Talk:Lucy Letby

"Doubts"? "Safety of conviction"?

wording is hard to pinpoint precisely. Especially in an encyclopedia that tried to be impartial and is crowd edited...

The text implies that the critics are merely not fully convinced about her guilt. Which accords with some critics, but is misleading regarding others.

Multiple critics have said "she's innocent" "the evidence is meaningless" "basic statical errors" etc.

I think the text should somehow be clearer regarding the fact that quite some of the critics aren't "expressing doubts"/"aren't fully persuaded", but are rather totally dismissive of the whole case and evidence and think she's quite likely innocent.

I'm expressing my thinking without having a clear wording/suggestion. Hoping that others would help in making the text more precise on this front Jazi Zilber (talk) 04:45, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Some individual experts and other commentators might have no doubts, but that can leave a NPOV as having doubts. I'd leave it as it is. S C Cheese (talk) 16:52, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

This section gives far too much weight to the views of individuals who have come out of the woodwork after the trial. The evidence was tested in court. The section synthesises and tries to use this article to relitigate the matters that were before the court. Wikipedia is not the place for this. The whole section needs pruning, toning down, and cannot be allowed to read like evidence for an appeal brief or worse true crime amateur sleuth investigations. At the moment the claims here are not legally supported and Wikipedia cannot further claims of such a nature which are using Wikipedia as an axe to undermine a conviction, where there is no reasonable legal ground to do so. Wikipedia is being used as an improper vehicle here. I dont like cricket I love it (talk) 15:03, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

I’ve removed the factual accuracy and synthesis tags, because there’s no evidence that either apply. Please highlight something specific you think is an example of either, if you see any.

I’m also of the view that the undue tag is inappropriate, but I’ll leave it for now because you did the right thing by initiating discussion here and a similar view was expressed by a couple of others a while ago.

The central problem with your comment above is that it misses that weight in Wikipedia is meant to be determined by prominence in reliable sources. This is explicitly laid out in the policy on NPOV ("in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public"), which makes no mention of legal rulings. Wikipedia does not represent British courts.

By this point, the reliable sources place central concern on the doubts about the safety of the convictions. This is true of the documentaries, books, podcasts, newspaper and magazine articles, both in the UK and abroad.

An RfC has established consensus that the sceptical experts and their doubts are not fringe and that Letby’s guilt is seriously contested. This is reflected in the neutral language throughout the article. I.e. nowhere does it state that she is guilty or innocent, it simply reports facts like ‘she was convicted’, ‘the prosecution said x’, ‘some experts have said y’.

The ‘safety’ section faithfully reports some of what the sources say about the doubts and it constitutes around a third of the article. Given the prominence of this controversy in the sources themselves, this weight is not undue. Whether the level of detail (as with other sections) is excessive is a separate, reasonable question.

If you wish to keep the tag/make changes, please justify this with reference to Wikipedia policy. Naihre (talk) 14:49, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Saying this is actually nonsense. It takes sources, particularly in the section about the conviction being wrong, and asserts them as fact. Asserts the conviction is wrong and asserts that she should be released. This is both factually inaccurate and is synthesis to push a she-is-a-martyr narrative. There is clear evidence these tags are warranted. Removing them is just washing away that the article is a pile of dung stinking from the high heavens.

"determined by prominence in reliable sources" - is actually a load of crap. That horrific line means that the now discredited Wakefield study on vaccines and the lies it was linked to autism was perfectly fine simply because it was in the Lancet.

Absolutely no objectivity as to the content in the reliable source. If a conspiracy theory or a specific opinion is liked and republished by a load in the media because it fits their sales and narrative bents, that will mean that objectivity is out of the window. It has to be able to be shown that, from a subjective point of view, what is being posted is credible and what is being posted actually has merits. What next? We start posting the ramblings of a widow on Wikipedia against the early sentencing scheme in the article about Andy Burnham.

Prominence is not a determination of reliability, accuracy, or credibility. The article cannot push things to the degree it is doing here. It has more than half of the article and, in some cases, entire sections dedicated to pushing fringe theories, outside agitators, and so-called experts. None of these saw the whole case as the court did; the appeals were rejected, and on two separate occasions a jury has gone ok yes, you are guilty. Also, a jury was smart enough to go yes guilty on some and not guilty on others.

This article has devolved into a True Crime bent and an amateur sleuth's paradise.

Examples are

• Letby has consistently maintained her innocence and has continued to receive support from friends and some former colleagues. A number of medical, statistical and scientific experts have also expressed doubts about the safety[b] of her convictions. The fact that her defence called only two witnesses at trial—Letby herself and a plumber—has been cited by some commentators as evidence that the jury did not hear a fully balanced account of the medical issues. Following the conclusion of her second trial in July 2024 and the lifting of reporting restrictions, several of these concerns were published in the press.

  - It gives a synthesised opinion slew of "oh look at all this that wasn't done, now leap to her being innocent."

• Much of the medical evidence presented at trial has been criticised by experts across several specialties, including neonatology, pathology, nursing, biochemistry and forensic toxicology

  - This is again more opinion and tries to push a narrative.

• Controversy has also arisen from the fact that the original post‑mortem reports for the infants—most of whom underwent autopsy—did not identify suspicious or unnatural causes of death.

  - This tries to insert negative bias. The outcomes such as those complained about in the post-mortems are actually a common thing in a post-mortem. The actual claims being made in reality prove nothing. Simply going "A coroner found nothing" is evidence of a lack of a crime. Coronial inquests in England and Wales are not criminal and do not make a determination of legal culpability. Post-mortems are not what people think, and people go oh look at this one thing; now jump to conclusion x. Additionally, was it genuine controversy or just laypeople and the uninformed simply going, " Well, this happened, jump to the conclusion I have jumped to.

The entire article contains far too much to list, but sections that go through one by one to push up, an ok these people said X, now conclude that the conviction is wrong. IT makes no actual attempt to be in any way balanced. It is all one-sided and goes: here are claims of this all being wrong, is the entirety of the "Safety of the convictions" portion of the article. It is only the claims that this is all wrong, and nothing on the other side; we are just going to push and promote the "this is all wrong" as a narrative.

The only pushback is a token "Reaction and responses to doubt" section. This is blatant POV pushing and narrative creation. Wikipedia here is being abused in this article to allow such a narrative and POV to be pushed. Without going; Is this objective and based in genuine reality? Wikipedia is not a place for pushing things which are just voluble and numerous.

The article must not present one side of an argument without also presenting balance. Yes, I understand balance is not both sides, but here it is exclusively; let's push, push, push that the convictions are wrong.

I dont like cricket I love it (talk) 15:53, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

If anything asserts a contested claim as fact (rather than just stating that some have made the claim), then highlight it or change it.

The article simply does not "assert the conviction is wrong and asserts that she should be release". Nor are the doubts covered in "more than half the article".

Your dispute with wikipedia policy on weight will go nowhere.

Both policy and the RfC consensus say the article should include the experts' doubts. That you don't like the experts is, frankly, irrelevant.

You need to be serious about this. Ranting will achieve nothing.

Edited to add: Your Wakefield example is a misunderstanding of the policy. The overwhelming majority of reliable sources now treat Wakefield as not credible on MMR, so the policy requires articles reflect that. If the reliable sources mostly regarded the experts in this case as cranks, then we'd reflect that too. But the fact is they simply don't. The sources take these experts seriously. Naihre (talk) 16:07, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Please actually read the entirety of what I have put. Wikipedia is pushing here a lot of lay person misunderstanding, and POV pushing. You are also ignoring how absurd the rigid application of what you are claiming is. You have to step back and go hand on is there any actual validity to what is published? Quoting the Wakefield stud because it was simply in the Lancet is the appeal to authority fallacy. That fallacy is exactly what this article has waded neck deep in to.

This claim is a lie: "That you don't like the experts is, frankly, irrelevant." - please withdraw it.

You are trying to dismiss what I have said by accusing me of a personal bias against the experts, rather than actually addressing the factual flaws and limitations in using these speculative claims based only on what they have seen in court and the media. The fact that I have just pointed out issues with the sections at large, and that you have jumped to personalising it that I have an axe to grind against the specific experts, is a leap worthy of this article. You are engaging in personaliation and are commenting on the contributor rather than the contents of the contribution.

I couldn't care less who the experts are and have heard of probably none of them outside of this article. Do not jump to conclusions and engage in attacking the contributor. Focus on what is actually being said here.

Moving to this claim -"You need to be serious about this. Ranting will achieve nothing" - it is a personal attack ascribing a negative motive. Please withdraw it.

It is additionally an example that you are not serious about engaging on improving this article but are just wanting to dismiss criticism you dislike. Engage with the content. Do not attack me as the contributor. Anticipating a denial that this is an attack, and you are innocent here. Please recognise that using pejoratives like 'ranting' to describe constructive criticism is an objective breach of civil discussion, regardless of your intent.

I dont like cricket I love it (talk) 16:29, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Suggested edit to tone down the "safety of conviction" section

The current section title, "Safety of the convictions", presents the section as a legal conclusion rather than neutrally describing the subject matter. Section headings should generally describe the topic being discussed rather than imply a conclusion in a disputed matter. The content of the section concerns subsequent expert commentary, reviews of evidence, and legal developments following the trial, rather than solely the legal question of whether the convictions are safe.

A more neutral section title and introduction would be:

==Expert reviews of the evidence==

Letby has maintained that she is innocent of the offences for which she was convicted. Following the trial, some medical and statistical experts criticised aspects of the prosecution evidence, including the interpretation of medical evidence and statistical analysis. In 2025, a panel convened by neonatologist Shoo Lee, with involvement from Letby's legal representatives, published an assessment of the cases and presented alternative explanations for some of the deaths and collapses. The panel's conclusions have been disputed, while the Court of Appeal has previously rejected challenges to the safety of the convictions. I dont like cricket I love it (talk) 17:52, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Use of "experts" as a term in isolation (new discussion)

For the avoidance of doubt, the issue with the vague use of the term 'experts' was raised at Talk:Lucy_Letby#"Doubts"?_"Safety_of_conviction"?. This was largely ignored. A de novo discussion is started below.

The use of the term 'experts' and 'some experts' in isolation is an appeal to authority and a POV push. To include this vagueness as to who these so called anonymous experts are is incredibly unhelpful in this article due to its contentious nature and its attraction to every kind of conspiracy theory.

If there are experts being relied upon, then the claims can be properly evaluated as to if they met the standards for Wikipedia inclusion. Who are these 'experts'? What are their 'qualifications'? What exactly did they say? Where was it published? Is the source reliable? Are they actually 'experts' in the relevant field?

The page currently has claims supported only by the terms 'experts' and 'some experts; which leave the reader with essentially no information whatsoever about the authority being invoked. It is particularly absurd in a contentious article like this. Imagine writing 'some experts believe X' and then refusing to tell the reader who those experts are or where this alleged expert consensus can be found. What exactly is the reader supposed to do with that?

'Expert' has become little more than a magic word attached as an assertion to make disputed claims sound authoritative. We may as well be citing Dr Zed from Borderlands as a 'medical expert', for all the context the term gives the reader. If named experts and reliable sources exist, then name them and cite them. If they don't, then ‘some experts’ is not a substitute for a source.

I dont like cricket I love it (talk) 17:55, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

We are following our sources in this.

You inserted "who?" here: "Experts[who?] have questioned the interpretation of blood test results used to support the allegation that Letby poisoned two infants with insulin." Our source says "Several experts challenged the use of results from this type of immunoassay test as evidence of crime".

You inserted "who?" here: "Other experts[vague][who?] have suggested that, even if accurate, the results may have alternative explanations." Our very next sentence names two and reports their conclusions.

You inserted "who?" here: "A separate report by seven experts[who?], including neonatologists, a forensic toxicologist, a forensic scientist and a paediatric endocrinologist". Our first source has "The report's authors, made up of seven experts including two consultant neonatalogists, a retired professor in forensic toxicology and a paediatric endocrinologist, said: ...." Our second source has "In the new report, the experts, who include a forensic toxicologist, a professor of forensic science and an endocrinologist who has written multiple peer-reviewed papers on medical test errors, attacked the validity of the evidence of insulin poisoning used by the prosecution at trial."

You inserted "who?" here: "Several neonatologists[who?] have described the allegation that Letby murdered three infants by injecting air into their stomachs via a nasogastric tube as implausible". Our source says "But the idea that injecting air into the stomach via a nasogastric tube could cause collapse leading to death was described as nonsensical or “rubbish”, “ridiculous”, “implausible” and “fantastical”, by eight separate expert clinicians who spoke to the Guardian, seven of them specialising in neonatology. Several said it was not practically feasible."

In short, the statements are well-founded. We are not performing investigative journalism or conducting an examination indepedently of our sources; on this encyclopedia, we summarise our sources, per WP:OR.

Template:Who/doc says the tag should be used when required to "verify the statements or beliefs attributed to the group, but that verification is already provided by our RSs. The documentation continues "Use good judgment when deciding whether greater specificity is actually in the best interests of the article. Words like some or most are not banned and can be useful and appropriate. If greater specificity would result in a tedious laundry list of items with no real importance, then Wikipedia should remain concise, even if it means being vague. If the reliable sources are not specific—if the reliable sources say only "Some people..."—then Wikipedia must remain vague." Your tagging was contrary to this.

The effect of the tagging is to insert scepticism about properly sourced statements, and that is not appropriate. NebY (talk) 19:28, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

The issue is not whether the claims are sourced, nor whether editors should independently determine who qualifies as an “expert”. It is whether repeatedly invoking “experts” without useful attribution is good encyclopedic prose.

A source calling people “experts” does not mean Wikipedia must reproduce that vagueness where the source provides more specific information. Here, “Other experts” is followed immediately by named individuals; the report is described as being by “seven experts” despite the relevant disciplines and authorship being identifiable; and “several neonatologists” is less precise than the cited description of eight clinicians, seven of whom specialised in neonatology.

That is the point of the tags. They are not an assertion that the claims are false, nor an attempt to “insert scepticism”. They are a request for the article to tell the reader who is actually making these claims where the sources allow it. Nor does “we are following our sources” settle the matter. The question is whether we are following them accurately and usefully, not whether we have copied their terminology. Finally, “our sources”, “our very next sentence” and “your tagging” rather unnecessarily frame this as competing camps. Wikipedia has no “our” article or “our” wording. The text belongs to the project. There are no article owners, and asking whether wording can be made more precise is entirely ordinary collaborative editing. I dont like cricket I love it (talk) 23:05, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

OK, now that I've posted my position at ANEW that these edits do not violate 1RR here because they are peripheral at best to the BLP issues at the core of the article, here's my idea for how we can amicably resolve this: Put the more detailed statements about the experts in an endnote; that way viewers interested in finding out more can just mouse over them without cluttering up the inline prose.

Anyone? Daniel Case (talk) 00:45, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

How on earth do you actually do that? This is from an actual mechanics of editing perspective. I dont like cricket I love it (talk) 03:02, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

Easiest way is to use the {{Efn}} template for the text, then add a new section called Notes with the {{Notelist}} template. Ravensfire (talk) 04:53, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

Right! I have done this many times? Any objections? Daniel Case (talk) 22:20, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

Weasel wording

The section on "Career" has a statement: "In July 2013, Letby and a senior colleague set a morphine infusion rate incorrectly, leading the deputy ward manager to suspend her from administering controlled drugs and require additional training." Yet on checking the linked articles, this is a very strange way of putting it. Although the BBC article agrees that the morphine drip was "checked by two nurses", all the articles and the people involved in the incident were very clear that Letby was the one who set the morphine drip rate, so attributing the error to "Letby and a senior colleague" makes it seem that it was a mistake they made. In fact, this way of phrasing it is very similar to Letby's own version of events reported in the Telegraph article where she says that "The mistake was realised immediately by myself and a colleague immediately after the dose had been given". According to the Guardian article this was not true, and the baby "could have died if colleagues at handover had not spotted the error an hour later."

Secondly, the phrasing "set a morphine infusion rate incorrectly" is both vague and minimises the incident. Letby set the morphine rate to deliver 10 times the correct dose to a baby. It should be important to note this as it makes clear that the incident was potentially fatal and that the recipient of the dose was an infant. This is why the incident is considered notable in Letby's pattern of behaviour. I haven't checked the rest of the article thoroughly, but I expect there'll be similar weasel wording in other places to try and minimise various incidents that Letby was involved in. Qyburnstein (talk) 10:54, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

I agree with you entirely but the article is entrenched with those resistant to any overhaul. Yes I’ll get attacked by the usual suspects for saying that but at this point it’s blindingly obvious.

The text needs changing. In fact the whole article needs completely rewriting but those who like the article like it currently is will simply block that.

I wish you all the best but be prepared for a wall of resistance to changing this dogshite article . I dont like cricket I love it (talk) 16:14, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

I've removed "and a senior colleague" from the line as it is not backed up by the sources cited. InfernoHues (talk) 07:01, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

I'd support a rewrite, based largely on Coffey and Moritz (condensed to encyclopaedic summary style). Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:37, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

The assembling of Dr Shoo Lee panel

i think it should be added that Dr shoo lee approached experts with mass emails (unknown amount) that contained leading nature and confirmation bias which is highly unscientific. These emails were leaked by a top neo natologist that was unhappy with the way it was written. Lee said something along the lines of thinking it's a miscarriage of justice, which is not an objective way to beging a panel, it's nature suggests they were doing it for a cause not for objective analysis. ~2026-50452-24 (talk) 18:04, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

If you have Reliable Sources for this then please say what they are. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:38, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

https://www.dailymail.com/news/article-15149447/Doctor-experts-free-Lucy-Letby-hope.html

Daily mail reported it, a UK neo natologist refused to join due to leading nature and leaked the email. ~2026-50452-24 (talk) 13:26, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

Trouble is that WP:DAILYMAIL is extremely clear on that being an unReliable source. If you can find anything more Reliable picking up on it then maybe that can be used. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:30, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

The daily mail have never said the source is unreliable. Channel 4 also used the emails in their documentary, the production team saw the emails and verified they're real.

If you run it through multiple AI chats they also conclude it's verified and undisputed.

Maybe you don't wish to add this detail as it questions the validity of the panel? ~2026-50452-24 (talk) 12:56, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

Channel 4's documentary may be a reliable source that could be added.

Wikipedia as a whole has come to the conclusion that the Daily Mail is not a trusted source. This does not mean everything they publish is invalid, just that it cannot be trusted to be used as an unbiased source for the purposes of an encyclopaedia.

AI chatbots/LLMs are not a reliable source, and their output should never be taken at face value. CurdyKai (talk) 14:01, 21 September 2026 (UTC)