Nurse Lucy Letby found guilty of murdering seven babies

If anythings going to convince me of her innocence its not going to be a Netflix doc, bearing in mind manipulative, misleading trash like Making A Murderer.

I imagine her solicitor advised her to answer with 'no comment'.

Possibly James Duane 'Never Talk to the Police'?

Don't Talk to the Police - YouTube

Long, and obviously US-centric, but the general message applies here and in the UK as well. Basically there is zero upside to talking, but potentially downside.

edit : From minute 7:58 he lists the reasons.

”No comment” was the only option open to her given how her subsequent trial went- given the complexity of medical evidence and the conflicting views on correct approaches etc (in other words doctors differing) - it would have been a “gift” to the prosecution had she elaborated on any of the questions asked

Sky News were talking about this article in The Guardian during the papers preview tonight on The Wrap.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2026/feb/26/nhs-england-maternity-cover-up-childbirth-report

Hospitals that cause harm and injury to women and babies during childbirth often resort to a “cover-up” of their mistakes, falsify medical records and deny bereaved parents answers, a damning report has found.

I know it's childbirth and not the care afterwards, but it made me think of Lucy Letby. I don't believe she's guilty, and that she's the victim of a massive miscarriage of justice. Pun not intended.

I think the issue here, is that the jury convicted her on the evidence presented of the first murder - and then group-thinked their way through the rest of the murder charges, rinsing and repeating as they went.
That first decision sealed her fate as a serial murderer-but was it the right decision on the first murder count or were they just blinded by the science? Her defence certainly seemed to be severely lacking in many aspects and you would think that they would have challenged each and every piece of evidence which they didn’t.

I was a juror in a drugs possession related trial a number of years ago- the defence challenged absolutely everything and did their best to sew seeds of doubt, to the degree that some of the suggestions from the defence barrister were simply laughable - but that was him doing his job in what was a very straightforward possession case - I just didn’t see the same defence efforts here at all - it’s as if they sat back and said,” there’s no way any jury will convict on this evidence”- but they did.

More question marks about the prosecution case:-

Lucy Letby case expert witness was under fitness-to-practise investigation during trial | Lucy Letby | The Guardian

A doctor who gave crucial expert evidence about insulin poisoning for the prosecution of the nurse Lucy Letby was under investigation by the medical regulator at the time due to serious concerns about his fitness to practise.

The General Medical Council (GMC) opened an investigation into concerns about Prof Peter Hindmarsh, including that he had harmed patients, on the first day he gave evidence at Letby’s trial in late 2022.

The GMC investigation was still continuing when Hindmarsh gave evidence for a second time at the Letby trial three months later. Great Ormond Street hospital reported Hindmarsh to the GMC after a formal investigation led by his main employer, University College London hospitals trust (UCLH).

The jury in the trial of the nurse, who was convicted of murdering babies in the Countess of Chester hospital’s neonatal unit, was never informed about any investigation into Hindmarsh, one of the prosecution’s key witnesses.

While the GMC conducted its investigation, and during some of the period when Hindmarsh gave evidence, a medical tribunal ordered severe restrictions on his work, saying that he “may pose a real risk” to members of the public. The tribunal also considered the allegations about Hindmarsh “may have the potential to impact on his ability to act as an expert witness”.

Nevertheless, the tribunal permitted him to continue giving expert evidence for the prosecution of Letby. The Crown Prosecution Service told the defence it would oppose any attempt to inform the jury of the GMC investigation, on the basis that the allegations had not reached a final adjudication.

Ultimately the GMC investigation was never concluded, because Hindmarsh removed himself from the GMC register, a process known as “voluntary erasure”. That effectively ended the investigation, and there was no regulatory finding against him.

Not sure how you can blame the defence here. It sounds as if they knew about it and saw it as a potential issue, but were not going to be allowed mention it to the jury. It was possibly something that got decided by the judge behind closed doors, or the defence realised that precedent allowed such experts to continue to give evidence.

If it was challenged 'behind closed doors' then we might not know about it as it wouldn't be part of the record?

Or more likely, if the defence was aware, via long-held precedent, that as long as the GMC tribunal is ok with the expert witness then the judge will not allow the defence to raise the issue of the investigation - if so it would have been pointless for the defence to push it.

I think it's just more of a situation where the system is inherently biased against the defendant, rather than an actual failure of the defence.

Her defence appears to have been generally fairly poor and I think she now has a new team. However, as others have pointed out, they may have been prevented from mentioning it.