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.
Now, a new documentary, “The Investigation of Lucy Letby,” attempts to unravel the threads of this controversial case, presenting previously unseen footage and intimate accounts from those closest to the investigation. But the film itself has become a point of contention, sparking outrage over its unconventional use of artificial intelligence.
The documentary features deeply personal interviews with Letby’s friends, the families shattered by loss, legal experts, and the medical professionals involved. It also includes raw footage of Letby’s parents, Susan and John, who vehemently oppose the film, branding it a cruel invasion of privacy. They claim Netflix proceeded without informing them of recordings taken within their own home.
Among the most haunting moments is the capture of Letby’s arrest at her parents’ house. Bodycam footage reveals her emotional breakdown, tears streaming as she insists, “I have only ever done my best for those babies.” Her mother’s desperate cries of “Not again!” echo the agonizing cycle of investigations that spanned from 2018 to 2020.
Before being led away, Letby pleaded with her parents, stating, “You know I didn’t do it.” Her mother’s response, “I know you didn’t. We know that,” reveals a heartbreaking family divided by suspicion and doubt. This moment encapsulates the profound emotional toll the case has taken on all involved.
The documentary doesn’t shy away from challenging perspectives. Dr. John Gibbs, a key witness in the prosecution, now admits to harboring a “tiny” doubt about Letby’s guilt. He acknowledges the “unusual” circumstance of Letby consistently being on shift during the infants’ deaths, yet a sliver of uncertainty remains.
Further complicating the narrative, 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.
The film also examines a handwritten note, described as a “confession,” in which Letby wrote she “killed them on purpose” and considered herself “horrible, evil.” However, lawyer Mark McDonald argues this was a product of a therapeutic exercise, part of Letby’s attempt to process her emotions and the immense pressure she faced.
Letby herself, in previously unheard statements, reveals her internal struggle: “I was blaming myself, but not because I’d done something, because of the way people were making me feel.” She describes a spiraling sense of despair, feeling overwhelmed and unsure of what the future held.
Even while fighting for a retrial, Letby maintains a defiant spirit, as evidenced in letters shared by a friend, identified only as “Maisie.” In these letters, Letby expresses gratitude for the support and vows, “I will not give up.”
However, the documentary’s most controversial element is its use of AI to digitally disguise the identities of certain witnesses. Viewers are informed at the outset that some contributors have had their appearances, names, and voices altered to protect their anonymity.
The AI recreations, used during interviews with the mother of one of the victims and Letby’s friend “Maisie,” have drawn widespread criticism. While the digital figures appear convincingly human, reacting with appropriate emotion, many find the technique unsettling and deeply artificial.
This “digital anonymization” goes beyond traditional methods like silhouettes or voice distortion, completely replacing a person’s image with a digitally generated one. It’s a stylistic choice that has sparked a debate about the ethics of using AI in sensitive documentary filmmaking.
Filmmakers have defended the use of AI as a tool for empowering individuals to share their stories without fear of identification. Others argue that it’s a disturbing trend that risks dehumanizing the very narratives it seeks to convey.
The response from viewers has been overwhelmingly negative. Many have described the AI recreations as “foul,” “weird,” and “disturbing,” arguing that simpler methods of anonymization would have been far more effective and respectful.
The Investigation of Lucy Letby has reopened old wounds and ignited new controversies, not only about the case itself but also about the evolving landscape of documentary filmmaking and the ethical implications of artificial intelligence.
