Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Lucy Letby - Specifically those who think she is guilty…

200 replies

BEAchDays2 · Today 07:30

I’ve just been reading massive amounts of posts of Facebook following the new doc out about LL. (Blame a long train journey!) and it got me thinking, those who still think she is guilty what are your reasons?

It does feel like the tide has turned generally. I haven’t watched the new doc yet, likewise has anyone seen it, and is it worth it?

OP posts:
Oftenaddled · Today 11:04

Goodgriefisthatrue · Today 11:00

An independent jury found her guilty based on the evidence they heard. If her team has new evidence (I had seen that 2 of her witnesses have dropped out) then let’s see/ hear it.

The new evidence her defence team proposed to present as of March last year is listed at: https://thirlwall.public-inquiry.uk/document/letter-from-bhandal-law-to-lady-justice-thirlwall-dated-17-march-2025/

There is plenty of new evidence, even only with what has found its way into the public domain.

MistressoftheDarkSide · Today 11:05

Passaggressfedup · Today 11:00

So nobody who thinks she's guilty has any qualms about Dewi Evans "changing his mind" about causes of death periodically? Or that he based one "theory" on an x-ray taken the day before Lucy Letby was on shift? Or that Ravi Jayaram gave fifferent accounts of the "she was just standing there" incident in court and in other communication? Or that the door swipe data was actually wrong in the first instance, and proved very little overall as there were other routes in and out if the unit?
But these all together still weigh so much less than all the evidence that was put forward. A guilty verdict is not proving someone is guilty, it's considering the evidence and concluding that they much more likely to be guilty than not.

Er, in a criminal court setting there has to be a threshold of "beyond reasonable doubt". What you're describing is "the balance of probabilities" used extensively in the family courts. The medical evidence is riddled with theory, supposition and doubt. And as time goes on more and more is coming out that undermines the case.

Oftenaddled · Today 11:05

Passaggressfedup · Today 11:04

A guilty verdict is based on the finding that there is no reasonable doubt, or that the jury is completely sure, of the defendant's guilt
No REASONABLE doubt. That's different to no doubt at all.

But it is extremely different from your own description, more likely than not guilty. (I believe that's the standard in civil law).

Passaggressfedup · Today 11:09

Er, in a criminal court setting there has to be a threshold of "beyond reasonable doubt". What you're describing is "the balance of probabilities" used extensively in the family courts. The medical evidence is riddled with theory, supposition and doubt. And as time goes on more and more is coming out that undermines the case
I agree with you, my statement was wrongly written.

But it goes both way. Undermining the case is not evidence that the person is not guilty. It's challenging the beyond reasonable doubt threshold.

Nobody can ever be 100% that someone found guilty of a crime committed the crime or someone found not guilty definitely didn't. This is why there is a system in place that is socially accepted as the best available.

The jury and judge followed the process and all we can all have is nothing more than just opinions and gut feelings.

BillieWiper · Today 11:10

Oftenaddled · Today 10:51

But he was only there for the last two of the fifteen events she was convicted of causing. It is easy to make up stories - I could make up dozens to try to explain how various people acted around this. But you need to pay attention to the facts.

Edited

Yeah I know. I'm well aware that wanting a doctor's attention couldn't possibly be the sole reason for her to have done it. If indeed she did do so. I said a scenario I picture in my own head, I'm not passing it as the truth. It's just I was agreeing with how another poster felt. None of us know for sure what happened. It just struck me others were saying her obsession with him could have fuelled it. And I agreed.

HesterLeggatt · Today 11:15

Oftenaddled · Today 10:08

I see what you mean. But can we fairly assume that all avoidable deaths are clustered such that relevant learning, quickly applied, stops each cluster? If errors and systemic weaknesses aren't corrected, what prevents more deaths. And if admissions aren't steady - that's a key feature of the Chester unit - we have an external factor impacting on timing of deaths, not just internal practice and (possible) self-correction.

I think your post is a great argument for more sophisticated work in what happens in a unit that's not coping, but I don't think it shows that Chester was coping at all.

I am not disputing in any way that the unit was failing. There are obvious and clear systemic issues present. What I am saying is that the particular cases Letby was tried for do not fit into the pattern one would nomally see at a failing unit.

Goodgriefisthatrue · Today 11:18

Oftenaddled · Today 11:04

The new evidence her defence team proposed to present as of March last year is listed at: https://thirlwall.public-inquiry.uk/document/letter-from-bhandal-law-to-lady-justice-thirlwall-dated-17-march-2025/

There is plenty of new evidence, even only with what has found its way into the public domain.

Thank you, I am halfway through the full enquiry paper for my job. The letter is one side of the argument- let’s see and hear it in court, where there is a clear opportunity to hear the counter position.

As an ex ward manager what I do agree with is the conversation around safety and quality in both hospitals LL was working in. If the unit you are working on only has 1 death per year on average at 2 deaths you need to be asking questions!!

HenriettaHippopotamus · Today 11:21

On the issue of race, it's entirely possible that some supporters do have a bias and took more interest in the case than they would have, but equally I think were she another race then other groups would have taken more interest in the case and be supporting her. Either way I don't think we should be assured someone is guilty or innocent based on their skin colour. There are plenty of high profile cases where a white person was later found innocent, just look at Andrew Malkinson who was released a few years ago, he spent 17 years in jail for rape, which he didn't do.

When people bring up race I just think they've not looked into the case much. If you looked into it, even if you still think she's guilty you surely have to acknowledge that it isn't some nutty conspiracy. There are actual expert doctors whose work was used in the trial that have come forward with doubts.

Oftenaddled · Today 11:22

Passaggressfedup · Today 11:09

Er, in a criminal court setting there has to be a threshold of "beyond reasonable doubt". What you're describing is "the balance of probabilities" used extensively in the family courts. The medical evidence is riddled with theory, supposition and doubt. And as time goes on more and more is coming out that undermines the case
I agree with you, my statement was wrongly written.

But it goes both way. Undermining the case is not evidence that the person is not guilty. It's challenging the beyond reasonable doubt threshold.

Nobody can ever be 100% that someone found guilty of a crime committed the crime or someone found not guilty definitely didn't. This is why there is a system in place that is socially accepted as the best available.

The jury and judge followed the process and all we can all have is nothing more than just opinions and gut feelings.

I am not sure whether you mean, criticising the prosecution case is challenging the concept or the applicability of reasonable doubt (because minor doubts have already been considered).

But either way - what people concerned about this case are raising are significant and substantial doubts. Because people are responding to an online conversation, you get posts about whether phone records were right, whether her hair was brown or blond, whether she was officially in counselling or just receiving ongoing support etc etc.

But nobody uneasy about the conviction is envisaging an appeal or CCRC application based on these things. They are saying there is significant doubt about the absolute key to the whole thing: whether babies were murdered or not. They are saying that medical experts agree that the murder methods proposed at the trial are nonsensical and their reasoning unscientific. They are pointing to findings of genuine experts that the deaths had explanations - and often obvious ones. All of that is described in the press conference here and in the attached summary reports
https://lucyletbyinnocence.com/#shoolee

Of course there are many other aspects of the conviction that can be questioned, but this central plank isn't the kind of triviality that can be expressed as taken fully into account but would only cause a minor doubt.

Oftenaddled · Today 11:25

Goodgriefisthatrue · Today 11:18

Thank you, I am halfway through the full enquiry paper for my job. The letter is one side of the argument- let’s see and hear it in court, where there is a clear opportunity to hear the counter position.

As an ex ward manager what I do agree with is the conversation around safety and quality in both hospitals LL was working in. If the unit you are working on only has 1 death per year on average at 2 deaths you need to be asking questions!!

I absolutely agree with that. These deaths needed investigation and urgent attention no matter what.

To be fair, the submission to the CCRC won't be challenging the Thirlwall report. The Thirlwall report presumes the court got it right on Lucy Letby's guilt, babies' causes of death etc. I've seen a very mixed response to the safety recommendations it includes, but I very much hope that any that are genuinely useful will be implemented.

Goodgriefisthatrue · Today 11:35

Oftenaddled · Today 11:25

I absolutely agree with that. These deaths needed investigation and urgent attention no matter what.

To be fair, the submission to the CCRC won't be challenging the Thirlwall report. The Thirlwall report presumes the court got it right on Lucy Letby's guilt, babies' causes of death etc. I've seen a very mixed response to the safety recommendations it includes, but I very much hope that any that are genuinely useful will be implemented.

I think the national review of safeguarding will be useful- I don’t have neonates in my trust but there has been a mixed reaction where I work too. The UK gov has not responded to all the recommendations as yet but I believe the 2 they have are the cameras in cots and the safeguarding review.

Seajaye · Today 11:40

The jury rightly convicted on the available evidence presented at her trial.. It is however some of the prosecution experts evidence that is now being called into question. If the validity of that evidence is questionable, it does bring into question whether her conviction is safe. It doesn't mean she's automatically innocent, only that it needs to be looked at again, and also in the light of further disclosures made as to her suitability and aptitude to be a neo natal nurse in the first place. There are definitely further issues that ought to be properly looked into. A retrial might be the only way.

Catpuss66 · Today 11:42

PissedOffNeighbour22 · Today 08:06

My midwife sent a Facebook friend request to my husband which we thought was odd (I’m not on Facebook so I assume I’d have got one too if I was). Our DD (and me) almost died during that birth. I think some people just overstep or are nosey. It doesn’t have to be sinister.

In reverse I have had people contact me years after their delivery. I don’t feel they are creepy I just don’t answer them.

Catpuss66 · Today 11:43

BEAchDays2 · Today 07:55

What are your thoughts on why she kept notes related to babies who hadn’t died? And also why some were in bin bags etc?

And yes totally agree, the jury must have seen more, would have liked to have been a fly on the wall.

go to Lucy letby analysis on YT they go this stuff for hours.

Passaggressfedup · Today 11:43

But nobody uneasy about the conviction is envisaging an appeal or CCRC application based on these things. They are saying there is significant doubt about the absolute key to the whole thing: whether babies were murdered or not. They are saying that medical experts agree that the murder methods proposed at the trial are nonsensical and their reasoning unscientific. They are pointing to findings of genuine experts that the deaths had explanations - and often obvious ones. All of that is described in the press conference
Doubts coming up after conviction is not specific to this case. It can be the result of many different things. Poor defense, new evidence not previously available, questioning the validity of the evidence that was provided, and more.

If that alone we're a reason to grant an appeal, a lot of resources would be focused on appeals rather than trials. This is why the threshold for prosecution is what it is as well as threshold for appeals.

This case has had extensive media and social interest, promoting further debate, research and reviews. That alone doesn't and shouldn't justify an appeal being granted. What about cases when someone has been found guilty with much less evidence but doesn't have the support to push for an new trial?

It's like the Every case. So much interest at the time the Netflix doc came out. All of a sudden, everyone was turning into expects, were either convinced he was guilty or innocent, rallies for a retrial, etc ... 10 years down the line, very few cares any longer.

Public opinion and media interest should not be an influence to whether a case should be re-trialed or not. There are legal processes for that and we should reflect that.

Oftenaddled · Today 11:50

Passaggressfedup · Today 11:43

But nobody uneasy about the conviction is envisaging an appeal or CCRC application based on these things. They are saying there is significant doubt about the absolute key to the whole thing: whether babies were murdered or not. They are saying that medical experts agree that the murder methods proposed at the trial are nonsensical and their reasoning unscientific. They are pointing to findings of genuine experts that the deaths had explanations - and often obvious ones. All of that is described in the press conference
Doubts coming up after conviction is not specific to this case. It can be the result of many different things. Poor defense, new evidence not previously available, questioning the validity of the evidence that was provided, and more.

If that alone we're a reason to grant an appeal, a lot of resources would be focused on appeals rather than trials. This is why the threshold for prosecution is what it is as well as threshold for appeals.

This case has had extensive media and social interest, promoting further debate, research and reviews. That alone doesn't and shouldn't justify an appeal being granted. What about cases when someone has been found guilty with much less evidence but doesn't have the support to push for an new trial?

It's like the Every case. So much interest at the time the Netflix doc came out. All of a sudden, everyone was turning into expects, were either convinced he was guilty or innocent, rallies for a retrial, etc ... 10 years down the line, very few cares any longer.

Public opinion and media interest should not be an influence to whether a case should be re-trialed or not. There are legal processes for that and we should reflect that.

Doubts coming up after a case is exactly why we have the CCRC and Courts of Appeal to consider (among other things) the effect of new evidence.

I don't think anyone believe that these courts should respond to public opinion. I've seen it claimed they do, but I don't know if they do. One would hope they approach every case with an equal mind and grant all claims equal importance.

But, that is no reason not to point out the problems with this case. They don't affect only Lucy Letby. They reflect on the entire justice system. It is possible that the prosecution got the right result despite / with the help of pseudoscience, misused statistics, non-disclosure of relevant evidence and poor scrutiny of expert witness evidence. But it's not in anybody's interest that our justice system works this way or that people stay quiet about these problems.

Catpuss66 · Today 11:54

Passaggressfedup · Today 08:05

I am in no doubt she’s guilty, and I’m in no doubt the hospital were failing in many ways with regards to neonatal baby care
Same here.

What are your thoughts on why she kept notes related to babies who hadn’t died? And also why some were in bin bags etc?
There could be 10s of reasons with none being evidence that she's not guilty.

It's for the prosecution to make their case of guilt beyond doubt. It doesn't mean that questioning everything that is not direct obvious evidence means the person is not guilty.

I strongly believe that her feelings for the doctor went beyond just obsession. She was so desperate to be loved and have a family that it became pathological. Her life revolve around him and getting his attention and affection. Nothing else mattered. And the best way to get it was by hurting the babies under their care.

How do you know it’s on her this crush on the doctor, it could have been his crush.
There are txt messages to her friend explaining that it wasn’t romantic. I remember being really friendly with SHOs & Registar we all grew up together working in a high stress place you have to have be able to rely on someone having your back. One SHO had just split up with his GF I made him think about what he wanted he then made the decision he wanted her & asked her to marry him. Asking me about the about the ring etc. we were just friends , other drs were creepy trying to kiss you on duty this was in the 90’s things have changed since then. Stop putting your needs for a man onto her not all women work like that. She was self sufficient had her own home she worked hard for good career she didn’t need a man, she got on living life rather than waiting around for Mr right.

Somethinggg · Today 12:14

Passaggressfedup · Today 11:43

But nobody uneasy about the conviction is envisaging an appeal or CCRC application based on these things. They are saying there is significant doubt about the absolute key to the whole thing: whether babies were murdered or not. They are saying that medical experts agree that the murder methods proposed at the trial are nonsensical and their reasoning unscientific. They are pointing to findings of genuine experts that the deaths had explanations - and often obvious ones. All of that is described in the press conference
Doubts coming up after conviction is not specific to this case. It can be the result of many different things. Poor defense, new evidence not previously available, questioning the validity of the evidence that was provided, and more.

If that alone we're a reason to grant an appeal, a lot of resources would be focused on appeals rather than trials. This is why the threshold for prosecution is what it is as well as threshold for appeals.

This case has had extensive media and social interest, promoting further debate, research and reviews. That alone doesn't and shouldn't justify an appeal being granted. What about cases when someone has been found guilty with much less evidence but doesn't have the support to push for an new trial?

It's like the Every case. So much interest at the time the Netflix doc came out. All of a sudden, everyone was turning into expects, were either convinced he was guilty or innocent, rallies for a retrial, etc ... 10 years down the line, very few cares any longer.

Public opinion and media interest should not be an influence to whether a case should be re-trialed or not. There are legal processes for that and we should reflect that.

It's reasonable to worry about what might happen in MOJ cases when the person doesn't have any support or resources behind them, and would be even more so if you were advancing that as a point in its own right rather than trying to crowbar it into discussion about a person who does.

As such, there are charities you can support and raise awareness of.

https://appeal.org.uk/who-we-are/

https://www.insidejustice.co.uk/

Who We Are • APPEAL

Who we are Our Mission: APPEAL is a charity and law practice dedicated to challenging wrongful convictions and promoting a fair justice system. Our Aims & Objectives: We holistically support individuals and their families who have experienced a miscarr...

https://appeal.org.uk/who-we-are/

Passaggressfedup · Today 12:15

@Oftenaddled, I agree with you. There might very well be good reasons to review the system, but not an account of one particular case, which is not that different to many, but has made it into the media and public attention due to the dramatic circumstances.

How do you know it’s on her this crush on the doctor, it could have been his crush
It might, but he's not the one who has been accused of murdering babies. They had 100s of messages, but most concerning was him claiming she manipulated him for information about the babies she didn't have access too and him being sacked for agreeing to share it with her. That's a bit beyond a crush matter.

TomHanksIsMyHero · Today 12:17

Just to add that it’s very hard to prove a negative, it’s harder to prove you didn’t do something than it is to prove you did do something.

Other than saying she didn’t do it, I’m not sure what else she could have said

SulkingInTheCatio · Today 12:20

ThatGoldFox · Today 09:57

Because to just stand watching in an emergency situation seems beyond incompetent for a trained nurse. I can't say she's 100% guilty but the op asked why people think she is and that is the detail which has stuck with me personally.

As a midwife do have an issue with this thought process.

Sometimes you do totally stand there as a baby is desaturating to see if the situation resolves without having to do anything. Briefly. But if someone walks in the room at the wrong time it might look like nothing is being done.

I remember a case of a resus team attending a crash call who accused the staff in the room of not doing anything when they entered the room. There was full cpr/resus going on with a defibrillator in situ which had just told everyone to stop cpr so it could analyse heart rhythm 🤷‍♀️. So in that split second people had stood back to wait.

Snd for Lucy Letby bear in mind that the doctor has now since been found to have not told the court or the police the truth. His initial statement said that Lucy Letby had rung him to come and see the baby. Why would she do that if she was killing it? Why did the doctor make up a load of rubbish that he just decided to pop in the room as he was suspicious of LL? Why did he say the alarm had been silenced (even if it had that’s not an issue if staff are attending and dealing with the situation, I’d turn an alarm off so I can think) when a different nurse who was in the room said the alarm was still going off.

EnterQueene · Today 12:24

BEAchDays2 · Today 08:23

@TallSturdyGirlsIt may or may not surprise you that I don’t actually mind what you think of me. Random person on the internet.

I agree with @TallSturdyGirls - wanting to be a 'fly on the wall' of a devastating murder trial is salacious and immoral. Most jurors needs counselling to cope with the upsetting evidence, but it seems you would relish it. People like you who enjoy feasting on others losses make me sick.

Lina012 · Today 12:24

Why don’t people listen to the actual court transcripts. She was going into the unit on her days off and was gaining access without scanning her id badge which was stated, scanning her id logs times and dates of entry. Not only that she was doing this early hours midnight / 2am. She was taking a back entrance and asked staff to let her in saying she had been sleeping all day and forgot something hence why she was turning up past midnight. It wasn’t a one off and staff became suspicious because she was then going into the rooms with babies. These were some of the times she was caught. She also admitted to administering medication and not signing it off or adding to the babies charts.

BunkBedsArePeopleShelves · Today 12:27

I can't believe how many grown adults think that found guilty in court means they must be absolutely certainly guilty.
As if miscarriages of justice never happen?

Anarchy99 · Today 12:31

She was found guilty. If she wasn’t a young white woman, nobody would give a toss about any doubt in her conviction. If it had involved a man (or someone of colour) then nobody would give her a second thought.

And how do you think the families are going to feel? They have to see people pulling apart the facts about their children dying as if it’s a game.

I think it’s sick to have all the armchair experts weighing in.