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.

If I was one of the parents, I’d want the right person punished. The person responsible.
If I thought for one second that the real reason/person my baby died had got away with it, I’d be dam well wanting justice to be done.

When children and innocent babies are involved, people understandably want someone to blame. They got that in Lucy.
The problem is that there is far too much evidence to suggest that the REAL reason for those babies dying has not been uncovered. And we should all be horrified about that.

Neither would I

But Letby isn’t innocent

I'm sorry but "she was there" isn't a way of proving she did something either.

No it isn’t.

So it’s a good job that wasn’t the prosecution’s case isn’t it

I’m watching it now and I’m quite convinced she is guilty.

Out of interest a closing statement on the documentary said the hospital was subject to a police investigation for manslaughter , does anyone know what that’s about .

It's strange the way people who are convinced of LLs guilt think the best way to make their point is by telling us how absurd it is that anyone could doubt the conviction and how very dare they. That just makes you sound thick.

I'm not ruling out the possibility that she did it, and would be interested to hear well reasoned points that I might not have thought of myself. But you do have to actually explain why any doubts people have are laughable or whatever, if you want to be listened to.

Plenty of people, and experts on neonatal care (which I’m guessing you aren’t?), disagree with you.

You are entirely allowed to feel whatever way you do about it, but you can’t refute that there are some serious questions that need to be raised about the validity of this conviction. Even simply from a British justice aspect, rather than the actual case.

Yes, it's about whether managers could have stopped her sooner. (It's assuming she's guilty of course)

If you saw it then join the prosecution!
There is no evidence at all and experts agree there is no murder.
This is why the police and NHS don't want it back in the docks.

That is interesting as I took that as they would be charging the trust for systemic failings that resulted in death due to malpractice arising from the staffing shortages and overworked under-trained employees.

Well it kind of was, given they didn't investigate unexplained deaths when she wasn't there.

And oh yes, the "expert" had to revise a whole cause of death because he believed she had been there prior to an x-ray being taken, only it had been taken the day before.....when she wasn't there....

Yes - since there was no forensic and eyewitness evidence, the case was entirely based on the assertion that she was (probably) there at (loosely defined) times when something (we can't define or prove and don't have to) happened.

Feels like Groundhog Day again. I remember when the case first happened and a minority of us were raising questions on here. We were absolutely lynched.

Thankfully since then there have been some strong experts casting doubt on the case and the needle is moving in the right direction.

Some observations:

All of us SHOULD be scrutinising the legal system. It isn’t perfect, it isn’t airtight. This is how it is held to account and it improves. It’s bizarre to suggest we should blindly trust it.

Let’s flip the narrative some vocal posters are pushing for a moment. These posters are insisting she is guilty. These are the posters who are, at the same time, instead of pointing to the evidence they should be sharing if they are so convinced (you know, like those of us who are concerned with the validity of the conviction have been doing) are OBSESSED with her appearance. I am seeing it over and over again. It’s practically gleeful, the idea that (their words) a pretty white woman is convicted. What is this, internalised misogyny? A continuation of the reflection of current political climates? A weird form of virtue signalling EDI? It’s bizarre. Stop fixating on her appearance for one moment. This isn’t a soap opera.

I can’t say I especially think I need to convince people of her guilt. But id recommend listening to the Mail The Trial podcast if you want to hear in full. They covered the trial in real time, and reenacted court transcripts so you hear all the evidence exactly as it was presented. Because it was such a long trial theres hundreds of hours of the podcast so its a slog but its worthwhile

The fact that there are people on this thread who blindly believe that truth always prevails in our justice system is horrifying, but not altogether surprising.

A conviction on such tenuous evidence should make us all sit up and question it, whether you think LL is innocent or not.

We should all be worried about this. All of us. And not because of Letby.

Interestingly, I followed the podcast and have actually listened to it twice in full.
Not one thing convinced me of her guilt. I was actually gobsmacked at the guilty verdict.

Why didn’t the defence call any expert witnesses? No one seems to know the answer to this.

The producers of the trial (Caroline Cheetham's company directly, Liz Hull by virtue of working for the company) received payments from Chester Police before, during and after the trial, from the budget for their case against Lucy Letby.

Some of this was described as for "media training", creating an obvious conflict of interest.

Liz Hull's writing on the case for the Mail is often inaccurate and she doesn't seem to understand some of the concepts she discusses.

I would not cite their work as a trusted source on this case.

There are many documentaries on TV which show the guilty party being arrested at home. They usually do it very early so they know the person will be in bed and easy to arrest.

A few people have actually put forward explanations for this. The general consensus is that they were going for no case to answer first, and then hoped that they had discredited the chief expert witness enough to win the case second.

Here is one of the explanations that has been proposed:
https://jollycontrarian.com/index.php/Lucy_Letby:_the_missing_defence_evidence

I have to say the Daily mails podcast om this is very good, if only because they explain the legalities and principles behind everything. Here is what I remember: a retrial can only come about if new evidence comes to light. Those expert opinions don't count - her defence team could have called on them, they could have formed part of her defence. But she had that chance.

This is why I wonder whether a jury trial is the right option for any case with a lot of technical evidence. I'd much prefer joint medical-legal qualified professionals decided such cases as this one. I have significant doubt about the safety of LL's conviction and it being decided by a jury of average people does nothing to increase my confidence.

Agreed. There are criminal cases where non-specialists are being expected to make decisions based on expert evidence they don't have the training or experience to understand. Incredibly naive to think they always get it right.

Yes . It’s like really complex financial cases . Sometimes things are so technical the average layman can’t understand what’s happening . I think there needs to be a better system for anything where complexities are likely beyond Joan from accounts.