The Case for Questioning Lucy Letby's Conviction: Media Surge After ITV and Panorama Documentaries

Lucy Letby: Who to Believe?

The Lucy Letby case, in which a neonatal nurse was convicted in 2023 of murdering seven babies and attempting to murder six others at the Countess of Chester Hospital, has sparked intense debate, particularly among those with concerns about an unsafe conviction. Two recent documentaries—ITV’s Lucy Letby: Beyond Reasonable Doubt? (aired 6 August 2025) and BBC’s Panorama: Lucy Letby: Who to Believe? (aired 11 August 2025)—have fuelled a

wave of press coverage and social media discussions questioning the reliability of her convictions. For critics of the verdict, these programmes highlight critical flaws in the prosecution’s case and underscore the need for a re-examination of the evidence. This article, written for those sceptical of Letby’s guilt, explores the media response to these documentaries, compares their approaches, and emphasises why ITV’s effort resonates more strongly with the cause.

A Surge in Media Questioning the Conviction

The airing of ITV’s Lucy Letby: Beyond Reasonable Doubt? marked a pivotal moment for those with concerns about an unsafe conviction. Described by The Guardian as a meticulously crafted piece of journalism, the documentary systematically challenged the prosecution’s evidence, including questionable insulin tests and statistical correlations linking Letby’s shifts to infant deaths. It featured respected international scientists who argued that these elements were either misinterpreted or unreliable, strengthening the case for reasonable doubt. Articles in The Guardian, The Irish Times, and The Telegraph echoed this narrative, amplifying calls for a judicial review. On platforms like X, critics praised the programme’s clarity, with one user calling it a “landmark” that “sets out reasonable doubt brilliantly” compared to the BBC’s effort. Another post hailed it as a documentary that “will age like wine,” reflecting its lasting impact on the movement to question Letby’s conviction.

BBC’s Panorama: Lucy Letby: Who to Believe? took a different approach, attempting to present both sides of the case but falling short in the eyes of those sceptical of the verdict. Critics, including The Irish Times, labelled it confusing and poorly structured, cramming conflicting theories into a single hour without clear resolution. The programme included prosecution experts like Dr Dewi Evans alongside defence advocates like Letby’s lawyer, Mark McDonald, but its indecisiveness—epitomised by its title—left viewers frustrated. Factual errors, such as a misrepresentation of extubation rates during Letby’s shifts, drew sharp criticism on X, with users calling it “bilge” that “aged like milk.” The BBC later corrected these errors, further undermining its credibility among those concerned about the conviction’s safety.

The media response to ITV’s documentary was far more favourable for critics of the verdict. Outlets like The New Yorker (cited in The Irish Times) reinforced doubts about the evidence, while X posts and Reddit discussions highlighted ITV’s role in galvanising public demand for a re-trial. Panorama’s coverage, by contrast, was seen as a missed opportunity, with its muddled narrative diluting the momentum created by ITV. Critics on X criticised the BBC for redundancy, noting its 2024 Panorama episode (Lucy Letby: Unanswered Questions) had already covered similar ground less effectively.

Comparing the Documentaries: A Clear Winner for Critics

ITV’s Beyond Reasonable Doubt? is a beacon for those questioning Letby’s conviction, offering a forensic, evidence-driven case that dismantles the prosecution’s claims. The documentary avoided sensationalism, focusing on scientific critiques—such as the unreliability of insulin tests and the misuse of shift-pattern data—presented by credible experts. Its clarity and depth, praised by The Guardian as covering more ground than most programmes, empowered viewers to challenge the conviction. For critics, this approach was a masterclass in advocacy, respectfully acknowledging the tragedy of the infants’ deaths while prioritising the need for truth and justice. The programme’s call for transparency, echoed by Letby’s lawyer, resonated deeply, fuelling hope for an appeal.

In contrast, Panorama: Who to Believe? disappointed those with concerns about the conviction. Its attempt to balance prosecution and defence perspectives resulted in a chaotic narrative that left viewers confused, as noted by The Irish Times. The inclusion of presenters who had previously written a pro-conviction book raised suspicions of bias, and errors like the extubation claim further alienated critics. On X, users expressed frustration, with one stating that ITV’s documentary “researched and presented the case much better.” The title Who to Believe? encapsulated its failure to take a stand, undermining its value to those advocating for a re-examination of the case.

Contrasting Impact: ITV’s Lasting Influence

For those sceptical of Letby’s guilt, ITV’s documentary was a game-changer. Its rigorous analysis sparked a surge in media coverage calling for a re-examination of Letby’s case, with articles in The Guardian and The Telegraph emphasising flaws in the judicial process. Social media amplified this, with X users rallying behind the programme’s evidence-based approach. The documentary drew parallels to ITV’s Mr Bates vs The Post Office, which exposed the Horizon scandal, showing the power of television to highlight potential miscarriages of justice. Critics see Beyond Reasonable Doubt? as a catalyst for change, pushing for systemic reforms in how medical and statistical evidence is used in court.

Panorama, however, failed to inspire the same confidence. Its lack of focus and perceived bias drew criticism from those concerned about the conviction, with Reddit threads questioning the need for another BBC episode so soon after 2024’s effort. The programme’s errors and indecisiveness weakened its impact, with X posts contrasting its “muddled” presentation with ITV’s clarity. For critics of the verdict, Panorama felt like a step backward, diluting the urgency of their cause.

Conclusion: A Rallying Cry for Justice

For those who question the safety of Lucy Letby’s conviction, ITV’s Lucy Letby: Beyond Reasonable Doubt? is a triumph of investigative journalism, offering a compelling, evidence-driven case that has reignited public and media demand for scrutiny of her case. Its clarity and focus have made it a cornerstone for critics, driving calls for a re-trial and greater judicial transparency. BBC’s Panorama: Lucy Letby: Who to Believe?, while raising some valid points, fell short with its confusing narrative and perceived bias, failing to resonate with those advocating for justice. As the fight to challenge Letby’s conviction continues, ITV’s documentary stands as a powerful ally, likely shaping the narrative for years to come as critics demand a fairer examination of the evidence.