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.

The saddest thing was baby D's mother testimony, they called here Sarah I think, and the baby Zoe (obviously not real names). I was in tears about that, poor family.

Do you also not understand what solicitors advise their clients to do during questioning?
No comment is so that they don’t get primed by the person questioning in a way that makes them say something that could be used against them later.
Innocent people have been caught out that way.

She has been convicted twice by jurries who saw all the evidence and sat through a long trial and heard everythong. All those saying they have looked at the evidence and say she is innocent have not sat through all the evidence and the defence arguments. They have read selective information and opinions and formed their opinion based on this and whatever is on the internet. Their opinion doesn't actually matter. The jurry opinion is what counts. Twice our judiciary has said there are no grounds for retrial.
It's really insulting to the jurry to just say she is not guilty. As it stands she is guilty as found by her peers. Saying she is not guilt is just not correct.

A group of the world's most Eminent neonatal experts looked into all the evidence and concluded that there was no evidence whatsoever of foul play.
The prosecutions star witness wasnt even a neonatal specialist. He just rang up and said he will testify and they said yeah ok 😡

This is what I thought and I completely blamed the police for this; they had zero evidence of murder and told the parents that this was what had happened to their child! Shocking. Of course they won't backtrack on that.

You're mocking "internet detectives," yet, Lucy Letby was convicted by a jury. A jury consists solely of lay people, so they were clearly no better than internet detectives.

Why is it legitimate for lay people in the jury to decide on her guilt, but not lay people on the internet?

It was actually easy to follow the trial and the evidence as it was reported.

The man whose work they based the ‘air embolism’ theory on completely disagreed with the way his work was used and stated they had even wrongly identified the rash on the babies.
The mother of one baby was not given antibiotics when she should have been. The failings in that hospital was shocking.

Let’s not forget that juries get things wrong. A lot.

Was that note not written after the first time she was arrested? If so, it was hardly a secret admission of guilt if she knew there was a very high chance that the police would find it.

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.

What? I was crying because their baby was killed by the serial killer nurse! Nothing to do with the police.

She was a patsy

Leaving aside the case itself, and while I have great respect for the legal system, I always wonder what exactly is going on in people’s heads when they absolutely insist that the system can’t get it wrong. Have you heard of miscarriages of justice? Andrew Malkinson? The post office case? There are likely many such cases. Humans are very fallible.

Me too.

Felling sorry for a child killer. Pathetic

And yes I followed the trial every day and to say there’s no evidence is laughable.

It’s the families of the babies I feel sorry for, who are NEVER centered in conversations around Letby.

Its extraordinary that people just can’t see a woman like Letby could be a child killer, so they conclude she mustn’t be.

Except they have seen evidence and most internet detectives haven’t

The evidence the jury was presented was incomplete, based on flawed opinion with no precedent, and factually false in some cases - door swipe data for example. That's the whole point. That's why it needs to be re-examined because that is an insult to the jury. And the parents. And the whole premise of the system.

Some people posting clearly haven't bothered to see the programme.
There is no evidence of murder.
All of the babies cases were reviewed by actual experts - not a pay for hire "expert" like the twit using a 1989 study incorrectly and falsely suggesting he knew what he was talking about - they got the actual author of the study to come to UK and explain he had misinterpreted his work!

I'm sure the members of both juries can see as well as anyone else that evidence and arguments have emerged since the trials that could change the verdict.

Poor families, yes it was in bad taste. Maybe one day things will die down and the poor victims of this mass murderer will be able to live their lives in peace.

Yes, after she was arrested:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/article/2024/sep/03/i-am-evil-i-did-this-lucy-letbys-so-called-confessions-were-written-on-advice-of-counsellors

Unless all the families agreed to this documentary it’s in very bad taste and just fuels the Lucy fan club even more. Imagine your baby being killed and people adore their killer and see her as a poster child for the wronged

Imagine blaming a nurse when the trust is trying to cover their arse and not realising it was due to staffing rather than a murder. Imagine being told your baby was murdered when it wasn't.

So why do you think the defence couldn’t provide experts beyond a plumber and couldn’t win their case if there was “no evidence”? Did you follow every part of the case?

Two things can be true - a nurse can be a killer and a hospital can provide poor care.

and yes I do blame Letby because she killed those babies. You may not like it but it’s true

Shadowing Ravi were you? Working on the unit? Caught her red handed did you?

If I had a baby that passed away, I would not be comforted by someone being jailed if they were innocent.

That's why it's important that the conviction is challenged, because a person being wrongly jailed isn't going to provide comfort to the families of those babies.

🥱
Yes because that’s the ONLY way to know if someone did something