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 😞

Nearly started a thread about this this morning - the AI people mainly! In 2 minds about AI - could have got an actor; but then I guess actors might not even want those jobs! Glad it’s noticeably AI even if they didn’t mention it. Don’t want it any more human than that!

Er…

by finding babies had been injected with insulin/air they didn’t need repeatedly on her shift

No, that really isn't accurate. Lots of the evidence that Lucy Letby's defence wants to present didn't exist or wasn't known to them at the time of the original trial. From the international experts alone: Lee's new paper on air embolism was published in 2025. Chase and Shannon drew for their work on insulin on scientific publications new since the trial. Further notes, even in their very brief summaries, refer to scientific research produced by other academics since the trial.

New scientific research is one of the categories of new evidence that the CCRC can consider.

As well, there are facts which have emerged that were unknown or not disclosed to Lucy Letby's defence at her original trial. They did not know that the police had mixed up swipe card entry and exits. That there was a door to the unit that anyone could use without identifying themselves. That the lab which tested for insulin had thrown up false results in tests. That the doctors conducting postmortems had not been given full information on one child. That one of the consultants who claimed he had seen Lucy Letby fail to respond to a child had sent an email saying she called him for help.

There really is lots of new evidence. You see a lot of people online saying there isn't, so I understand you may have read that too. But I think these are people who have been convinced Lucy Letby is a killer and for whatever reason don't want to have to think again. But for whatever reason, whether you think she is guilty or innocent, new evidence definitely exists.

I wondered this as I tried to imagine myself in that situation and I think I would be pleading my innocence and trying my best to get my side across. She seemed so bizarrely monotone.

She was dosed up on anti depressants, had a thyroid condition, and is generally described as a quiet, shy person. So I don't know if you meant this made her look guilty, but I wouldn't judge her on this.

That new evidence has been presented In two appeals (as you say is their right) and discharged as not altering anything

I think if someone had sneaked in a door 13 times - someone who shouldn’t be there and tended to babies LL was looking after it would have been spotted

wasnt the last appeal exhausted end of 25?

for me what is so telling is the zero witnesses for defence then all this foray after and again the two appeals with new evidence rejected

also I think parents want the true killer and I don’t hear that they think she isn’t the killer - they would have been at the trial and have access to all the information

it's not beyond my belief that medics interpret thinks so differently

also Lee/dewey could be in an academic argument -

You can see the posters who would have been calling for the McCann's heads on sticks 🙄

No, none of that evidence has been presented in appeals. She hasn't had an appeal yet. She had two applications for appeal, between Autumn 2023 and mid 2024. These are to critique process in the original trials, not to produce new evidence.

Sorry, but for the sake of other people reading the thread I have to say you have the facts seriously wrong here. There is plenty of evidence, including what is listed above, that has not yet been tested in court. That's why people are optimistic that the CCRC will eventually accept her application, but it does take years for that to happen, often.

There’s not a Judge in existence who would not advise their kids to always say no comment if arrested. Words can trip you up if innocent or guilty.

I also don’t think there can be all this new really significant academic evidence in such a short time - like a revolution - things take years to be developed

That’s what I responded to another poster who said she was dosed up on meds and I replied saying I wondered if that was the case with how strangely flat she came across.

On a side note, re being shy and quiet, I am shy and quiet but would still be yelling from rooftops if I were innocent.

Why not? Most science isn't revolutionary. It proceeds step by step. And people pick up different problems to work on depending what's needed at a given moment. You'd needs months to years, yes, but not usually decades, and new work is in the pipeline all the time.

Anyway - the papers exist and have been published.

I’ve not watched it yet but I will do. LL cared for my son when he was at the unit for two months in 2014. She was still training then.

I remember when the news first broke here locally and I was shocked to think she could do such as thing as she always seemed so friendly and caring.

Sounds as if you have the "fight" reflex. I do too though quiet normally. But fight, flight, freeze, fawn are all known reactions for different people.

All 250 of them!

Her solicitor will have instructed her to say no comment.

I thought that was an interesting question too, why would she be concerned they were going to search the house? Also saying goodbye to the cats, like she realized it might be the last time she would she them.

She hasn’t been granted an appeal because both times the outcome was that the conviction was safe

her application hasn’t been accepted yet by ccrc and it’s been a year..

I can’t believe that there is so much “new” evidence in such a short space of time - why wouldn’t it have been submitted during original trial?

there is a big jump between “experts” claiming to refute the evidence and actually doing it

People write thousands of new scientific papers and publish them every year.

You can't submit them to a court before they exist.

You haven't read my explanation that her request to appeal (post-trial) and her application to the CCRC are different processes.

The CCRC takes far more than a year, on average, to deal with cases.

I know the process!

its significant that court of appeal has rejected her twice on the grounds that she had a fair trial and the conviction is safe

those papers that are written, some of which take years in the making - I really don’t believe there are so many “new significant findings” relative to this case in such a short time

Well, that's your prerogative. I wouldn't agree with you. But even if you were right, there's still plenty of other new evidence that hadn't been presented in either application to appeal, isn't there?

Is there?

and why now - why not at the trial?

the families believe the convictions are safe too - says a lot to me

I just don’t believe as I’ve said there is so much new significant evidence in such a short time after an original 10 month trial

we can agree to disagree!

There were plenty of experts ready to testify in her defence, but it would have harmed her case to have put them on the stand because under cross they would have ended up agreeing with the prosecution.

posting your thoughts on socials or in the media isn’t the same as offering robust evidence that gets thoroughly tested in court, which is why leave to appeal was rejected twice

I think she’s in the right place, having watched the new doc and followed the original trial closely.

I gave you a list further up of evidence the defence didn't have before the trial. (I did make one mistake there - they knew about the insulin lab earlier. But what they didn't know about was a third baby who had insulin test results similar to the other two, but without Lucy Letby being blamed).

Some of this evidence came out through the Thirlwall Inquiry. It was Lady Thirlwall's job to collect all of the evidence related to Lucy Letby from the hospital to see how she might have been stopped.

Lady Thirlwall only started her Inquiry after the two trials and the one requests to appeal were over, and the second request to appeal came shortly after she started. So any new evidence from the documents she uploaded would be new evidence that could only be submitted via the CCRC.

Thank you 👏

I agree about the robust evidence