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

567 replies

kkloo · 22/07/2026 20:03

New thread as the last one has filled up.

OP posts:
Thread gallery
15
Oftenaddled · 23/07/2026 15:02

Nyungnyung · 23/07/2026 14:58

Was she? I have not seen any evidence that she was meticulous about shredding bank statements

I don't think we've seen a comment either way. I know she had a shredder for shredding bank statements. On the other hand, we know she kept diaries, post-it notes and handover sheets. I think it's fair to suggest she didn't bin all paper records immediately and efficiently, and I think that's all we know - unless police mentioned seizing more?

Daygloboo · 23/07/2026 15:06

Nyungnyung · 23/07/2026 14:56

This is how almost all health professionals think - we were all terrified as junior doctors that we had accidentally hurt someone or missed something - and if someone became unexpectedly unwell, you would often worry about whether it was something you missed. I can easily imagine writing and thinking similar things, if I was taken off the ward following a number of deaths, even if deep down I knew that I had done nothing deliberate

That's a lot of pressure to be under.

Firefly1987 · 23/07/2026 15:06

Oftenaddled · 23/07/2026 14:53

Sure. I think that's the incident in question, though. The one where Dr Evans had to revise his findings for the incident from murder to wind.

www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/dec/20/my-kind-of-case-intense-focus-falls-on-lucy-letby-trial-expert-witness

So how does that fit in with the theory they only cherry picked cases based on Letby's presence?

CypressMoon · 23/07/2026 15:09

I have always thought she was innocent. Very briefly when her scrawled notes about being guilty were found, I wondered but then it came out that her therapist had suggested she write them to get those thoughts out of her system. I think it is a gross miscarriage of justice. One of the worst ever.

Oftenaddled · 23/07/2026 15:13

Firefly1987 · 23/07/2026 15:06

So how does that fit in with the theory they only cherry picked cases based on Letby's presence?

They brought her to court still using that x-ray in evidence, so they obviously missed the fact that its date meant it couldn't have been affected in any way by Lucy Letby. They were still using it as evidence she killed the child.

Similar things happened with baby I and baby J. Evans and Bohin both assured the court an incident with baby I meant deliberate harm before they were told Lucy Letby hasn't been there. An incident with baby J was quietly dropped from the famous chart of suspicious events during the trial.

These details show cherry-picking, because they show that the events had innocent explanations but sinister explanations were given if Lucy Letby was thought to be there. Nobody said, okay, she didn't do it, we have another criminal. Suddenly these events were unsuspicious again.

oceanblueandturquoise · 23/07/2026 15:16

I think when you have worked somewhere toxic and you know people in that workplace will not hesitate to manipulate situations and outright lie about things you do get accustomed to holding onto everything as a form of self protection.

It is years ago now but I remember forwarding work emails to my personal address so nothing was ‘lost,’ I imagine the handover sheets were a similar act, although of course it worked against her rather than for her.

Firefly1987 · 23/07/2026 15:24

Oftenaddled · 23/07/2026 15:13

They brought her to court still using that x-ray in evidence, so they obviously missed the fact that its date meant it couldn't have been affected in any way by Lucy Letby. They were still using it as evidence she killed the child.

Similar things happened with baby I and baby J. Evans and Bohin both assured the court an incident with baby I meant deliberate harm before they were told Lucy Letby hasn't been there. An incident with baby J was quietly dropped from the famous chart of suspicious events during the trial.

These details show cherry-picking, because they show that the events had innocent explanations but sinister explanations were given if Lucy Letby was thought to be there. Nobody said, okay, she didn't do it, we have another criminal. Suddenly these events were unsuspicious again.

She did kill the child. Are you saying she had nothing to do with baby C?

rubbishatballet · 23/07/2026 15:26

Oftenaddled · 23/07/2026 15:02

I don't think we've seen a comment either way. I know she had a shredder for shredding bank statements. On the other hand, we know she kept diaries, post-it notes and handover sheets. I think it's fair to suggest she didn't bin all paper records immediately and efficiently, and I think that's all we know - unless police mentioned seizing more?

Remnants of bank statements and visa bills were found in the shredder.

And I’m not sure the defence ever presented any evidence of her paper collections other than the handover notes did they? That feels like a bit of an own goal as presumably there must have been loads of paper in her house (probably including bank statements and visa bills), because, of course, she collected it.

It’s also odd that someone so famously conscientious, and quick to datix as soon as aware of a risk, would have such a laissez-faire attitude to patient confidential data lying around in her house for years (not to mention moving it from one house to another).

Oftenaddled · 23/07/2026 15:31

Firefly1987 · 23/07/2026 15:24

She did kill the child. Are you saying she had nothing to do with baby C?

No - I'm saying she had nothing to do with the x-ray produced before she met him. This x-ray was used at the trial to argue that she had injected air into the stomach, but once it was shown she hadn't been there, it was reclassified as showing wind.

This doesn't inspire confidence

rubbishatballet · 23/07/2026 15:32

CypressMoon · 23/07/2026 15:09

I have always thought she was innocent. Very briefly when her scrawled notes about being guilty were found, I wondered but then it came out that her therapist had suggested she write them to get those thoughts out of her system. I think it is a gross miscarriage of justice. One of the worst ever.

She didn’t have a therapist, and there is no evidence to suggest she was advised by anyone to write her thoughts down. Letby herself certainly did not say this as part of her testimony, she said it’s just something she’s always done.

Oftenaddled · 23/07/2026 15:33

rubbishatballet · 23/07/2026 15:26

Remnants of bank statements and visa bills were found in the shredder.

And I’m not sure the defence ever presented any evidence of her paper collections other than the handover notes did they? That feels like a bit of an own goal as presumably there must have been loads of paper in her house (probably including bank statements and visa bills), because, of course, she collected it.

It’s also odd that someone so famously conscientious, and quick to datix as soon as aware of a risk, would have such a laissez-faire attitude to patient confidential data lying around in her house for years (not to mention moving it from one house to another).

I don't think there's anything terribly contradictory about hoarding paper and shedding some bank statements. Not much else to say without more information, on this point.

rubbishatballet · 23/07/2026 15:37

Oftenaddled · 23/07/2026 15:33

I don't think there's anything terribly contradictory about hoarding paper and shedding some bank statements. Not much else to say without more information, on this point.

But what paper did she ‘hoard’ other than the handover notes?

TightlyLacedCorset · 23/07/2026 15:39

CornishDaughteroftheDawn · 22/07/2026 21:18

Dr Dewi Evans, the chief medical witness for the prosecution, said the full maternity notes were not relevant to the case.
"I never saw any obstetric notes and I have no idea what happened to them," he said.
"I don't think that maternity care was a particular issue in the Letby case. I think [but have no idea of the facts because I didn’t review the notes] most of the babies I dealt with were born in acceptable condition."
Evans said he did see brief maternity summaries - "usually a couple of paragraphs" - attached to each baby's neonatal notes.
….

The prosecution argued that Baby O was born in good condition and was stable for 48 hours before he suddenly collapsed. They said that indicated that Letby attacked him.
But Bennett's opinion is that the baby died from a liver condition caused by an injury to his liver during, what he believed was, a difficult Caesarean section to deliver him.
He says though this is quite rare, there was substantial medical literature on it.
In these medical reports the injury usually happened during delivery and the baby seemed to be well for an average of 48 hours until suddenly collapsing and often dying.
Bennett said he would like to see the obstetrics notes to get a better understanding of the delivery.
In response, Evans said Baby O was born in good condition.
He added: "I don't think [but have no idea of the facts because I didn’t review the notes] that anything in the obstetric notes would have improved my understanding or the understanding of all of us who became involved with this investigation."

So Evans assumed the baby was born in good condition, without reviewing the birth and maternity notes, despite a difficult caesarean and the baby being unwell enough to require care in a neonatal unit and the fact that if a baby did sustain liver damage during a difficult birth, it may not become apparent for 48 hours.

And he was the chief medical witness??

How did his testimony not get torn apart in court?

Edited

I was just coming to say this!

How the hell can Dewi (who is looking increasingly more incompetent and frankly like a narcissist the more often he opens his mouth) assert that the maternity history relating to the babies is irrelevant and then go on to say but he thinks the neonates were born in a 'good condition'???

Do you think or do you know man?!!!

This a jaw dropping statement. It's saying:

I did not know the prior obstetric or maternity history of the mothers and babies involved, but nonetheless, I went on to assert that the only possible causal explanation for their deaths was murder, because I had completely arbitrarily and with no actual factual evidence, decided that the babies were all born in a 'good enough' (what the hell is 'good' in this context anyway?) condition. I also didn't request or place any emphasis on acquiring the notes because I am just that good at isolating variables in my head and drawing conclusions about the physiological status of neonates based on no data whatsoever and I didn't think, and still don't believe, that prior maternity status could possibly have any influence on neonatal health outcomes post birth.

Dear god in heaven. I look at this case and I don't know how the judge allowed him to give expert testimony through the entire length of the trial.

That needs looking into.

rubbishatballet · 23/07/2026 15:48

Oftenaddled · 23/07/2026 14:59

Because two of the doctors were also managers.

Nope, not managers.

FrippEnos · 23/07/2026 15:52

Firefly1987 · 23/07/2026 14:40

That's because they weren't suspicious deaths. One minute people will say premature babies die so she's not guilty, the next they demand all the non-suspicious natural deaths are also looked into? Why?

Also at least one of the babies that LLwas supposed to have murdred she never met.

Which one? And don't say baby C.

Why cant I say baby C?
Is it because its true?

Dolphin37 · 23/07/2026 15:54

Glowingup · 23/07/2026 10:24

Nothing new has emerged beyond opinion pieces from people who don’t seem to have read the evidence or followed the trials as many of the things they are saying were considered and dismissed at the time. You can find an expert to say whatever you want if you look hard enough. I am satisfied that she is guilty and hopefully the CCRC will take a similar view as will the court (if it gets that far).

You can find an expert to say whatever you want

If you think that's so, how can you be sure that anyone convicted with expert testimony is guilty? If, as you say, prosecutors can find an expert to say whatever they want.

Oftenaddled · 23/07/2026 15:54

rubbishatballet · 23/07/2026 15:37

But what paper did she ‘hoard’ other than the handover notes?

Handover notes, diaries and post it notes, that we know of, and as I've said, that's all the information I've seen. Police refer to going through a huge amount of material from her house. But maybe they mean that time they searched her gutters and checked the rose beds. I'm not taking any stronger a position on this.

rubbishatballet · 23/07/2026 16:08

Oftenaddled · 23/07/2026 15:54

Handover notes, diaries and post it notes, that we know of, and as I've said, that's all the information I've seen. Police refer to going through a huge amount of material from her house. But maybe they mean that time they searched her gutters and checked the rose beds. I'm not taking any stronger a position on this.

So just the ‘mementos’ then. Right.

Oftenaddled · 23/07/2026 16:08

TightlyLacedCorset · 23/07/2026 15:39

I was just coming to say this!

How the hell can Dewi (who is looking increasingly more incompetent and frankly like a narcissist the more often he opens his mouth) assert that the maternity history relating to the babies is irrelevant and then go on to say but he thinks the neonates were born in a 'good condition'???

Do you think or do you know man?!!!

This a jaw dropping statement. It's saying:

I did not know the prior obstetric or maternity history of the mothers and babies involved, but nonetheless, I went on to assert that the only possible causal explanation for their deaths was murder, because I had completely arbitrarily and with no actual factual evidence, decided that the babies were all born in a 'good enough' (what the hell is 'good' in this context anyway?) condition. I also didn't request or place any emphasis on acquiring the notes because I am just that good at isolating variables in my head and drawing conclusions about the physiological status of neonates based on no data whatsoever and I didn't think, and still don't believe, that prior maternity status could possibly have any influence on neonatal health outcomes post birth.

Dear god in heaven. I look at this case and I don't know how the judge allowed him to give expert testimony through the entire length of the trial.

That needs looking into.

It is particularly odd when you look at his whole "origin story", as told on Panorama:

"One morning, I was at home, and I discovered this article about Cheshire Police investigating a neonatal unit regarding a lot of baby deaths. And I thought, “Hmm, that’s interesting. Sounds like my kind of case.”

I’d clocked up over 30 years’ worth of expertise and experience looking after sick babies. I had also clocked up several decades as a medical expert witness for the criminal court. I said to the police, “Let’s have a look at one case just to give me an idea of what’s going on.”

This particular baby was born in good condition, a good-sized baby, over two kilos, who had been stable but had suddenly collapsed. I saw these photographs of big, marble-sized blood clots under the liver, plus bleeding in the abdomen as well. But this looked awful to me. How on earth could a baby who was doing very nicely end up with serious liver abnormalities? And within a few hours, the baby was dead. I said to the police, “I want to look at all the case notes over this two-year period.”

But not the full case notes that might explain "how on earth" this happened.

Worth remembering that the pathologist in this case had already diagnosed liver hematoma, which is exactly what Professor Bennett described on radio 4.

That alone should have told Evans he needed to look at the obstetrics notes.

Oftenaddled · 23/07/2026 16:12

rubbishatballet · 23/07/2026 16:08

So just the ‘mementos’ then. Right.

Only the evidence produced in court was discussed in court. But I hardly think that demonstrates there wasn't more paperwork. I suspect the police would have mentioned it if so, especially given that they are the ones Lucy Letby told she kept paper. Pretty easy for them to check. So on the balance, I suspect there was plenty more paper; but I don't see the importance on that point anyway.

NoCommentingFromNowOn · 23/07/2026 16:13

TightlyLacedCorset · 23/07/2026 15:39

I was just coming to say this!

How the hell can Dewi (who is looking increasingly more incompetent and frankly like a narcissist the more often he opens his mouth) assert that the maternity history relating to the babies is irrelevant and then go on to say but he thinks the neonates were born in a 'good condition'???

Do you think or do you know man?!!!

This a jaw dropping statement. It's saying:

I did not know the prior obstetric or maternity history of the mothers and babies involved, but nonetheless, I went on to assert that the only possible causal explanation for their deaths was murder, because I had completely arbitrarily and with no actual factual evidence, decided that the babies were all born in a 'good enough' (what the hell is 'good' in this context anyway?) condition. I also didn't request or place any emphasis on acquiring the notes because I am just that good at isolating variables in my head and drawing conclusions about the physiological status of neonates based on no data whatsoever and I didn't think, and still don't believe, that prior maternity status could possibly have any influence on neonatal health outcomes post birth.

Dear god in heaven. I look at this case and I don't know how the judge allowed him to give expert testimony through the entire length of the trial.

That needs looking into.

This is one of the babies spoken about on the radio.

The mother was interviewed by the police and she said there was a huge spray of blood that went over her (during the caesarean) and hit the wall behind her. Dr Bennett said this was probably a cut blood vessel and caused liver damage.

Oftenaddled · 23/07/2026 16:21

rubbishatballet · 23/07/2026 16:08

So just the ‘mementos’ then. Right.

Thousands of documents, so obviously a lot more than that. From Operation Hummingbird, the police promotional video. Worth a watch to see some of the flawed logic that affected the investigation, though I'm presuming some things they suggest (like that they told families their children had been murdered back in 2018) are just careless phrasing.

"The amount of evidence we recovered from a home address was just not expected. So thousands documents, many devices that lead to downloads of half a million pages of information that we didn't expect to find, we didn't expect her to have kept to a catalogue year on year on year."

I'm surprised it's still up

- YouTube

Enjoy the videos and music that you love, upload original content and share it all with friends, family and the world on YouTube.

https://youtu.be/Ng7Cs6XPSqU

Dolphin37 · 23/07/2026 16:29

rubbishatballet · 23/07/2026 16:08

So just the ‘mementos’ then. Right.

So just the ‘mementos’ then. Right.

What were the papers unrelated to the court case (the vast majority of the papers) 'mementos' of?

rubbishatballet · 23/07/2026 16:42

Oftenaddled · 23/07/2026 16:12

Only the evidence produced in court was discussed in court. But I hardly think that demonstrates there wasn't more paperwork. I suspect the police would have mentioned it if so, especially given that they are the ones Lucy Letby told she kept paper. Pretty easy for them to check. So on the balance, I suspect there was plenty more paper; but I don't see the importance on that point anyway.

It seems curious that given her defence for having the handover notes at her home was that she collects/hoards paper, she didn’t support this by producing evidence of all her other paper collections which weren’t related to offences on the indictment.

But unlike her barrister I’m not one of the top criminal defence KCs in the country, so what would I know.

Frequency · 23/07/2026 16:46

rubbishatballet · 23/07/2026 16:42

It seems curious that given her defence for having the handover notes at her home was that she collects/hoards paper, she didn’t support this by producing evidence of all her other paper collections which weren’t related to offences on the indictment.

But unlike her barrister I’m not one of the top criminal defence KCs in the country, so what would I know.

If the only point you have to argue is that no one knows where Letby's bank statements ended up, you have to admit your argument that murder has been proven is weak.

What medical evidence is there?

And I'll ask again, since it's been asked and ignored a few times, what were the 237 handover notes unrelated to the case trophies of?