The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article relates to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a contentious topic.
The following restrictions apply to everyone editing this article:
You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours (except in limited circumstances)
This page is protected. You must be logged-in to an autoconfirmed or confirmed account (usually granted automatically to accounts with 10 edits and an age of 4 days)
This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of crime and criminal biography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cheshire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Cheshire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CheshireWikipedia:WikiProject CheshireTemplate:WikiProject CheshireCheshire
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hospitals, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hospitals on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HospitalsWikipedia:WikiProject HospitalsTemplate:WikiProject HospitalsHospital
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath
Keir Starmer was the opposition leader when the conviction happened, but there's been recent developments in this case since Starmer became prime minister. The parts of this article mentioning Rishi Sunak's then government ministers should say "then health secretary" for example, as they are no longer the incumbent government. 87.114.4.246 (talk) 17:25, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Lucy Letby is a convicted serial baby murderer. Others that are convicted serial killers are referred to as such in the opening paragraph. I see no reason why she is exempt from this. The article also seems to be arguing for the defence. She is a convicted serial baby murderer and that is a fact, could someone please look into improving quality facts and bias of the article. Megan Marie Grant (talk) 08:26, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a month late to this, but I feel like this point needs to be addressed. Lucy Letby is not "exempt" from some universal practice of treating convicts as though they are automatically guilty. The reason the doubts over her conviction are given so much weight is because, unlike for example Randy Kraft or David Mulcahy (serial killers who are referred as such despite claiming innocence), her claims of innocence have been given credence by a large amount of reliable sources and promoted by major public figures such as former Supreme Court president Lord Sumption, so they are notable enough to be given weight in the article. The situation is no different from our coverage of Julius Jones or Melissa Lucio's claims of innocence. TRCRF22 (talk) 10:56, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@NebY yes but it may be worth revisiting now. In the meantime, a similar conviction (that of Brenda Agüero) is referred to on Wikipedia as a former nurse and convicted serial killer. Just this week, further arrests were made related to these events and further evidence was turned over to CPS. This page is out of step with the facts and I for one would like to see the issue reopened. Or will we consider this issue pending until the CCRC speaks on her application, possibly years and further convictions hence? HouseplantHobbyist (talk) 18:02, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You are not arguing the point raised, but a different one. The RFC supports the lead description, and the arrest of hospital managers has no effect upon that. Meanwhile, looking at Brenda Agüero, I note that the entire article is the work of a single author. I looked at the citations given, and they did not support calling her a serial killer. We don't use Wikipedia page text to assert what other page text on different articles should say, as someone can improve those pages too (as I have now done). Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:05, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Sirfurboy how does one open a new RFC? I think it would be good to revisit this issue, given the passage of time and the new information. As I understand, if the current position is the right one, a new rfc will reinforce it, right? HouseplantHobbyist (talk) 03:03, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:RFC. Read carefully the section on WP:RFCBEFORE. You might want to ask for help from some uninvolved editors who have experience of RFCs in framing the question, which must be neutrally phrased. My own advice, however, would be not to go there. Nothing has, in fact, materially changed at this point. There is no reason to expect a different outcome, and it will consume many hours - perhaps hundreds of hours of effort. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 06:20, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Editor CaptainEek writes that he does not know what “safety” of a conviction means. I think this is a difference between UK and US terminology. In UK the usual term is “safety”. In both cases it means (I think) that there can now be reasonable doubt that the convictions correspond to the underlying truth of the matter. Richard Gill (talk) 04:59, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I believe Eek is a she. Wikipedia is an international encyclopaedia, so we should perhaps use the most recognisable term, or explain a term if it is unclear, although I think "safety" here is probably fine without explanation, as its meaning seems guessable. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 06:58, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"On 4 February 2025, Lucy Letby's legal team applied for her case to be reviewed as a potential miscarriage of justice."
Applied to whom? And needs a source.
"An application to the Criminal Cases Review Commission and a new application to the Court of Appeal are pending."
This may need to be reworded when the previous point is addressed. 209.93.202.123 (talk) 11:51, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article presently states 'Letby initially failed her final year student placement, but passed a retrieval placement after requesting a new assessor. In 2011, Nicola Lightfoot, her assessor, reported she was lacking in clinical and medication knowledge and needed more experience in "picking up on non-verbal signs of anxiety/distress from parents"; in a 2024 inquiry, Lightfoot said she had found Letby to be "cold"'. I'm guessing that Lightfoot was her first assessor. Does anyone know? I think the article should say "Nicola Lightfoot, her first assessor" or "second assessor", as the case may be.Richard Gill (talk) 13:14, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Done NebY (talk) 09:41, 17 May 2025 (UTC)