sources are so hard to find, as you claim, does that mean you actually are just making things up ?

What have you asked me for other than the source of her having handover sheets under her bed? I looked for it and there was so much truther crap on every google page I eventually gave up. I don't make stuff up but you got me I should've checked before I repeated that.

For someone "not involved in it" you sure invest a lot of time repeating the same things

Same. I think some of you are VERY close to this case, or maybe working for MM's PR firm!

Talking to yourself or me ?

No one wants her to be a baby killer, you do get that right?