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.

Gosh firefly I’m with you - posters are talking as if it’s all been tried at trial and it’s decided!! Like we are being stupid because we are not immediately saying “oh well then” that’s it anyone can come forward and gazump what’s been decided happened.

especially with insulin cases - top neonate specialists in this country agree with the insulin cases - yet people on here just say “the insulin cases have been shown to be untrue”
so now she’s innocent - begs belief!!

they've decided to go with that set of peoples reasons as if they can just say “oh well the trial stuff wasn’t true”

it was true enough - ten months - weeks of cross examination.

you can’t just agree with the panel and tell others they are wrong without it going through a process

Yes and people keep mentioning the newer Dr Shoo Lee statement that argued that the prosecution’s evidence was flawed, but apparently this was submitted to the court of appeal and they looked at his findings but didn’t consider that it would have made any material difference so leave to appeal was rejected.

In fact she’s now had two court of appeal challenges refused now, not just a lengthy jury trial, so it does seem as though she’s had a fair and thorough process with senior judges reviewing all the evidence.

Because many people are willing to put their names and reputations on the line saying that the evidence doesn't add up or prove what the prosecution say it proves.

It depends on how the CCRC handle it and whether they've instructed their own experts or not.

@Firefly1987

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

Maybe you're working for Dewi Evans PR firm 🧐🧐

The information Shoo Lee presented at the Court of Appeal in 2024 is a tiny fraction - about 3% in length at most, of the work he and his fellow experts produced on the medical cases in 2024 and 2025.

So while it's interesting to see how the Court of Appeal was thinking back then, he hasn't gone back with the same evidence for the CCRC. So the Court of Appeal judgement isn't particularly important to the new submission.

I don't think any top neonatal specialists in this country have commented on the suggestions Chase and Shannon have drawn from their recent research at all. Any top expert would be open to new information from scientific research. They'll be learning and producing new knowledge themselves all the time, in their positions.

Yes I guess we’ll see what happens with that.
Also what about the circumstantial evidence? Even if you can come up with alternative explanations for each individual death, the circumstantial evidence in itself could potentially be enough to convict beyond reasonable doubt?

I think it was reported the death rate was 30 times higher while she was in post, and it came down to almost nothing after she was removed apparently.
And then there are the notes she wrote, her bringing all the files home and lying about the shredder. There did seem to be an awful lot of circumstantial evidence against her.

I think the problem there is that, if you have different explanations for the deaths, there's nothing making these deaths more suspicious than any other deaths.

So then we have to think, right. Lots of nurses have been at lots of deaths, unfortunately. (Especially in the scandal hit maternity units).

Do we know if any of them hoarded notes, looked patients up on Facebook and might lie or get confused under pressure about owning something?

Because otherwise, it feels as if we would just be singling Lucy Letby out despite no longer having any reason to.

They don't look at anything but the medical evidence-it makes it very convenient to just dismiss all the damning circumstantial evidence if they just say "oh well this expert said no murders so lets not bother ourselves with the rest of the evidence"-it's a lack of being able to see the whole picture. That's the basic difference between the two sides. There really was swathes of circumstantial evidence against her! But they don't think any of that is important so here we are...

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.

Of course you don't, I would never suggest that anyone who ignores half of the posts or can't support claims with actual facts would make things up.

PS - saying "same" was something I stopped doing when I was in secondary school, I realised that people didn't believe me as it was an easy claim to make. "You smell NaB" "Same to you"

Chester stopped taking such premature babies and multiple birth babies at the same time Letby was removed from the ward. Very few of the indictment babies would have been there had they been born after the end of June 2016. Very little can be inferred from the decrease in deaths.

Interestingly, there was a correspondingly high rate of stillbirths at Chester during 2015 and 2016 but Letby can’t be blamed for those because she wasn’t a midwife.

The judges didn’t understand what he was saying - that much is clear from the judgement.

It talks repeatedly about the fact that the Lee and Tanswell paper did identify skin discolouration. Which it did, of course, but not in the context of venous air embolism.

The medical experts have looked at the medical evidence, but McDonald has also submitted reports from statisticians. These would consider circumstantial evidence.

@Oftenaddled yeah there was far more than just the stats of her being around so many deaths.

Presumably the statisticians can also app!y their expertise to Facebook searches and handover notes. And of course the defence also has an expert witness who is a forensic psychologist able to comment on those "confession notes".

It's just not the case that they are only looking at medical evidence

None of that means they're right though does it. It's still just opinion.

And I don't think Dewi Evans even has a PR firm, that's Mcdonald's thing and the only card he has to play. He does it well I'll give him that, but who knows why people lap up everything he says without question.

I'm not the one constantly bringing up DE, in fact I'm always pointing out there were other experts who agreed with him. Sandie Bohen, insulin experts, a forensic pathologist. Mike Hall basically agreed with some of the prosecution and thinks that Shoo Lee's panel aren't up to much and have made a lot of errors that will be exposed and will actually harm her case...

There's a reason we normally pay experts handsomely for a scientifically informed, evidence-based opinion.

We're not paying for an opinion in the sense of asking a randomer in the street to take a vox pop. There's no "just" about these opinions.

Source for the Mike Hall information?

But only one nurse was at all those deaths, so that’s what made her suspicious, and accordingly warranted the investigation in which the other pieces of evidence were found.

Then there’s the fact that she had a lengthy trial, with a KC I think - the most senior barrister you can have, and her defence team apparently chose not to call very many defence witnesses in support, which in itself is odd, if there were so many flaws with the prosecution evidence and other explanations for the deaths. And the case has now been looked at, and rejected, twice by the Court of Appeal.

I haven’t watched the Netflix doc tbh because I don’t like true crime so maybe I’ve missed something but it does seem she’s had due process, I guess we’ll see what happens with the ccrc though.

But if the deaths turn out to have natural explanations, how are they different from any other deaths? And nobody has been counting how many nurses are at deaths from natural causes.

She has had due process - maybe. If you don't count police not disclosing relevant evidence. But due process hasn't prevented hundreds of miscarriages of justice in this country, unfortunately

Didn't happen. Major exaggeration of his position

But she wan't there for all of the deaths that were put forward, and those that were discounted were discounted because she wasn't there. Not because of any medical evidence.

He said it in the second panorama documentary IIRC.

I doubt he does have a PR firm, it was just a joke to point out how ridiculous your comments were, and I certainly don't think anyone connected to MM would be wasting their time on MN on these threads discussing these points with the same 5 people over and over again, do you think someone on the team is devoted to trying to change your mind? 😅

If you're not saying things like that it's that all of this is only because she's white and blonde, but when shown the problems with that and asked to explain your logic you ignore that and then wait a few pages to throw out another 'you only think this because she's white'.

I also don't care if Mike Hall agreed with everything or not, I don't think some disagreement is a bad thing.

But only one nurse was at all those deaths, so that’s what made her suspicious, and accordingly warranted the investigation in which the other pieces of evidence were found.

Exactly! They act like everyone on that unit should've been arrested and had their houses raided when they'd already been eliminated as not having the opportunity to harm the babies. Lucy was the only one whose name came up time and time again and they're acting like a police investigation into her is somehow problematic? Ridiculous!