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.

Oh calm down, go on YouTube, there are thousands of bodycam videos of arrests of convicted murderers.

If someone doesn’t want to be filmed being arrested in their bedroom then they shouldn’t bloody well commit murder.

Do you think convicted and guilty are always the same thing (let alone arrested)? I wish I had that degree of faith in the judicial system.

And the raw sewage dripping into nappies they’d placed on the ceiling…

Some things that were interesting in the documentary:

• that LL organised the handover notes of her designated babies from her shifts in chronological order in a box marked ‘Keep’.So many people defending LL have said that she would have just shoved the handover notes in a bag without much thought. But organising them in chronological order shows there was thought behind it. Not proof or wrongdoing but an interesting update.
• That there were other notes where she said ‘murder’,’murderer’ and ‘they will never know what happened’, that were not just on the infamous yellow post it note. Again, not necessarily proof but it shows that the public hasn’t seen all the evidence against her.

Now that’s just made up. 🙄

Except the same bacteria that killed patients in a Glasgow hospital with bad water and plumbing issues was also found in the lung of one of the babies Lucy was convicted of murdering. In addition two babies that were either side of that baby, fell ill from the same bug but were transferred out to a higher grade NICU and survived.

The presence of this killer bacteria is why an inquest has been opened.

No it isn’t.
*Evidence presented at her trial and subsequent inquiries confirmed there were multiple sewage and plumbing issues at the Countess of Chester.
This included “foul water” in the sinks, and drainage problems in what is an aging building from the 1960s, as well as a significant flood in the neonatal unit in January 2016.

Nappy pads were even sometimes placed in the ceiling voids above the unit to catch sewage leaking from pipes carrying waste from the floor above.

Dr Pitman said: “When the sewage leak was confirmed the unit should have been closed, the vulnerable babies moved out and/or transferred to other units until the issue has been sorted and cultures were negative.”*

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/38084263/letby-victim-deadly-bug-lung/

Your source?

On the second point, how and why would the response differ from, let’s say, the Birmingham 6, or any other miscarriage of justice in the last century? They didn’t cause the system to collapse.

Are you suggesting that leave hasn’t been granted to deliberately to avoid that outcome? That’s a very serious allegation.

I don't think this tells us much. If she wrote about (? accusations of) murder once, why not more than once. The explanation remains the same. It's what she was being accused of, its what was upsetting her.

As for the handover notes, they'd have come home with her from hospital in order so if she was in the habit of putting them in a box, they'd be in order in the box. (Or she may have organized them for reference, which is what I would have done if I was being accused of murder.). Always worth remembering that the vast majority of these notes had nothing to do with the children she was convicted of killing or harming

I’ve no idea as to whether she’s guilty or not. I do think there’s enough to point it towards it being an unsafe conviction though. I’ve no idea how the jurors were able to reach a verdict of her being guilty ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ though.

No idea what her life could look like if she was ever released though, her life has been ruined regardless hasn’t it.

Widening the scope a bit, but whether it's this or something else, imho the first MOJ involving both a conviction and realisation process during the mass Internet era has the potential to do much more damage than anything previously. We've not had that yet.

But my point is that challenging the conviction is necessary to prove it really is beyond all reasonable doubt.

If it's not challenged, then there's a risk that she's innocent. And if I had a baby involved in this, any realistic chance of an innocent person being put in prison would absolutely not bring me comfort.

The police interviews bear out what was seen in the court room too. LL cries often for herself, her cat, her lost job, police action against her, but displays zero emotion when discussing the babies who died on her shift. Somewhat surprising given her relentless messaging to colleagues about how sad her job is.

There needs to be significant new evidence to challenge a conviction.

I don't think many nurses would be crying a lot about patients who died 3-5 years after the event. She cried at the time, as parents testified. And she cried for one of them at her trial

People in caring positions shouldn't be expected to bury their own emotions - about their pets, their jobs, their lives - just because they deal with other people's pain and tragedy.

Did anyone ask the consultants whether they cried for the children who died?

There's plenty of new evidence. Obviously the documentary only scratched the surface. Here's Lucy Letby's legal team's summary from a year ago

https://thirlwall.public-inquiry.uk/document/letter-from-bhandal-law-to-lady-justice-thirlwall-dated-17-march-2025/

I hope the CCRC will respond soon. I think that even if peoplr believe Lucy Letby is guilty, they should want to see any potential miscarriage of justice taken seriously

It's interesting the arguments put forward by those who think she's guilty are very much a repeat of all the things that don't prove anything such as the notes, not crying at the right time, wanting to cuddle her cat etc.

The hard facts are when these babies died they had postmortems that all found causes of death which were nothing to do with air embolism/over feeding or any of the other theories concocted by Dewi Evans. This was accepted and was fact.

The police blindly went along with Dewi's theories and built a case to fit, dismissing any expert who challenged it (Jane Hutton). These theories have since been discounted as nonsense and even impossible by anyone who knows what they're talking about. It's like the people who still believe she's guilty have forgotten the actual facts of the case.

If the same trial happened again with the exact same incorrect evidence and theories presented by the prosecution and the same defence team another jury would probably find her guilty again. Her defence team did a terrible job by not calling any experts and the police did a terrible job by only having the one expert who wasn't a neonatal expert and was allowed to mark his own homework!

As others have said, people should be very worried about this. It could clearly happen to anyone.

Are you sick of the panel of paeditric experts as well? You sticking with the evidence of Dr Quack Evans?

Expert witness.
One
Who wasn't actually qualified to comment. And who has been widely discredited. A gob for hire.

As opposed to the international panel of experts reviewing the same evidence and concluding that there were no murders.

Except if the expert panel of neonatologists from around the world are to be believed those babies, or at least some of them may have died from mismanagement of their illness.
I think that would be absolutely devastating for a parent to know your child's death could have been prevented by better care. It's terrible for those families whatever the outcome for Lucy Letby is.

Says more about how you form judgenents than anything else.

I am indifferent to her race or class.
And she certainly isnt a beauty despite the claims that we are all swayed by it.

I am interested in the fact that the evidence against her was not credible
And even more interested that her defense team made no effort to defend her despite being contacted by experts willing to challenge the prosecution case .

I find that very strange indeed.

And on the basis of her defense either deliberately or incompetently failing to defend her, it should be declared a mistrial

Just to clarify: I've reread Jeremy Hunt's comments, and he never said he believes Letby is innocent. He said her case urgently needs to be re-examined, and that experts have raised serious and credible concerns about her conviction. Sorry if I misled anyone.

This is so insightful and I agree 100%. She taps into their protective instincts. She could be their adult daughter or granddaughter, niece etc. and men go gaga for a "damsel in distress"-there's A LOT of men really invested in her innocence. No one would care if she was middle-aged or old because people wouldn't feel the need to protect her. It's totally blinding them to her guilt.

Perhaps also think of Sally Clarke, Angela Canning, Alex Nealon, Sam Hallam, Andy Malkinson ... who spent decades in prison, wrongly convicted by the British justice system.