Lucy letby

[bloomingbonkerz]

Do you think she did it ? Watched the documentary and I’m not sure she should have been convicted

Please provide details and your source.

Well, she could have easily shredded them. You know, in that shredder she lied about having?

Handwritten resuscitation notes, including one written on a paper towel that related to Baby M, a twin boy Letby almost murdered by injecting with air, were also found in a 'bag for life' shopping bag under her bed. Baby M only survived after more than 30 minutes of CPR and doctors described his recovery as miraculous.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12287095/Lucy-Letbys-treasure-trove-sick-souveniers-including-notes-babies-murdered.html

Panorama August last year - baby A and baby O explanations that the new panel suggest were already put before the jury and they rejected - mothers infection and needle damage respectfully

the expert defence witness is concerned the panel report is flawed and will back fire - 22 mins in - interesting because he is the defence expert witness - the one that didn’t get called

22 min in for baby A- jury rejected
around 30 mins in - pathologist evidence outruling needle damage - jury rejected too

So, handwritten notes still, not official medical documents.

(Not willing to give that rag clicks, any other sources?)

So interesting because the defence expert witness is shown 3 times to disagree with panel around these babies

modi says its birth trauma and the defence expert reveals baby born by caesarean and no trauma

I could easily shred the god knows how many to-do lists or call notes I probably shouldn’t have with client confidential information on in my home office, except I haven’t because the likelihood of anyone accessing it and understanding it is minimal. Doesn’t say anything about me other than I’m a bit lazy and find it difficult to let go of paperwork that I might need one day as evidence that I did something or to remind myself that I delegated it to someone else.

Home shredders take about 5 sheets of paper, plus you need to do something with the shreddings. It’s incredibly easy to think “I’ll do it next weekend” once a few build up but before you know it it’s an hour long job that involves emptying a shredder multiple times and having bin liners filled with shreddings that get everywhere. It’s a faff. Plus, if they’re shredded, they can’t go into the work confidential waste so have to be burned. They were in bags, together, under a bed. Out of sight and out of mind. Being lax with DP doesn’t make someone a murderer and it’s such a stretch to suggest it’s about trophy keeping.

As for lying about it, the amount of stuff I have boxed and shoved in the various rooms of my house, I’d be hauled over the coals as a murder because I couldn’t honestly tell you what I had. It’s not that unbelievable to think you could easily forget if you hadn’t used it in a while and you were woken up being arrested for murder and taken for questioning.

So you are sourcing a documentary for your information? how do you know that documentary is reporting accurately how was it put to the jury when the trial was already finished?
not really sure what you is saying is accurate show me the transcript? Not of the documentary but of the jury being told about the senior clinicians alternative diagnosis.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-65834779

She also took home a blood gas printout from child M.

None of these documents were important to her, apparently. She liked collecting paper.

This is a scrappy bit of paper (size of a receipt) that comes out of the gas machine - and you keep to write the results in the notes later. If you are involved in a resus, it will likely end up in your pocket and will go home with you.

If writing a statement after the event, it would be useful to keep and not evidence

Almost every clinician could be vilified about the same points, if the police searched our homes and online searches. A lot of clinicians would likely have far more ‘unusual’ behaviour that could be shared with the court.

So she said what everyone else has said about taking notes home in your uniform. I expect if that is the case, 90% of nurses & midwives are serial killers. What does keeping these papers have to do with murdering babies please explain? As for writing a card I think that is really thoughtful of her sure at the time the parents were really grateful for, what else does it indicate? You do realise that you vocalising this drivel, has an effect on how nurses today will think whilst caring for babies for fear that things like writing a card can be used against them you should be ashamed. Plus you used sky news not high on journalistic integrity.

Yes, I don’t think panorama would make it up - watch it

I think I can believe when it comes from the defence expert witnesses mouth clearly - I don’t think he was photoshopped in

I don’t need to go through transcripts I believe what was reported

(the OP posted do we believe the documentary as the theme of the thread promoting discussion around documentaries)

You see, to me, this seems more like potential whistleblowing fodder than anything else. Or even learning material. I wonder if she advanced her concerns to her solicitors, but the notes would have been inadmissable because she shouldn't have had them. As possible as anything else.

I have sent cards to patients - and have received lots of cards and taken photos of them for my appraisal. It is all a normal part of working in a clinical setting

Yes, either are possible, although surely she would have explained either reason at some point during the interviews or during the trial?

I keep changing my mind about her. Sometimes i think she has been scapegoated by the trust. Things that made me feel she is guilty are

1. The notes she wrote saying, 'I did this' . When the police questioned her about that she said 'no comment'.
2. The fact that she was the only nurse constantly on shift when these incidents happened (I know some of those shift notes were found to be incorrect in court). I still can't make up my mind.

Neena Modi says that the cause of the subcapsular hematoma is "very plausibly" birth trauma, but the experts have not been allowed to see the obstetrics notes to test that theory.

But it wouldn't matter. The Panorama presenters seem to have misunderstood. You don't die of a subcapsular hematoma on its own. You die if it ruptures and you don't get the right treatment. They can arise spontaneously.

No jury has ever tested arguments based on obstetric notes, because as of last summer at least, they hadn't been released for expert scrutiny.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/jul/14/former-senior-coroners-officer-says-lucy-letby-has-suffered-miscarriage-of-justice

This might be interesting in the context of the argument. The needle aspiration was not mentioned to the coroner and then the pathologist. Potentially vital evidence lost and badly mishandled

The interviews were edited - she could have been asked that question multiple times, but you only saw the time she answered with “no comment”, likely on the advice of her solicitor.

What defence expert witness? there was only one & it was a plumber. You think all of these documentaries are accurate? They all sensationalise the info presented. These are not factual programmes these are entertainment programmes & shouldn’t be used as proof of criminal intent.

I believe the experts disputed it altogether not the panorama journalists - they said baby born in good condition and no birth trauma

modi says birth trauma and then they tell her no birth trauma reported and caesarean - she says it still highly plausible - yes I didn’t get why she said that

of course the baby collapsed before that

Just look at the headline…says it all really. Be interesting to know if this was out before or after her conviction?

It’s Panorama not a channel 5 documentary and the journalists were just presenting the information - they weren’t supporting either side

there were expert witnesses for defence - they just didn't call them - it was one of them not just some random anybody - prob didn’t call them because they agreed with so much of prosecution evidence - and gone on to say - with his own mouth- that he thinks the panel report is flawed and in some cases adds no new information

you need to watch it

they have Geoff chase on as well - he doesn’t come off well and sort of backtracks on what he says himself

I don’t think I’d rate my opinion above a documentary - just a nobody lay person engaging in a thread about whether people believe the Netflix documentary - not a professional looking for criminal intent 😂

Panorama wasn't accurate, unfortunately. As well as the muddle over child O, which I've explained above, they seem to think the panel said child A inherited his mother's condition. They didn't. They said that, so soon after birth, he would have antibodies from his mother's condition.

The BBC needs to put some qualified journalists on this story. I am sure Judith Moritz and Jonathan Coffey have their strengths, but they get themselves into awful muddles over science and statistics. Just not their area.

Chase didn't backtrack - another area where panorama let viewers down with an amateur approach. What he said makes perfect sense from a statistical analysis. He probably expected more rigorous presentation from the BBC