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.

Really, so why didn't Sherwood Forest invent a serial killer nurse then? Why did COCH resort to that when there were worse spikes at other hospitals? Because it's very little do with any spikes it's the circumstances around them.

Maybe the consultants at Sherwood Forest weren't narcissistic and full of hubris?

@MistressoftheDarkSide if Lucy hadn't been identified right from the start people would be saying "that proves she isn't guilty because people didn't suspect her" but because they did it's "they unfairly singled her out, she's a scapegoat"-can't win with the truthers. All they want is her back out on the street again, not justice.

Not so
I want to be convinced
a) murders took place and this is very much debated by world renowned experts and
b) LL got a fair trial and was guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Again many many people with far more experience and knowledge than me have voiced their opinions that this didn't take place because of errors and inaccuracies i.e regarding statistics etc
I will repeat
If she is guilty then she should remain in prison. If not she needs to be released and compensated.
We all benefit from a society where justice is done and when challenged can be proven to have been done.

If she is guilty then she should remain in prison. If not she needs to be released and compensated.

@Iamateadrinker so right back out onto a neonatal unit near you? What a horrific prospect. If she gets let out it'll be on a technicality not because she didn't murder and harm babies in the most sadistic ways.

We all benefit from a society where justice is done and when challenged can be proven to have been done.

Thankfully for all of us (even those who don't realise it) the powers that be are making sure to keep her locked up away from babies for the rest of her life. I think we should all be thankful for that benefit.

You are saying that if she is not guilty she needs to remain locked up anyway.

I don't think many people will agree

@Oftenaddled no I'm saying if she gets let out it WON'T be because she's not guilty it'll be because it's an impossible case to prove to the standards some people seem to require. Thankfully I know her convictions won't be overturned because some people on social media and a handful of experts who want a name for themselves want her to be.

I’ll ask you again. What were these symptoms that indicated intravenous air embolism?

Evans was asked and all he could say was “Baby collapsed and died”.

Don't be ridiculous. Letby is never going to nurse again, whatever happens. For one, she's been struck off.

That aside, every single conviction could be declared unsafe, or retried and found not guilty, and it would still be absolutely impossible. I highly doubt she'd be mentally able to cope anyway, given the state she was in even before conviction. But even if she could, no hospital could employ her because there are far too many people who have too deep a faith in her guilt, and the risk of some of them turning up and doing something deranged is far too high. The security risk from other people alone would be substantial.

She would have to change her name and try to live a life entirely unnoticed. In the event that she's capable of work again, and serious MOJ victims often aren't, she won't be able to do anything public facing.

Your desperation gets worse at each post.

CoC did not identify any issues when babies were dying, the murder scenario came along later, pushed by Consultants who had caused problems for LL and had been rebuked. Once again you state your (somewhat weird) opinions as if they are facts,

Thankfully I know her convictions won't be overturned because some people on social media and a handful of experts who want a name for themselves want her to be.

You know no such thing and she wont be denied a retrial because FireFly1987 says she's definitely a baby murderer "because I know"

She was struck off because of her convictions. The NHS cannot refuse to employ her because too many people have "deep faith" in her guilt. Essentially she would struggle to work in the UK because there are so many stupid people who think they are medical and forensic experts because they use google and, as demonstrated on this thread, they think they know she is guilty. I have no idea if she's innocent or guilty, but she definitely needs a fair trial. Unsafe convictions are hugely destructive and costly as well as ruining people's lives. Anyone who cared about the families would support a robust retrial in pursuit of finding out what really happened to the babies and to ensure that if anyone is convicted of a crime, they actually committed it. Unfortunately major concerns have been raised by really credible professionals from the very beginning in this case.

I don't actually think it would come to the NHS refusing to employ her as a neonatal nurse in this situation, as she'd have to want to get back on the NMC register again and succeed in doing so before the question arose. It's not an automatic process, even if the convictions are overturned. You have to actively apply.

People who've been wrongly imprisoned for a long time tend not to have very good mental health, and we know Letby's was poor even before the conviction. I can't imagine poor Andrew Malkinson or Gerry Conlon being capable of sustaining a professional accreditation and career, for example.

There's also the politics. There are people more powerful than Letby in the NHS, the consultants at Chester, who staked their reputations and in some cases lied to the court. She would just be far, far more trouble than someone who hadn't done any nursing in many years would be worth. You reference all the dipshit ghouls and loons in your post, do you not think the NHS would have to consider the risk of one of them/some violent arsehole who's been imbibing too much of their bullshit turning up and kicking off?

I'm not saying this is fair, and agree fully that there are very clear legitimate concerns wrt the convictions.

She’d never get back on the register. Firstly she’d have to do a Return to Practice course as she’s been out of work so long. She hasn’t done 370 hours or however many it is in the last 3 years, nor has she done 45 hours of CPD.

But also the nmc would have a hearing on other stuff such as taking hand over notes home, etc. normally they wouldn’t be particularly bothered about that sort of stuff but I think in these circumstances they’d make sure that they say she hadn’t acted professionally and she wouldn’t be allowed back on the register.

but I do also think if she was freed she wouldn’t want to go back to nursing. She’d probably get massive compensatory for a start???

She's not guaranteed any compensation at all, even if she's released. Well except about 14 pounds they all get for the bus home.

I agree that the chances of her wanting to nurse again are pretty slim and it would be a long road back.

I am not so sure the NMC would choose to make an example of her. That could be an extremely unpopular move with their members if she is shown to have been victim of a miscarriage of justice. They would also need to show that they were treating her the same way that they treated other members in the same circumstances, or they would leave themselves open to justifiable legal action.

If fit to work at all, I'd imagine she may be drawn to a role in advocacy or campaigning.

Even if she didn’t get compensation I’m sure she’d get paid by a newspaper/tv channel to do interviews? Book deal?

I'd be extremely surprised from a psychological point of view if she ever wanted to even think of trying to go back to nursing after this, given that complete exoneration is highly unlikely anyway.

Drawing on personal experience again (sorry) the fear of ever being in a position where if something "went wrong" it would be assumed it was your fault is a powerful motivation to ensure you protect yourself at all costs. I still, 30 years down the line from my own experience, would never allow myself to be alone with a baby. My DC is an only, because I was warned not to have any more (not officially of course because technically they "can't" do that.) DC is in his 30s, and hasn't procreated yet. If he does, I will position myself as a relatively hands off GM and never be alone with his offspring until they are old enough - posdibly secondary school age. Not just to protect nyself, but to protect any imaginary childs parents, who might be penalised for not taking safeguarding concerns seriously enough. My DC knows the whole story, and trusts me. I trust myself. But I am on LA record as an abuser, and there is even the possibility that should he and his DP go that route, the system would flag up that he was the victim of abuse, and therefore also a potential risk.

People really fail to appreciate the cumulative effects of this sort of thing for both the accused and their families.

If Lucy Letby is realeased, and it's in time for her to perhaps form a relationship, have children, can you imagine the furore of "risk management"?

She'll never practise as a nurse again. She'll never have a "normal" life.

@HighStreetOtter
I believe compensation is capped at 1.3 million for over 10 years imprisonment so it's not massive at all, and don't they deduct your imprisonment costs or something like that too? which is shocking....unless they changed that rule.

Awful to have to relive the trauma just to support yourself, though.

They no longer deduct "hotel" fees but they don't pay out at all if they don't feel it has been proved beyond doubt you didn't do it - in other words, a court can declare you not guilty but that's not enough. They reverse the burden of proof.

(Yet how else could you prove it, except where there's another culprit apprehended?)

Here's Andrew Malkinson getting the first "installment" of his compensation (still called) two years after his conviction was overturned. They're very far from saying, sorry about this, we'll do everything we can to help you get back on your feet. He was homeless for some time after release too

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cy9lz1wwr20o

Agreed but then also I believe Amanda Knox said it's difficult to extract your own identity from what you've been through so being a victim of a miscarriage of justice can become your identity. Amanda Knox was and still is slated for everything she has done publicly since but I believe up until recently she wasn't even making any money from what she was doing, she was just paying off the debts from legal fees etc.
I think in recent years Amanda definitely seems likes she's come to terms with and healed from her trauma a lot, she comes across a lot happier in interviews, and it probably has helped that she has had a purpose in the innocence project etc to focus on and she's had kids, but what happened to her changed the course of her life and even though she can now give her trauma purpose it has definitely changed the course of her life forever, she'll never just be Amanda Knox, she'll always be a victim of miscarriage of justice.

She has a podcast about the Lucy Letby case next week.

I see this thread is about to fill up - for anyone who hasn't found their way there, the case is also being discussed at https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/5488978-to-think-lucy-letby-couldve-done-more-to-help-herself-if-she-really-wasnt-guilty?page=1