Lucy Letby thread

[Words]

Starting this as don’t think we have a new one.

I didn't get the impression she was talking about people like you. There's obviously a spectrum of people who believe or lean towards guilt, and these threads contain a number who like to keep stating she's definitely guilty and will never be getting out. If you're open to findings, that's not you.

Fwiw, I mentioned on a previous thread that I know people IRL who do think she's probably guilty of at least some murders but are also worried that the spectacularly obvious problems with the case mean a guilty woman might eventually get out.

That’s a fair point, thanks.

And I'm fine with this opinion. I understand this thinking. It's the utter, infallible belief in everything and anything the prosecution has ever said, despite all the new evidence casting doubt (or downright oblitering) on their findings.

But what more do I want? A few things...

1. A proper investigation into COCH - including how they were able to continue operating at the same level after being found to be failing by multiple organisations without implementing the changes recommended, and why were there no follow-ups to ensure they'd improved?.

2. An investigation into Cheshire Police - why did they ignore the advice from the NCA to put together a multidisciplinary panel to assist in the investigation? How was it appropriate to rely on the consultants to assist when they should have been suspects and kept out of the investigation? How did they vet their expert witnesses, and why didn't they follow best practice? Why did they send the case to the Mersey-Cheshire CPS when it should have been referred to the CPS Serious Crime and Counter Terrorism Division?

3. An entire overhaul of the expert witness system.

I'm sure that's very true for some, but like it or not, these things are often discussed publicly so obviously in the internet age that is not going to change.

If it hadn't became apparent quite early on that people were seeing issues with the case then I have no doubt there would have been tons of documentaries etc about her being a serial killer and attempts to explain her psychology and so on. We know the police shared the footage of the arrests/some of the interviews with a production company which later made the documentary for netflix and without public doubt that would have been a very different documentary, there was reports early on that Ravi Jayaram was going to be involved in making a TV dramatization about this but this was shelved due to the growing concerns.

This case was always going to be discussed and dissected either way.

I've seen you participate on a few of these threads and so you must have a fair understanding of what flaws people are talking about by now, without people having to preface every comment they make by listing them again.

Why did they send the case to the Mersey-Cheshire CPS when it should have been referred to the CPS Serious Crime and Counter Terrorism Division?

Do you know if these rules were in force at the time? I did look them up when David Davis brought them up and it wasn't clear if the rules were in place at the time or if they had just been brought in recently? I thought maybe they had brought them in as a result of the Lucy Letby case because they saw how much of a balls they had made of the whole thing.

@kkloo Not a clue, tbh, the way Davis spoke about them, I assumed they were in place at the time, but I didn't look into it any further than reading his speech and checking who they were and what their remit was.

Davis said in his interview for Amanda Knox's latest episode of "Doubt" that the same guidance was certainly in place at the time of Lucy Letby's third arrest, but that it was not so clearly articulated.

Not as precise as I'd like, but for what it's worth.

It was mostly a very good episode https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/shaking-up-the-establishment/id1877870463

I'd usually be the first to laugh when it comes to conspiracy theories, but when it comes to CP and the way they handled this case, I'm not so sure.

They ignored NCA advice about a panel of experts, even after the NCA sent them a list of available experts.
They ignored advice not to focus on one suspect.
They sacked one expert who didn't agree with them.
They referred the case to the wrong CPS.

When they're challenged on any of this, their response seems to be to stick their fingers in their ears and start singing "la la la". Why? If they have genuine reasons for making the choices they did, surely they should be able to articulate that when they are challenged?

I don't believe they sat down together and all decided to frame an innocent nurse for shits and giggles. I do think they are 100% convinced they got the right result, and that Letby is guilty, but I also think they knew their case was weak and were willing to do whatever it took to get the result they wanted.

I've seen aspects of the consultants' behaviour described as "noble cause corruption". I suspect the same could be applied to the police, and perhaps even to Evans.

It would go something like:

1. I'm not claiming to be an expert at statistics, but common sense says she was present at too many deaths. It can't be a coincidence

1. But we have no evidence putting her in the frame. She may get away with it.

1. Obviously we have to stop her, so if we keep the expert panel to this cooperative Welsh guy for now / just describe that discoloration a bit differently / just don't include those cases, they complicate things / keep working with those clever consultants who are so invested in getting this right / drop that statistician because she's not going to change our minds when babies' lives are at stake ...

I doubt it was the only cause, but I suspect it was a factor. So many people still stick doggedly to point 1, and most humans are bad at statistics and protective of babies.

Can anyone point me in the direction of a balanced podcast about the case- with actual experts/ journalists rather than sensationalists?
Thanks in advance

You mean a series or a single episode?

With journalists - I think your choices are an epic series by Liz Hull and Caroline Cheetham (Mail), a shorter series by John Sweeney (independent journalist but with a substantial body of work, not a dabbler), a one-off reflection after Lee's press conference by Josh Halliday (Guardian), and an overview by Phil Hammond (Private Eye).

I would probably choose Hammond as a first listen, then Halliday. I've a preference for Sweeney over Hull and Cheetham, though I find both in their different ways abrasive. Hammond and Halliday I don't think you could describe as sensationalist by any measure. Is that the kind of information you want? Do you want links?

Or experts - Nina Modi and Neil Aiton strike me as the most careful and detached in their communications, and they've done a couple of interviews but nothing as substantial as I'd like to hear from them. There are plenty of others I have no problem with but who are more emotive in tone, which may not be what you want. Lee and Hutton are pretty measured and clear describing their work but do express some emotion; Dimitrova more so, coming across as deeply distressed sometimes. Can send you links if wanted

Halliday and Lawrence for the Guardian. Halliday reported on the trial, attending daily. After Lee's press conference, he became sceptical about the verdict.

www.theguardian.com/news/audio/2025/feb/11/lucy-letby-and-the-medical-experts-who-believe-she-is-innocent-podcast

I haven’t been on an LL thread for a few months but I am wary of it become a default position that the evidence is flawed without challenge.

Was the Mail one that was produced during the first trial? I found that excellent.

https://www.private-eye.co.uk/eyeplayer/play/491

Phil Hammond podcast in 2025. I thought it had been made a little earlier. With that in mind, might start either here or with Halliday and Lawrence.

I would like a long in depth series and definitely links please
Like many posters I was initially disbelieving- the crimes just seemed so abhorrent that it seemed unlikely that a professional nurse would do such a thing. Then I was saddened at my naivete but wholly believed she must be guilty because the prosecution and the jury proved so ( aided and abetted by what I term sensationalist reporting).
However, since reading on here about the contradictions, the what seems to be poor police investigation whereby a perpetrator was identified then " evidence" put forward or discounted depending on whether she was available ( thanks to everyone who has presented coherent arguments on this and many other threads) I became convinced that she has not received a fair trial and was not presumed innocent until found guilty which is the backbone of our legal system.
The panel of unpaid experts led by Dr Shoo Lee really shook off any remaining doubt
Where are the murders?
Anyway regarding particular posters who go round and round in circular arguments -" she is EVIL " " you love BABY KILLERS" " Dr Lee was jealous and wanted his 15 minutes of fame" , you know the sort, I actually have come to believe they are LL supporters. By bringing up ridiculous nonsensical arguments time and again they are keeping the debate going and many more posters are joining in and learning information that has only come out after the trial. That's certainly what piqued my interest so fair play to them.

Neena Modi, Professor of Neonatology, former president of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, member of Shoo Lee's expert panel. An absolutely class act, in my opinion, quite apart from her obvious expertise.

I don't know who "Tim and Xanthe" are - not that informed about the case and their podcast comes with lurid true crime branding. But Modi is extremely professional and this is well worth a listen, as her most extensive interview:

https://omny.fm/shows/motive-and-method/the-lucy-letby-review

The poster you responded to had already wrote a very fair and accurate comment just a few comments before.

"I still find it bizarre that even with so many very experienced professionals and experts in relevant fields , coming forward to say that the evidence presented in court was flawed in many areas, that you have absolutely no questions or concerns about this. Regardless of whether anyone is innocent or guilty, I would hope that the evidence presented in court is of a high standard - and I find it concerning that the prosecution medical expert has been so widely criticised by people with far more experience"

I don't think Hull and Cheetham will interest you then! I was trying to be impartial. I certainly couldn't recommend it.

John Sweeney is your best bet for a series. He's not exactly your detached BBC newsreader, but he's an effective investigative journalist who pulled off some impressive interviews. He won't bring you up to date. Probably Knox is best for that, though she doesn't meet your journalist criteria and her style involves a fair bit of personal reflection, which you may or may not like. Some good interviews, a little rushed sometimes, with the odd howler. On the other hand, great access and some hard earned insights.

John Sweeney, Was there ever a Crime, here. It starts in the early days after the verdicts. So you get to see the narrative unravelling in real time:

podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/was-there-ever-a-crime-the-trials-of-lucy/id1616634411

I make no comment on motivations, but I've learned new information about the weaknesses in this case from watching some of the more vehemently pro guilt posters being corrected on here.

Thanks for the recommendations
I actually would like to hear from pro guilty commentators too- if my mind was changed once ( or twice) it could be again
I think beyond the guilt/ innocence in this particular case I am very concerned that if I or someone I care about was innocent but arrested for a similar or lesser crime, I would have previously been fairly confident that the judicial process would be fair and thorough and I don't think it has been in this case if we look at it after the fact
I think the jury did the best they could during what must have been a deeply upsetting trial but since more information has come to light it bears looking at again.
As pp have pointed out, if she is guilty of some or all of the accusations there is the risk she would be freed because of the way the trial was held
And nobody wants that

I think Christopher Snowdon, who writes occasionally for the Spectator, is the least sensationalist pro-guilt commentator. Or he was initially - I wouldn't apply that to his work in the last year or so.

He has done some podcasts in debate form

(with David Davis) and as a standalone . But the second does exemplify what I'd call his lapse from seriousness, if not fully into sensationalism.

Here's one that might interest you then - a legal podcast with Tim Owen and Ken McDonald. If you scroll back to summer 2024, you'll see a Letby episode roughly every two months between then and end 2025. They were intrigued but I think not troubled by the conviction at the beginning, but like most serious professional commentators they didn't retain much confidence in the verdict after Lee's press conference.

https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/double-jeopardy-uk-law-and-politics/id1633485236

I'm not saying that about serious commentators to be snide. February 2025 was just a game changer. To find professionals voicing pro guilt opinions after that - apart from people like the police and consultants at Cheshire - you would probably have to abandon podcasts. Moritz and Coffey, BBC, book and Panorama episodes. Ostensibly balanced but in my opinion skewed towards supporting the verdict. Shaun Lintern in the Times occasionally tweets in support of the verdict. But he hasn't written anything substantial on it that I can recall since 2024. I am a bit reluctant to make Snowdon the most serious representative, but he seemed serious at the beginning. I suspect it's just become a gig, since.

Then there are Hull and Cheetham with their Trial+ podcast, where one neonatologist has spoken against one aspect of Lee's claims. I'll make that a last post, later!

But maybe something has slipped my mind. Can anyone else think of any professional journalism or expert voices in support of the verdict, since Feb 2025?

There are other voices, certainly, but I can't think of any that are competent and professional. Some seem mostly to be trolling.