The Overlooked Detail in the Lucy Letby Defence Narrative
As a new Netflix documentary titled The Investigation of Lucy Letby provides fresh perspective on the notorious case, it simultaneously highlights a crucial question that remains conspicuously absent from public discourse. The film, released in early February 2026, offers a corrective to the growing chorus of doubt surrounding Letby's convictions for murdering seven babies and attempting to murder seven others. Yet amidst this renewed examination, one vital inquiry continues to be overlooked by those advocating for her innocence.
The Legal Reality Versus Social Media Speculation
The documentary presents a counterpoint to those who believe Letby has been victimized by institutional failures or targeted by conspiracy. It reminds viewers that her prosecution successfully navigated multiple legal hurdles and withstood repeated challenges. This rigorous judicial process stands in stark contrast to claims of miscarriage of justice promoted by Letby's new barrister, Mark McDonald, and his expert panel head, Dr Shoo Lee.
Together with what the film describes as a "Twitter/X army of 'Letby truthers,'" these advocates have enjoyed considerable media freedom to present arguments for her innocence. However, this fresh defence will inevitably confront the reality of legal scrutiny. While social media discussions may have been influenced, convincing the Criminal Cases Review Commission that there exists a "real possibility" of success at appeal represents a substantially different challenge.
The Protracted Path to Conviction
Contrary to suggestions of hasty judgment, Letby's journey through the justice system was remarkably prolonged. Initial suspicions emerged in June 2015, yet internal conflicts at the Countess of Chester Hospital delayed action for over a year while more infants suffered harm or death. Only in August 2016 was Letby removed from clinical duties, with formal police referral occurring nearly two years after initial concerns were documented.
The subsequent investigation unfolded with deliberate thoroughness. Police spent a year investigating before Letby's first arrest in July 2018, followed by a second arrest a year later, and final charging in November 2020. Throughout multiple interviews, Letby frequently responded with "no comment" or "I don't remember" when presented with opportunities to explain events.
The Critical Defence Decision
The decision to prosecute originated not from hospital consultants or police, but from the Crown Prosecution Service applying its dual legal test requiring both realistic conviction prospects and public interest justification. This independent judgment was recently demonstrated when the CPS declined to pursue additional charges against Letby despite police recommendations.
During her ten-month trial beginning in October 2022, Letby's defence team called only one expert witness—a plumber—despite having nearly two years to prepare. Her highly experienced trial counsel, Ben Myers KC, robustly cross-examined multiple prosecution experts throughout the proceedings. The documentary's final caption notes Myers declined to explain why no defence experts were called, though this decision likely followed consultation with Letby about optimal trial strategy.
The Appeal Process and New Evidence Questions
Following her August 2023 conviction and subsequent July 2024 conviction for attempted murder of Baby K, Letby appealed over a three-day hearing before three senior judges. Dr Shoo Lee testified that the prosecution had misrepresented his medical paper on air embolism, but the Court of Appeal rejected this argument and refused leave to appeal.
The Netflix documentary focuses particularly on baby "Zoe's" death, featuring anonymized testimony from her mother "Sarah." Dr Lee publicly discussed this case in July 2025, claiming Zoe died from untreated infection rather than murder. However, this argument had already been presented during the original trial, where experts testified that while infection might have been present, it wasn't the cause of death. The jury heard this debate yet still convicted Letby.
Circumstantial Evidence and Defence Tactics
As noted by court reporter Kim Pilling in the documentary, the case features substantial circumstantial evidence that collectively suggests guilt. This includes 250 handover sheets—some belonging to babies she was convicted of harming—that Letby took home in breach of professional duty and carefully filed in date order. Police discovered these in a box file marked "keep" on her wardrobe shelf.
During interviews, Letby claimed she "inadvertently" took the sheets home and lacked a shredder for disposal, though the documentary shows photographic evidence of a shredder in her residence. Similarly, the controversial Post-it notes containing both damning and exculpatory statements were fully presented to the jury during trial.
The Unanswered Question
The fundamental question remaining involves defence strategy. Mark McDonald states in the documentary that he doesn't know why only one expert was called at trial, but this explanation won't satisfy legal authorities. The trial defence team had instructed multiple experts yet called none—a decision requiring explanation.
If this represented tactical error, Letby might have appeal prospects, but if it constituted the best available strategy given evidence limitations, then unless genuinely new, substantial evidence emerges that could withstand cross-examination and court scrutiny, her chances remain minimal. This critical consideration remains the overlooked detail in the ongoing debate about Lucy Letby's convictions and potential appeal.
