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 😞

Update from the CCRC;

https://ccrc.gov.uk/news/chairs-statement-on-lucy-letby-application-review/

I feel like whatever their decision, people will accuse them of bias.

I just can’t see why they wouldn’t refer her case to the Court of Appeal given the findings from Dr Lee and his panel - there was no deliberate harm to the babies, according to him and his colleagues.

‘new evidence or new argument means there is a real possibility that a conviction will not be upheld, or a sentence reduced’

I am interested that the CCRC themselves say ‘new evidence OR new argument’ It seems to me that new argument would certainly fit here.

https://jollycontrarian.com/images/d/de/Shoo_Lee_Expert_Panel.pdf

I just read through Shoo Lees expert panel report and compared it to the medical evidence presented at trail as quoted in the CoA judgement.

When I was reading the CoA judgement I did start to think that yes if I was a jury member and that was what I was told (healthy stable babies, unprecedented unexpected collapses with absolutely no other explanation that experienced Drs and nurses say they never saw in their career) I would probably convict her.

However if you then read Prof Lee and experts opinions on those same cases a wholly different and honestly much more likely and plausible story emerges. Those poor babies were very sick and in a number of cases woefully mismanaged and there ARE entirely reasonable explanations for those deaths ie sepsis, birth injury, mismanaged resuscitation attempts. One of the insulin cases he gives a much more plausible scenario for why the prolonged hypoglycaemia (cannula had tissued).

I read this and I just feel more and more convinced that she has been scapegoated by the consultants at CoC for their own and the wider units failings and this was perpetrated by Dr Evans.

But there was no need for scapegoating because the management saw nothing wrong and the consultants had to keep on about involving police

don’t forget expert panel weren’t at the trial and their ideas not cross examined - I can’t help but feel it’s much easier to come up with alternatives in the way they did - I thought it was wildly accepted drs more often than not disagree!

The management saw a lot wrong. They had received the report from the RCPCH saying the unit had been unsafe. In their own meetings, they criticised Dr Brearey for admitting children to it who should have gone to more specialist units. They received reports from Drs Hawdon and McPartland stating that failings in care has likely contributed to a number of the deaths they were concerned about.

Three months after these reports were received, the consultants were still insisting the unit hadn't been responsible for the deaths. Management explained to the police that it would be impossible to continue with one of the consultants blocking reforms that aimed to make the unit safe.

None of this information was available to the jury, of course.

Im convinced she is guilty. Everything points to it. Imho. Is there actually any new evidence uncovered since the trial. None of the people who were her colleagues seem to be protesting her innocence. Only lawyers.

They have, actually.

But not the deaths regarding LL

So those who think scapegoating do you think the consultants did it consciously or unconsciously?

Sorry not sure what you mean?

Do you mean that Hawdon / McPartland didn't find failings in care for the deaths Lucy Letby was convicted of? We don't have information either way, except for babies O and P.

The Thirlwall Inquiry showed that for both of these children, the external reviews found:

1a. Significant suboptimal care that is possibly relevant to the outcome,
1b. Failures in care to recognise problems and
1c. A failure to act appropriately

Supposedly - but it would have all been available for trial and therefore not “new” knowledge - so it’s a sticky point

imv insulin tests have not been undermined as people keep claiming

highly unlikely to get an appeal imv

I mean do you think the docs set out to blame someone to protect themselves? That's massive or more organically kidded themselves.

There is no doubt the hospital was understaffed , poor sanitation etc but both things can be true.

Lots of the new evidence would not have been available at the trial: this summary is a year old now, so not exhaustive:

https://thirlwall.public-inquiry.uk/document/letter-from-bhandal-law-to-lady-justice-thirlwall-dated-17-march-2025/

Non-disclosures in particular should be of great interest to the CCRC

I agree. Unless they can show the sugar readings happening with many babies. There is just too much.

I've never seen any reason to think the doctors did it deliberately. Groupthink and confirmation bias would explain it.

Well, there was one more even that year in Chester!

I don’t agree that this wasn’t available at trial - it’s too late to debate reasons after - you can’t just have a new trial because you think you’ve got alternative explanations

I don’t agree insulin tests have been undermined - it’s not conclusive and I’ve seen enough people in the know say so for me

Ok this makes more sense.

Yes there was but if common it must happen a lot.

I agree with this. I don't think as it stands Geoff Chase evidence would stand up to other experts.

Non disclosure means that something was unavailable at trial - that the police or prosecution didn't hand it on.

In which case, the numbers will be in the expert reports.

I guess time will tell.