The investigation of Lucy Letby on Netflix

[TheRozzers]

Anyone watched it yet? It’s a really excellent documentary with loads of footage of her police interviews.

You see the police asking her questions about those ‘confession’ notes.

I won’t put spoilers in the OP but I’d love to hear what others made of her responses.

Mid way through I thought she’s 💯 guilty but by the end I’m really not sure. A lot points to her being innocent.

I feel for the parents of those babies so much, the uncertainty must be horrendous 😞

What do you think you saw that the judge and the jury didn't see that makes you think she might be innocent?

I’m planning on watching this tonight

There isn’t “uncertainty” for the families - she has legally been found guilty.

I would suggest it is the speculation they must find horrendous.

Watching now, it's awful.

All the evidence is circumstantial. Nobody saw her do anything wrong.

There are other, completely plausible explanations for the deaths. The author of the paper used by the prosecution says in the documentary that his paper had been misinterpreted. He believes she’s innocent.

Her defence team didn’t call any expert witnesses.

She was the most senior nurse and assigned the sickest babies at an understaffed under resourced hospital.

The hospital was downgraded the day she left, explaining why the death rate reduced.

She was told by a therapist to write down how she was feeling about it all, and her explanation of the notes is completely plausible. She was worried that her practice had inadvertently caused the babies harm.

There is absolutely no motive.

How do they explain the babies being poisoned with insulin?

Circumstantial evidence is still evidence, particularly when there is a lot of it.

Think of a single pencil, easy to snap in half right? Now think of a bunch of pencils together, you would struggle to snap them if at all.

I can’t believe anyone would still think there’s a shred of a chance she could be innocent after watching this. She is guilty, she’s a monster.

Not reading this thread because i want to watch it…

I have quite a unique perspective as I have been both a police officer and a nurse. Ask any nurses....scapegoating in the NHS is very much a real life thing. Evans changing his mind about the causes of a babies death post conviction raises serious doubts about his credibility . There are well reported problems re the accuracy and completeness of the data that was presented to the jury. There also looked to be a massive amount of confirmation bias in the police's investigation. An example from the Netflix doc is when the police suggest it is unusual for her to be reflecting on the babies death. Reflective practice is drilled into nurses from the day they start training. It is seem as excellent practice, yet her there was negative inference drawn from it. Lucy's defence was flawed in not presenting expert witnesses, evidenced by the recent expert panel who found no evidence of foul play in any of the deaths. Also interesting that the police insisted they had met the required evidential test for the recent cases that they have put to the CPS, who have since declined to prosecute them.

So new evidence has been presented in this programme, has it?

The defence team didn’t call expert witnesses because they knew they couldn’t refute the evidence - if they could they would have

now the trial is over they keep bringing their questions to the press despite not bringing same questions to trial

circumstantial evidence builds up

the motive won’t make sense like - to have less babies on the ward - it will be a twisted psychological motive that only she knows - what do you think Harold shipman’s motives were when it wasn’t for money?

The defence didn’t bring expert witnesses because when they saw the prosecution case they stood their witnesses down because they couldn’t contradict the evidence

Then shouted about it in the press afterward

My opinion is that LL's conviction is a miscarriage of justice.

Regarding the 'insulin evidence' :

1. Unreliable Laboratory Testing (Immunoassay vs. Mass Spectrometry) The core of the challenge centres on the use of an "immunoassay" test to measure insulin levels, rather than a more precise method like mass spectrometry.

• High Error Rates: Dr. Adel Ismail, a consultant in chemical endocrinology with 25 years of experience, stated that immunoassay tests are notorious for producing false positives due to antibody interference, often in 1 in 100 to 1 in 200 cases.
• No Confirmatory Tests: The lab reports for the babies (F and L) showed high insulin but low C-peptide. However, standard procedure, according to the Royal Liverpool Hospital laboratory's own guidance, requires such samples to be sent for confirmatory testing if "exogenous" (administered) insulin is suspected. This was not done.
• Third "Wonky" Result: A third baby in 2015 was found to have similar insulin readings, but consultants at the time concluded it was due to natural causes (Congenital Hyperinsulinism - CHI) rather than poisoning.

1. Contradictory Mathematical Modeling

Experts working with Letby’s legal team, including Prof. Geoff Chase and Helen Shannon, calculated that to achieve the insulin levels recorded in the lab results, a massive amount of insulin—between half and a full vial—would have needed to be added to the feed bags.

• Implausible Amount: Experts argue that this quantity is far greater than what could reasonably be introduced into a bag without it being noticed, and far exceeds the amount required to simply cause a hypoglycaemic event.
• No Missing Insulin: There was no evidence that insulin was missing from the neonatal unit’s supplies.

1. Alternative Medical Explanations

Experts have suggested that the high insulin/low C-peptide results could be explained by natural, albeit rare, conditions in premature babies, rather than foul play.

• Premature Insulin Processing: The babies were extremely premature and sick, and alternative explanations such as sepsis, line failure, or insulinoma were not properly considered.
• Other Potential Causes: Other causes, such as antibody interference or liver issues, could have caused the test to produce a misleading "factitious hyperinsulinism" result.

1. Flaws in Initial Case Interpretation

• Misinterpreted C-peptide: The C-peptide results for at least one baby (Child L) were actually within the expected range for a healthy patient, contrary to the prosecution's claim that they were abnormally low.
• No Access to Experts: During the trial, the defence did not call their own medical experts to challenge the insulin test results, leaving the jury with only the prosecution's interpretation.

Wonder why they don’t bring this to trial…

you can’t possibly refute the evidence yourself

the defence stood down their witnesses as they thought there was possibility they wouldn’t stand up to cross examination - they got to cross examine up to 15 witnesses then the jury decided

Ben Myers hasn't said anything about why he didn't call expert witness. Letby's new legal team are rightly questioning this.

Very interesting that today the BMJ have published an article, not behind a paywall, re why there needs to be an expert statistician in cases like this. The CPS stood down the statistician they initially instructed who would no doubt have not allowed them to proceed with the highly flawed shift data that they relied heavily on. The CPS also failed to disclose the standing down of their expert to the defence. It absolutely stinks . Not dissimilar to the wrongful conviction of sally clark for the murder of her two children due to flawed statistical evidence.

They still brought at least 15 witnesses

defence -= 0 witnesses

I thought the part where the Police said she was being ‘evasive’ in her answers was highly ridiculous as they weren’t comparing the same types of questions.

The first question was highly procedural eg who does what during a resuscitation and the second was regarding details of why she was in a nursery, bear in mind this had happened several years before. It’s the equivalent of me asking someone to tell me how to make a cup of tea but then getting suspicious of them when they can’t tell me in great detail which supermarket they chose to go to on a random day two years ago, why they went there, what they bought and who they spoke to.

If you watch the press conference with Dr Shoo Lee, the Canadian neonatal specialist whose paper was used to convict LL, you will absolutely believe she is innocent. That neonatal unit was run so poorly -understaffed with under qualified doctors - that it was downgraded. All baby deaths can be explained by natural causes- which was how they were all explained initially.

The video is an hour long but well worth the watch if you're interested in really understanding the evidence.

Agreed. She was dealing with poorly babies on a daily basis. I'd find it suspicious if she could remember details of specific cases with any certainty a few years down the line. I certainly couldn't

If this is the one that was shown on a few months ago, it was extremely interesting. There were so many imponderables.
my conclusion is that I don't know if she did it, but that the conviction was definitely unsafe, and should be revisited.

I’ve just finished watching it . She gave a very weak account of herself and did herself no favours with her ‘ no comment ‘ answers to some key questions but imo this is not a safe conviction for all the reasons listed above . I also cannot believe the police took the lead from a medical person who ‘ inserted ‘ himself into this investigation by offering to take a look . Evans wasn’t even a paediatrician .i also cannot believe the defence offered no expert witness and on the documentary closing statement they didn’t say why . I do think Dr Shoo and his world renowned experts are much more credible than Evans . If even the medical experts cannot agree how is this a safe conviction. The only expert in the courtroom was Evans who even senior judges said was biased . The jury only heard from him , they had no counter evidence presented at all . I hope she gets a retrial but given the intense interest and knowledge in the public arena I’m not sure how impartial it could be . Everyone has their views .

Much was made of her jottings which it’s said were a therapy from her Occupational Health so why again didn’t the defence bring forward the therapist to state why Lucy could have written those things . The defence seems very weak in this case and need to account for why a robust defence wasn’t provided .

I find it odd that there wasn’t a psychological profile of Lucy done. Serial killers often have certain traits and hallmarks and profiles help to find them. There’s been no mention (that I’ve seen) of concerns over her behaviour as a youth, cruelty to animals, mental health issues etc. also wasn’t mentioned in the documentary how someone with no prior convictions or flags would find it in themselves to murder so many babies. Why? What was her motive? Where was her escalation? Why did no one see cruelty to children before hand etc.

Also interesting that the police insisted they had met the required evidential test for the recent cases that they have put to the CPS, who have since declined to prosecute them.

Not at all interesting. The whole point is the CPS make a separate independent decision. If they just prosecuted 100% of cases handed to them by police they’d be pointless.