A Critical Look at the Evidence in the Lucy Letby Case

guilt. The discovery of notes seemingly confessing guilt further solidified this narrative, leading to the conviction of Lucy Letby in 2023 for multiple murders and attempted murders of infants.

However, a growing sense of unease has emerged regarding the evidence and the reliability of the conviction. A documentary aims to move beyond emotional responses and delve into the scientific and statistical aspects of the case. It seeks to examine the facts, potentially overlooked or misrepresented, for a wider audience.

The documentary excels in explaining complex medical and mathematical issues, covering a vast amount of information meticulously. It also trusts its audience emotionally, acknowledging the suffering of the bereaved parents without dwelling on it. This approach demonstrates a confidence rarely seen in documentaries.

The documentary presents an alternative narrative, exploring various questions. It examines the spike in mortality rates around the time Letby began working, suggesting the hospital was unprepared for the influx of sicker babies. It challenges the assertion that Letby was present during every death or collapse, arguing that the shift chart used by the prosecution was incomplete. The documentary also questions the correlation between Letby's presence and the adverse events on the ward.

The documentary then addresses the dislodged tubes, presenting expert opinions that contradict the prosecution's claims. It also highlights inconsistencies in witness testimonies and explores alternative explanations for the insulin results and the Post-it notes. The minimal defense presented at trial, along with the changing opinions of key witnesses, is also considered. The documentary implicitly raises the question of motive and the rarity of young, female serial killers of children.

The documentary doesn't delve into the reasons behind the limited defense presented by Letby's team. However, it leaves the viewer with the impression that Letby's conviction is, at the very least, questionable. The final scenes show her lawyer submitting an application for a case review, highlighting the challenge of presenting new evidence when the information was technically available during the original trial. The question of justice remains open.