The case of Lucy Letby has ignited a firestorm of debate, becoming one of the most intensely scrutinized convictions in British legal history. Even after the verdict, questions linger, fueling passionate arguments about guilt and the complexities of the evidence.
Netflix’s new documentary, “The Investigation of Lucy Letby,” delves into this controversial case, presenting previously unseen footage and intimate accounts from those closest to the investigation. It promises a deeper look into the events that led to the conviction of the neonatal nurse.
However, the documentary isn’t without its critics. Concerns have been raised regarding the way certain witness testimonies are presented, specifically the use of artificial intelligence to disguise identities.
The film features interviews with Letby’s friends, the families of her victims, legal experts, and medical professionals. It also includes deeply personal footage of Letby’s parents, Susan and John, who have vehemently protested the documentary, calling it a profound invasion of their privacy. They claim Netflix proceeded without informing them of their intention to use recordings made within their home.
The recordings reveal a harrowing moment: Letby’s arrest at her parents’ house. Bodycam footage captures her emotional breakdown, tearfully asserting, “I have only ever done my best for those babies.” Susan Letby’s desperate cries of “Not again!” echo the repeated arrests Letby faced between 2018 and 2020, a testament to the intricate and challenging nature of the evidence.
In a particularly poignant moment, Letby pleads to say goodbye to her cat, telling her parents, “You know I didn’t do it,” to which her mother responds with unwavering belief, “I know you didn’t. We know that.” This exchange underscores the deep familial loyalty amidst the overwhelming accusations.
The documentary doesn’t shy away from presenting conflicting perspectives. Dr. John Gibbs, a key witness in the prosecution, now admits to harboring a “tiny” doubt about Letby’s guilt. Despite identifying her as the “common factor” present during all the deaths, a lingering uncertainty remains.
He confesses to carrying a “tiny guilt” that they may have convicted the “wrong person,” a startling admission that throws a new light on the certainty surrounding the case.
Further complicating matters, Dr. Shoo Lee, whose research was used in the prosecution, expresses concern that his studies were “misrepresented.” He alleges that prosecutors inaccurately linked the color of a baby’s marks to air embolisms, potentially influencing the jury’s understanding of the evidence.
Lawyer Mark McDonald discusses a handwritten note – described as a “confession” – in which Letby wrote that she “killed them on purpose” and considered herself a “horrible, evil person.” However, McDonald argues this note was a product of a therapeutic exercise, part of Letby’s attempt to process her emotions.
Letby herself has described the exercise, stating, “I was blaming myself, but not because I’d done something, because of the way people were making me feel.” She felt overwhelmed and spiraling, unsure of how to cope with the mounting pressure.
Even while fighting for a retrial, Letby maintains her innocence through letters to a friend, identified only as “Maisie.” In these letters, she expresses gratitude for the support and declares her unwavering determination: “I will not give up.”
The documentary’s use of AI has sparked significant controversy. Viewers are informed at the outset that some contributors have been “digitally disguised” to protect their anonymity, with their appearances and voices altered.
This digital anonymization goes beyond traditional methods like silhouettes or voice distortion. Instead, AI is used to create entirely new digital representations of individuals, including the mothers of victims and Letby’s friend, “Maisie.”
One mother, speaking about the loss of her baby “Zoe,” is portrayed by a convincingly human-looking AI construct, reacting with appropriate emotion and subtle gestures. Similarly, “Maisie” is depicted breaking down in tears while reading one of Letby’s notes.
Digital anonymization, as employed by Netflix, involves completely replacing a person’s identity with a digital figure, going beyond simply obscuring their features. It’s a stylistic choice that has drawn both praise and criticism.
Filmmakers have defended the use of AI as a tool for empowering individuals to share their stories, while others, like director James Cameron, have expressed horror at the prospect of AI replacing human artistry and unique perspectives.
The response from viewers has been largely negative. Many have criticized the AI-generated representations as “disturbing,” “weird,” and “garbage,” arguing that simpler methods of anonymization would have been more effective and respectful.
The debate surrounding “The Investigation of Lucy Letby” extends beyond the facts of the case to the ethical implications of using AI in documentary filmmaking, raising questions about authenticity, representation, and the potential for manipulation.
