Help protect children from gaming harms.

Take our survey

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Lucy Letby thread

1000 replies

Words · 14/06/2026 06:55

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

OP posts:
Thread gallery
25
Firefly1987 · 17/07/2026 19:22

MistressoftheDarkSide · 17/07/2026 00:34

But unexplained doesn't automatically mean murdered. It is a neutral descriptor. If by saying the post mortems weren't done forensically, you mean the pathologists weren't laser focused on looking for murder, you misunderstand the purpose of a post mortem. It is to look for cause of death and potential contributory factors. If a pathologist finds something suspicious, they will report it. Sadly premature and fragile babies do sometimes just die. If every sudden infant death was regarded as murder in the absence of any explanation, the concept of SIDS wouldn't exist, and every such bereaved parent / caregiver would be banged up without a second thought.

As for the insulin - honestly not sure why I'm bothering - the test results were not to a forensic standard and further tests should have been done. No physical evidence exists to support the alleged mechanism of delivery, and the theory proposed hasn't been tested and is unproven. Plus a similar result was seen in a baby after Lucy Letby left the unit but it wasn't considered suspicious apparently. If that is your standard of proof, for all the various incidents / deaths in this case, I hope to God I never come across you on a jury as a defendant.

But unexplained doesn't automatically mean murdered.

Not but it could be and for some reason you're refusing to even look at the possibility when it by far makes the most sense given all the other evidence.

Sadly premature and fragile babies do sometimes just die. If every sudden infant death was regarded as murder in the absence of any explanation, the concept of SIDS wouldn't exist, and every such bereaved parent / caregiver would be banged up without a second thought.

Only if it kept happening over and over again to the same people. And if SIDS was such a problem it would've kept happening on the same NICU unit after she was removed-it doesn't just affect premature babies.

As for the insulin - honestly not sure why I'm bothering - the test results were not to a forensic standard and further tests should have been done. No physical evidence exists to support the alleged mechanism of delivery, and the theory proposed hasn't been tested and is unproven. Plus a similar result was seen in a baby after Lucy Letby left the unit but it wasn't considered suspicious apparently. If that is your standard of proof, for all the various incidents / deaths in this case, I hope to God I never come across you on a jury as a defendant.

They were not to a forensic standard doesn't mean they were wrong. If you buy a home pregnancy test it might not be to a forensic standard but if it tells you you're pregnant 99% of the time you will be. The fact they threw the bags away and can't see what she did doesn't mean she didn't do it it just means they didn't keep the bags. If they had we wouldn't be having this conversation because they'd show clear tampering.

I'll need a source for this other "similar result" after she left I've only heard about in the last few weeks. I've also heard that someone trawled the entire hospitals insulin tests and the three we know about are the only abnormal ones to come up-all involving Letby. I'm not saying that's true either, but my point is you have to take what you read with a pinch of salt. They can't both me true.

If that is your standard of proof, for all the various incidents / deaths in this case, I hope to God I never come across you on a jury as a defendant.

Irrelevant because both the prosecution AND the defence agreed on the insulin evidence in court. But you'd expect me to be psychic apparently and know that Geoff Chase would crawl out the woodwork a year later with some new theory. If he was there at the time when it counted obviously that would change things if I was on the jury. But he wasn't. The insulin explains her doing everything else too. That's exactly why they're so desperate to disprove the insulin evidence. But they won't.

Starterfornine · 17/07/2026 19:27

Firefly1987 · 16/07/2026 21:09

Ooof we're going way back now-it was either her first or second arrest. I don't remember how I heard about it but I followed it ever since. I don't know why it piqued my interest, I guess I just knew it was going to be a huge case. Back then I was convinced the police had it all wrong-and was ready to gloat about them being useless (not a police fan) and the 3 arrests seemed ridiculous. A lot of us argued for her innocence because the police didn't give much away about why they suspected her. I had to admit I was wrong but then it is innocent until proven guilty and the police were obviously holding the majority of the evidence back until the trial.

I thought no more about it until the New Yorker article came out and from there I started reading the Lucy Letby Science subreddit from time to time. I would occasionally read the main Lucy Letby subreddit but I just didn’t find anything posted there particularly convincing when compared with the evidence that made the conviction look unsafe. So much of the case against her seems so founded on personal dislike of her, and I don’t have any personal feelings towards her at all.

They lie and omit things. They have to in order to make her seem like she could be innocent.

But for you it feels like it really is about her, and I am wondering how you got to that place? Do you have a personal connection?

No. If it wasn't for all the debating about it I would've long moved on from the conviction. It just amazes me people can't see what she is. Yes I do focus on her-if she is a serial killer why on earth wouldn't you focus on her? Maybe you should and then you'd see what I see!

Thank you for replying to me. It’s interesting reading about your journey because it’s the opposite of mine. For me, the more I find out about the evidence, the less possible it seems that there was a killer.

I am interested in who you mean when you say they lie and omit things? The New Yorker, or the Science Lucy Letby sub? Apologies if you have already answered this. What do you think has been omitted?

It seems circular to me, that the reason you focus on her as person is because you believe she’s a killer; but the reason you think she’s a killer is because of how you see her as a person. Was there a specific piece of evidence that tipped you from defending her?

kkloo · 17/07/2026 19:30

Firefly1987 · 17/07/2026 19:04

Her thought process made no sense though. Even in court she couldn't explain why seeing another dying baby in the same space helped you get over the one you just lost. All it does is mean you probably have to deal with the loss of ANOTHER baby. And no one who was innocent would want that. She almost incriminated herself with it all imo. I wish Nick Johnson had grilled her about it more.

It's not unusual that some people want to throw themselves back into their work (when their work involves potentially traumatic things) because they think that the longer they're out the harder it will be to go back.

It's not unheard of or something that doesn't make sense. It very much does make sense for some no matter who much you try to pathologize it.

I wish Nick Johnson had grilled her about it more.

Well if there's a retrial and the prosecution do intend to go down the route of pathologising these kinds of things then I'm certain that this time the defence will put a psychologist etc on the stand to explain how this behaviour can be very normal.

Firefly1987 · 17/07/2026 19:49

FrippEnos · 17/07/2026 19:14

Whther you like her, loathe her, or think that she is innocent guilty or just don't now, she is entitled to feel the way that she does.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean that she is guilty.

Oh come on, it could be the very explanation for WHY she's guilty (if she's guilty) she's trying to explain away her need to get in with her victims-because she had certain ones picked out. How can people just be like "oh well she's entitled to feel how she feels" thank god the police were more thorough!

kkloo · 17/07/2026 19:54

Firefly1987 · 17/07/2026 19:49

Oh come on, it could be the very explanation for WHY she's guilty (if she's guilty) she's trying to explain away her need to get in with her victims-because she had certain ones picked out. How can people just be like "oh well she's entitled to feel how she feels" thank god the police were more thorough!

Because if she didn't do it then there was nothing wrong with her reaction so why on earth would anyone think she wasn't entitled to feel that way?

EyeLevelStick · 17/07/2026 20:16

Firefly1987 · 17/07/2026 19:04

Her thought process made no sense though. Even in court she couldn't explain why seeing another dying baby in the same space helped you get over the one you just lost. All it does is mean you probably have to deal with the loss of ANOTHER baby. And no one who was innocent would want that. She almost incriminated herself with it all imo. I wish Nick Johnson had grilled her about it more.

Some people choose to care for critically ill and dying patients.

My ex was a nurse. A dying young person made a huge impression on him while he was a student nurse and thereafter he volunteered to care for the dying because of that first young man, to make a difference, to be better at it than he had been the first time, to lose the horror and be a brilliant nurse when it mattered to patients and relatives.

He is definitely not a serial killer.

EyeLevelStick · 17/07/2026 20:20

Firefly1987 · 17/07/2026 19:22

But unexplained doesn't automatically mean murdered.

Not but it could be and for some reason you're refusing to even look at the possibility when it by far makes the most sense given all the other evidence.

Sadly premature and fragile babies do sometimes just die. If every sudden infant death was regarded as murder in the absence of any explanation, the concept of SIDS wouldn't exist, and every such bereaved parent / caregiver would be banged up without a second thought.

Only if it kept happening over and over again to the same people. And if SIDS was such a problem it would've kept happening on the same NICU unit after she was removed-it doesn't just affect premature babies.

As for the insulin - honestly not sure why I'm bothering - the test results were not to a forensic standard and further tests should have been done. No physical evidence exists to support the alleged mechanism of delivery, and the theory proposed hasn't been tested and is unproven. Plus a similar result was seen in a baby after Lucy Letby left the unit but it wasn't considered suspicious apparently. If that is your standard of proof, for all the various incidents / deaths in this case, I hope to God I never come across you on a jury as a defendant.

They were not to a forensic standard doesn't mean they were wrong. If you buy a home pregnancy test it might not be to a forensic standard but if it tells you you're pregnant 99% of the time you will be. The fact they threw the bags away and can't see what she did doesn't mean she didn't do it it just means they didn't keep the bags. If they had we wouldn't be having this conversation because they'd show clear tampering.

I'll need a source for this other "similar result" after she left I've only heard about in the last few weeks. I've also heard that someone trawled the entire hospitals insulin tests and the three we know about are the only abnormal ones to come up-all involving Letby. I'm not saying that's true either, but my point is you have to take what you read with a pinch of salt. They can't both me true.

If that is your standard of proof, for all the various incidents / deaths in this case, I hope to God I never come across you on a jury as a defendant.

Irrelevant because both the prosecution AND the defence agreed on the insulin evidence in court. But you'd expect me to be psychic apparently and know that Geoff Chase would crawl out the woodwork a year later with some new theory. If he was there at the time when it counted obviously that would change things if I was on the jury. But he wasn't. The insulin explains her doing everything else too. That's exactly why they're so desperate to disprove the insulin evidence. But they won't.

Geoff Chase would crawl out the woodwork a year later with some new theory. If he was there at the time when it counted obviously that would change things if I was on the jury.

Does this mean that if Chase and Shannon had presented their evidence at the time of the trial, and you had been on the jury, you would have voted to acquit?

Firefly1987 · 17/07/2026 20:24

kkloo · 17/07/2026 19:54

Because if she didn't do it then there was nothing wrong with her reaction so why on earth would anyone think she wasn't entitled to feel that way?

But this whole discussion is about if she did do it or not isn't it? Or did I miss where she was exonerated and everyone decided she's most definitely innocent? We're far from that.

FrippEnos · 17/07/2026 20:24

Firefly1987 · 17/07/2026 19:49

Oh come on, it could be the very explanation for WHY she's guilty (if she's guilty) she's trying to explain away her need to get in with her victims-because she had certain ones picked out. How can people just be like "oh well she's entitled to feel how she feels" thank god the police were more thorough!

Or it could be you seeing things that are not there.

Dolphin37 · 17/07/2026 20:29

Firefly1987 · 17/07/2026 19:22

But unexplained doesn't automatically mean murdered.

Not but it could be and for some reason you're refusing to even look at the possibility when it by far makes the most sense given all the other evidence.

Sadly premature and fragile babies do sometimes just die. If every sudden infant death was regarded as murder in the absence of any explanation, the concept of SIDS wouldn't exist, and every such bereaved parent / caregiver would be banged up without a second thought.

Only if it kept happening over and over again to the same people. And if SIDS was such a problem it would've kept happening on the same NICU unit after she was removed-it doesn't just affect premature babies.

As for the insulin - honestly not sure why I'm bothering - the test results were not to a forensic standard and further tests should have been done. No physical evidence exists to support the alleged mechanism of delivery, and the theory proposed hasn't been tested and is unproven. Plus a similar result was seen in a baby after Lucy Letby left the unit but it wasn't considered suspicious apparently. If that is your standard of proof, for all the various incidents / deaths in this case, I hope to God I never come across you on a jury as a defendant.

They were not to a forensic standard doesn't mean they were wrong. If you buy a home pregnancy test it might not be to a forensic standard but if it tells you you're pregnant 99% of the time you will be. The fact they threw the bags away and can't see what she did doesn't mean she didn't do it it just means they didn't keep the bags. If they had we wouldn't be having this conversation because they'd show clear tampering.

I'll need a source for this other "similar result" after she left I've only heard about in the last few weeks. I've also heard that someone trawled the entire hospitals insulin tests and the three we know about are the only abnormal ones to come up-all involving Letby. I'm not saying that's true either, but my point is you have to take what you read with a pinch of salt. They can't both me true.

If that is your standard of proof, for all the various incidents / deaths in this case, I hope to God I never come across you on a jury as a defendant.

Irrelevant because both the prosecution AND the defence agreed on the insulin evidence in court. But you'd expect me to be psychic apparently and know that Geoff Chase would crawl out the woodwork a year later with some new theory. If he was there at the time when it counted obviously that would change things if I was on the jury. But he wasn't. The insulin explains her doing everything else too. That's exactly why they're so desperate to disprove the insulin evidence. But they won't.

Re: insulin, it seems the stock bags had tamper evident caps ( ), and were wrapped in cellophane on top of that. How does one remove the tamper-evident cap without breaking the cellophane?

Oftenaddled · 17/07/2026 20:45

Firefly1987 · 17/07/2026 19:04

Her thought process made no sense though. Even in court she couldn't explain why seeing another dying baby in the same space helped you get over the one you just lost. All it does is mean you probably have to deal with the loss of ANOTHER baby. And no one who was innocent would want that. She almost incriminated herself with it all imo. I wish Nick Johnson had grilled her about it more.

But she didn't say she needed to nurse another dying baby. She said that she had been assigned another dying baby in Liverpool. At Chester, she said that she needed to nurse another high needs, intensive care baby, recalling Liverpool as an example.

You are misrepresenting what she said in her texts here.

If you have a bad experience, avoiding running that risk again fosters anxiety. Getting back on the horse, facing the fear, exposing yourself to the risk are ways to recover and build resilience. This is well known. I remember learning about these strategies in the early 2010s in a university setting. I read a novel written in 1918 the other day that emphasised going back up in a plane as soon as possible after a smash. Coaches and counsellors use them frequently. They are constantly repeated in popular psychology.

I can't see any reason to doubt that nurse educators and mentors would know about these strategies and recommend them. There's a reason getting back on the horse is such a cliche.

Firefly1987 · 17/07/2026 20:49

Dolphin37 · 17/07/2026 20:29

Re: insulin, it seems the stock bags had tamper evident caps ( ), and were wrapped in cellophane on top of that. How does one remove the tamper-evident cap without breaking the cellophane?

Edited

It was demonstrated how it would be possible in court.

Oftenaddled · 17/07/2026 21:06

Firefly1987 · 17/07/2026 20:49

It was demonstrated how it would be possible in court.

No, that's not the case, though I don't blame you for thinking so because it's a common misconception.

If you look at the testimony with demonstration for Ian Allen, pharmacist, you can see that he demonstrated how the middle port was not tamperproof once the safety seal had been snapped at the pharmacy.

The first problem with that is that not all of the bags Lucy Letby was accused of tampering with had had the seal snapped so that the pharmacy could add anything. And there's no indication that the pharmacist showed this for anything double bagged or cellophane wrapped. He was only discussing the fact that the middle port wasn't tamper proof in itself, after pharmacists had used it, if they did use it

https://lucyletbyinnocence.com/transcripts.html

Firefly1987 · 17/07/2026 21:12

FrippEnos · 17/07/2026 20:24

Or it could be you seeing things that are not there.

LOL ok then. It's not me that thought the texts were important enough to take to court. Lets just agree that if she's innocent they're meaningless (obviously) and if she's guilty they probably have a bit to do with her trying to get into the room with a potential victim.

MyrtleLion · 17/07/2026 21:24

Let’s say she was a serial killer. The families of the babies need to be confident that she was properly convicted. There is so much doubt over her methods, the statistics, the causes of death, if I were a mother I would want her convicted without a reasonable doubt.

Do you think the convictions are still safe even though new evidence has come to light? Even though Dewi Evans has retracted some of his testimony? Even though the statistics have been shown to be misunderstood?

What will it take for you to agree that it is possible the were other reasons for the babies deaths?

Dolphin37 · 17/07/2026 21:37

Firefly1987 · 17/07/2026 20:49

It was demonstrated how it would be possible in court.

From my understanding, the demo used a bag that has already been modified by the pharmacy, rather than a bag as originally manufactured. The pharmacy snaps off a manufacturer's tamper-proof cap and adds a different one of its own, which is apparently not tamper-proof. But an unmodified stock bag would not have the pharmacy-added cap: it would have the manufacturer's original cap. So I'm not sure how the demo applies. The demo bag was also empty (from contemporary reporting: https://www.chesterstandard.co.uk/news/23156083.recap-lucy-letby-trial-tuesday-november-29/ ), which means it could not have been in its original cellophane wrapper. So this was not a demo of spiking an original as-manufactured stock bag, which is what Letby supposedly spiked.

And the prosecutor even used the difficulty of spiking a cellophane-wrapped bag to argue that Letby (and not someone on previous shift) must have spiked the bag that she hung: https://www.chesterstandard.co.uk/news/23566971.recap-lucy-letby-trial-june-5---cross-examination-continues/

Oftenaddled · 17/07/2026 21:49

Firefly1987 · 17/07/2026 21:12

LOL ok then. It's not me that thought the texts were important enough to take to court. Lets just agree that if she's innocent they're meaningless (obviously) and if she's guilty they probably have a bit to do with her trying to get into the room with a potential victim.

Yes, that's right. If you'd concluded she was guilty, this would look like an attempt to get to a victim. A bit unnecessary, since she would have plenty of opportunities anyway, but since the prosecution didn't really commit to a motive, it could make sense.

If you considered that she was innocent, the exchange would be meaningless.

So for me, it's just not evidence that would move the needle either way. You would need to found your belief in her guilt on something else: a core of significant evidence, before taking this into account.

kkloo · 17/07/2026 21:50

Firefly1987 · 17/07/2026 20:24

But this whole discussion is about if she did do it or not isn't it? Or did I miss where she was exonerated and everyone decided she's most definitely innocent? We're far from that.

No, much of the discussion lately is you pointing to certain things and making out they're proof that she's a serial killer because someone who isn't a serial killer would never do or say those things, which simply isn't true.

Firefly1987 · 17/07/2026 22:03

Oftenaddled · 17/07/2026 21:49

Yes, that's right. If you'd concluded she was guilty, this would look like an attempt to get to a victim. A bit unnecessary, since she would have plenty of opportunities anyway, but since the prosecution didn't really commit to a motive, it could make sense.

If you considered that she was innocent, the exchange would be meaningless.

So for me, it's just not evidence that would move the needle either way. You would need to found your belief in her guilt on something else: a core of significant evidence, before taking this into account.

The whole exchange was 6 mins before baby C collapsed and went on to die. Of course the police and prosecution thought it could be significant what conversations she was having right before. If baby C hadn't collapsed then it wouldn't be-but he did. But I see everyone is just going to gloss over this.

Firefly1987 · 17/07/2026 22:08

kkloo · 17/07/2026 21:50

No, much of the discussion lately is you pointing to certain things and making out they're proof that she's a serial killer because someone who isn't a serial killer would never do or say those things, which simply isn't true.

I don't think I said that-if she had a reason that made sense from an innocence perspective that would be different. But it just so happens that there probably isn't one! Her explanation simply made no sense. If she'd just said she needed to be in room 1, or that she needed a high needs baby no one would've made much of it. Telling this tale about how she lost a baby at Liverpool and was given another dying baby in the same cot space is what is weird as hell. As well as how adamant she was to be in there-when her supervisor has given her a break because she doesn't think it's good for her. She's only ever wanted dying babies, that's just blatantly obvious.

kkloo · 17/07/2026 22:20

Firefly1987 · 17/07/2026 22:08

I don't think I said that-if she had a reason that made sense from an innocence perspective that would be different. But it just so happens that there probably isn't one! Her explanation simply made no sense. If she'd just said she needed to be in room 1, or that she needed a high needs baby no one would've made much of it. Telling this tale about how she lost a baby at Liverpool and was given another dying baby in the same cot space is what is weird as hell. As well as how adamant she was to be in there-when her supervisor has given her a break because she doesn't think it's good for her. She's only ever wanted dying babies, that's just blatantly obvious.

It does make sense from an innocence perspective though, and people have explained this to you, some people would want to get right back to it and feel like it helps them cope better.
You just try to pathologise it and have decided that that explanation does not make sense.

As I said if this goes to a retrial the defence will have no issue finding experts who will state this no problem. I would be surprised if the prosecution even use the texts at all or make a big deal out of them because they will know someone is ready to rebut them.

Oftenaddled · 17/07/2026 22:25

Firefly1987 · 17/07/2026 22:03

The whole exchange was 6 mins before baby C collapsed and went on to die. Of course the police and prosecution thought it could be significant what conversations she was having right before. If baby C hadn't collapsed then it wouldn't be-but he did. But I see everyone is just going to gloss over this.

That is not very surprising. She was texting about nursery 1 and Sophie Ellis because Sophie Ellis had been inappropriately assigned to a high needs child that night. She would always have needed to go into nursery 1 herself during that night, because the medication fridge was there. She was also very likely to be asked to co-sign on medicines by the nurses in that room.

But I think you are right and that the police were keen to make the link with the text six minutes before. I think that helps to explain why they brought this case at all. After all, Dr McCormick (who delivered the child) and Dr Gibbs (attending consultant) both saw the child as one who might suffer collapse and death, at the time. Later, so did Dr Evans. Famously, Dr Marnerides was still relying on an image from before Lucy Letby met the child for the evidence he produced in court. Dr Evans, by his own account, has had to work out a different explanation for his death from the one presented in court. The original pathologist and Dr Hawdon had no trouble explaining the death. This was a particularly weak case.

But the police obviously fell for some circular thinking around the texts. (I seem to remember they had a line in their documentary about how you could think her messages were perfectly normal until you lined them up with events.) It must have been very tempting to them, to put those messages six minutes before a collapse with Lucy Letby in the room.

The problem? Not only is the evidence that she was in the room for the fatal collapse shaky. They had to suppress witness statements, in their police interviews with her, to place her in the room at all. I suppose that's why you're always advised to say, no comment.

Here's a summary of the problems with the narrative placing Lucy Letby in the room for child C's collapse. This summary and the details are on Reddit. You don't have to trust them. It's possible to cross check against police interviews and court transcripts. Everything checks out, in my experience.

I doubt very much that Lucy Letby was in the room for that collapse at all

From:
www.reddit.com/r/LucyLetbyTrials/comments/1omn7s7/witness_accounts_of_staff_locations_before_baby/

Witness Accounts of Staff Locations Before Baby C’s Collapse

I have read the entire transcript with respect to Baby C. Please read all the relevant transcripts here. This covers the full testimony record on the personnel locations; reading it gives you the same picture the jury had of the witness evidence. Please read them before commenting.
Summary:
Sophie Ellis only documented Melanie Taylor in her contemporaneous notes. In 2018 she added Lucy Letby in her police statement.
She said she briefly left for the nurses’ station, heard the alarm, and returned.
For that first desaturation, she found Lucy Letby by the incubator.
After it resolved, Ellis stayed in the room for the final incident but sat at the computer, which faced the wall near Baby C’s cot about 1-2m away.
She described two incidents, saying Letby was there for both, though her notes show three.
Melanie Taylor’s 2018 police statement said she was already in nursery 1, and that Sophie Ellis called her over. She said only she and Ellis were at the cot using the Neopuff and inserting the Guedel airway. In court years later, she changed this to say Letby was already there and suggested using the airway.
Nurse B was consistent from police statement to trial: she entered on a call for help, saw Ellis and Taylor ventilating the baby, and said Letby arrived later from nursery 3. Also suggests she was likely also occupied in Nursery 3.
Police conduct: when Letby was interviewed the 2nd time, they already had statements from Taylor and Nurse B saying she wasn’t initially present. They withheld those statements and falsely told her only that Ellis had recorded her as being the only nurse in the room.
Letby’s recall: at that interview she said she couldn’t remember where she was. Later, once she’d been shown fuller evidence she said she recalled being called in later, consistent with Taylor’s and Nurse B’s original accounts.
Timing: only about six minutes between Letby’s last text (23:09) and the baby’s collapse (23:15), leaving little room for all 3 events.
No witness evidence or medical notes supports any claim of an inflated or distended abdomen, despite the allegation of air injected via a nasogastric tube.
No contemporaneous notes show Letby's presence, only Taylor and Ellis.

Firefly1987 · 17/07/2026 22:29

Starterfornine · 17/07/2026 19:27

Thank you for replying to me. It’s interesting reading about your journey because it’s the opposite of mine. For me, the more I find out about the evidence, the less possible it seems that there was a killer.

I am interested in who you mean when you say they lie and omit things? The New Yorker, or the Science Lucy Letby sub? Apologies if you have already answered this. What do you think has been omitted?

It seems circular to me, that the reason you focus on her as person is because you believe she’s a killer; but the reason you think she’s a killer is because of how you see her as a person. Was there a specific piece of evidence that tipped you from defending her?

Thank you for replying to me. It’s interesting reading about your journey because it’s the opposite of mine. For me, the more I find out about the evidence, the less possible it seems that there was a killer.

That's because we've heard nothing but propaganda about her being innocent ever since. It's not exactly balanced is it...

I am interested in who you mean when you say they lie and omit things? The New Yorker, or the Science Lucy Letby sub? Apologies if you have already answered this. What do you think has been omitted?

I don't go on that sub but the New Yorker article. Apparently the writer completely misled the insulin expert she interviewed for one.

It seems circular to me, that the reason you focus on her as person is because you believe she’s a killer; but the reason you think she’s a killer is because of how you see her as a person. Was there a specific piece of evidence that tipped you from defending her?

I think both sides can be circular. I've lost count of the amount of times I've seen people say "but if she's innocent none of the other stuff matters" when I think if you look at the other stuff and actually properly consider it you might actually come to another conclusion. If she IS a killer then all the stuff she did makes sense doesn't it? She took a gas reading out of a bin-it was a crumpled up piece of paper someone had scribbled on that would've been discarded and she took it out of the bin and kept it as a keepsake!

Oftenaddled · 17/07/2026 22:42

Firefly1987 · 17/07/2026 22:29

Thank you for replying to me. It’s interesting reading about your journey because it’s the opposite of mine. For me, the more I find out about the evidence, the less possible it seems that there was a killer.

That's because we've heard nothing but propaganda about her being innocent ever since. It's not exactly balanced is it...

I am interested in who you mean when you say they lie and omit things? The New Yorker, or the Science Lucy Letby sub? Apologies if you have already answered this. What do you think has been omitted?

I don't go on that sub but the New Yorker article. Apparently the writer completely misled the insulin expert she interviewed for one.

It seems circular to me, that the reason you focus on her as person is because you believe she’s a killer; but the reason you think she’s a killer is because of how you see her as a person. Was there a specific piece of evidence that tipped you from defending her?

I think both sides can be circular. I've lost count of the amount of times I've seen people say "but if she's innocent none of the other stuff matters" when I think if you look at the other stuff and actually properly consider it you might actually come to another conclusion. If she IS a killer then all the stuff she did makes sense doesn't it? She took a gas reading out of a bin-it was a crumpled up piece of paper someone had scribbled on that would've been discarded and she took it out of the bin and kept it as a keepsake!

There is a claim that the author didn't give an expert reading the glucose reading for Baby L. To read the results of the immunoassays, you need three figures: the insulin measurement, the C-peptide measurement, and a glucose reading taken at the same time as the sample tested for the other two.

At the trial, it was established that there was no glucose reading taken at the same time as that sample. The prosecution tried to claim that the sample must therefore have been taken at a different time, to match another glucose reading. There are no grounds for this claim: the doctor who took the sample stuck with the originally recorded time, in his testimony.

When Judith Moritz and Jonathan Coffey met with the same expert, they claim to have given him the missing glucose reading. It's not clear what they mean. (They could have said what they gave him, ideally, but they didn't). They must either have given him the prosecution's figure, from a different time, or perhaps something they obtained through their continued investigative journalism after the trial. (The second seems unlikely because you would hope they'd have passed it on, to Thirlwall at least).

Either way, you couldn't expect the New Yorker to include a contemponeous glucose reading when the trial didn't record one. So this claim doesn't really withstand scrutiny.

I've been pleasantly surprised, whenever I revisit it, to see how well the New Yorker article has aged. So much material that has come out since corroborates it. It's a fantastic piece of writing.

Oftenaddled · 17/07/2026 22:45

Firefly1987 · 17/07/2026 22:29

Thank you for replying to me. It’s interesting reading about your journey because it’s the opposite of mine. For me, the more I find out about the evidence, the less possible it seems that there was a killer.

That's because we've heard nothing but propaganda about her being innocent ever since. It's not exactly balanced is it...

I am interested in who you mean when you say they lie and omit things? The New Yorker, or the Science Lucy Letby sub? Apologies if you have already answered this. What do you think has been omitted?

I don't go on that sub but the New Yorker article. Apparently the writer completely misled the insulin expert she interviewed for one.

It seems circular to me, that the reason you focus on her as person is because you believe she’s a killer; but the reason you think she’s a killer is because of how you see her as a person. Was there a specific piece of evidence that tipped you from defending her?

I think both sides can be circular. I've lost count of the amount of times I've seen people say "but if she's innocent none of the other stuff matters" when I think if you look at the other stuff and actually properly consider it you might actually come to another conclusion. If she IS a killer then all the stuff she did makes sense doesn't it? She took a gas reading out of a bin-it was a crumpled up piece of paper someone had scribbled on that would've been discarded and she took it out of the bin and kept it as a keepsake!

There was no evidence she took anything out of the bin. Another nurse said that they would normally bin these pieces of paper - that's all. I'm sure many of us jot things down on paper that would otherwise be discarded, even without the pressure of taking down key information during a resuscitation.

Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.

This thread is not accepting new messages.
Swipe left for the next trending thread