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.

Do you have a source for this?
And are you implying that this means the case wasn’t reported on properly? Because contempt of court a really serious crime

What part of Liz Hull’s writing is inaccurate?

I do trust live court reporting actually because the standard is so extremely high and contempt of court is taken so seriously that no journalist would dare misreport what happened in court, unless they wanted to go to jail.

Me too, though I have always thought she was guilty and the programme affirms that for me.

I also worry that juries can’t keep their emotions in check when it’s something that involves children, and in particular, babies.

There are a lot of highly emotional people out there. You only have to read Mumsnet on a daily basis to see that many people are governed by emotion and struggle to keep them in check. It blinkers their ability to think critically and rationally.

People seem to be becoming less and less educated about things, despite having more opportunities than ever.
Perhaps the whole jury service really thing does need a rethink.

It's not even about intelligence, there's bound to be lots of juries who skewed very smart. One of them has probably ended up on a trial with expert evidence at some point. But however smart someone is, that doesn't make them sufficiently trained in a particular specialism to assess the evidence.

I normally don't wade into threads like this. The most compelling evidence of her innocence is that of the Canadian chair of neonatology who had no dog in this fight. The prosecution expert Evans misused the data in one of his original research papers from 20 years ago. He went back and reviewed his own work and helped to assemble a panel of some of the best neonatologists in the world to review the notes of each baby who died. These genuine leaders in baby care said there was no evidence of foul play (agreeing with the original coroners report) but said there was a catalogue of terrible care and patient mismanagement which led to the deaths of the babies.

I think this is a more plausible explanation given there was no direct evidence and much more damaging sadly for the NHS.

2 ward rounds a week's for very sick babies? That is pretty poor.

Sure - it was reported in a good few news outlets but Private Eye doesn't have a paywall

https://www.private-eye.co.uk/pictures/special_reports/lucy-letby-21.pdf

The Mail confirmed it, and it is evidenced in Operation Hummingbird's online accounts.

I don't think Hull's direct reporting of the trial was terribly inaccurate - anyone can have a few slips - but the podcasts, her post trial journalism, and her opinion pieces show a strong selection bias toward police and prosecution.

The weird thing for me about the start of this programme is the fact she wants to coddle her cat!! She’s been arrested for killing babies and she wants to cuddle the cat! It’s almost as if she knows she’s not coming back.

Ironically, in hindsight, it’s looking more and more likely they called the exact witness that should have led to a no guilty - the plumber.

One of the biggest miscarriages of justice in the 21st century.

I actually wish she was innocent. I think if I was in their position I'd rather my baby had died because of natural causes rather than murdered by some sick bastard.

So from what I gather Media Factory (which Chesham rhns) does do media workshops.

Not a conflict of interest at all. And very common for press teams to attend these workshops.

To suggest that Caroline Cheetham was paid by Cheshire police to falsely report on the Letby case is a very libellous accusation. Not to mention accusing her of contempt of court. Is that what you’re doing?

Again I’m not sure if you understand how court reporting works but if you listen to any of The Trial podcasts whilst trials are still happening, there’s no bias - it’s reporting what said. Irving more nothing less.

Exactly this. As part of my job I have to explain technical information to other people. I do not doubt their intelligence for one moment but they do not have the same background or specific education and it often shows. I am very sure I would struggle if many of them explained their sphere of expertise to me.

If I was facing charges relating to my work a true "jury of my peers" would really be people with the same education/experience as me rather than random people.

Why? The plumber gave very little information except he was called to a job and as it turns out this had no bearing on any illnesses in the neonatal ward.

It is interesting though that they called no expert witnesses. Letby was defended by an extremely good KC

Of course it's a conflict of interest. The Mail Publishing Group acknowledged this. It was never declared.

To be selective in reporting facts from a trial is not contempt of court. To be biased and sloppy in your reporting afterwards is likewise not contempt of court. It's just poor journalism.

I was being facetious, alluding to it looking more and more likely that the unsanitary state of the hospital probably compromised already very sick babies.

The people who think this conviction is unsafe - if the “new evidence” changes the picture so significantly, why has she not been given leave to challenge the conviction?

Because the law as it stands is an ass.

And because the ramifications of the biggest trial of the century turning out to be the biggest fubar in judicial history will be so huge both financially and reputationally that it could collapse the system, and certainly do irreperable damage in terms of people's faith in it.

Because it’s actually not that easy.
There’s also a lot people fighting it because it’s going to have huge ramifications on our legal system.

So she can never report on organisations who use her business? Don’t be ridiculous.

What facts were they selective in reporting? Because they covered every day of the defence case and (that they were allowed to)

I am supporting her as I genuinely believe she is innocent and what’s chilling about this is the massive cover up behind it. It certainly sends a very dark and grim message to anybody in the NHS who considers raising a grievance doesn’t it?

Didn't people try and raise concerns/ a grievance on the unit , but Lucy's Dad came and threatened/intimidated them ?

Worth stressing once again that the COA are being asked to rule on a narrow legal test. Even if it turns out there was an MOJ, that doesn't mean the judges are wrong to refuse permission. There have been previous examples of cases that were denied leave all 3 times that were later shown to have been innocent. The test isn't do they think this person is guilty or not.

She would need to declare an interest, yes.

No

Where have you heard that?

Sorry, entered too soon. The consultants who raised concerns never had any contact with Lucy Letby's father. He did express anger, afterwards, that they were accusing his daughter of being a murderer, but this was to their manager.