Everything Is Content - Everything In Conversation : Lucy Letby & True Crime

Episode Date: February 18, 2026

Happy Wednesday EIConversationalists. This week we ask, should everything be content?As of early February 2026, there are at least seven major television and streaming documentaries specifically focused on the case of Lucy Letby. The latest documentary The Investigation of Lucy Letby landed on Netflix earlier this month, featuring, in their words ‘never-before-seen footage as well as interviews with case investigators, a friend of Letby, and one of the victims’ parents.’The words “digitally anonymised” popped up every time the grieving mother, or Letby’s college friend, “Maisie”, appeared on screen, because although the documentary used their real voices, and real words they used Ai generated humans to represent them.In a piece for Newsweek H. Alan Scott writes, ‘On paper, the logic is sound. In practice, it is deeply unsettling. The closer you look, the more the illusion unravels. They are talking FaceTuned images—avatars trapped in the uncanny valley, mimicking sorrow without any of the soul, Instead of honoring the victims and grappling with the incomprehensible horror of Letby's crimes, we are left debating the ethics of a visual effect.’Netflix defended the decision to Esquire, stating the technology was used "to protect the anonymity of the contributors at their request." The evening standard said it was 'a morally egregious use of AI slop'Aside from the AI issue which we go into, we can’t stop thinking about how many documentaries are popping up, seemingly constantly, about things that have just happened or are still happening.Do true crime documentaries need to have such a big place in our culture?Thank you so much for all of your opinions and takes on this topic, we love being in conversation with you all. O, R, B xxoxoThe Investigation of Lucy Letby review – this sensationalist take isn’t what this awful case needsWhy The Investigation of Lucy Letby's 'Digitally Anonymised' Documentary is Causing ControversyLucy Letby’s parents: Netflix show is an ‘invasion of privacy’Netflix’s Use of AI Deepfakes is a Betrayal of True Crime Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

I'm Beth. I'm Ruchera and I'm Anoni and this is Everything in Conversation. This is our midweek dash of content designed to top you up before the Friday episode. We would love for you, yes you, to take part in these extra episodes, whether you agree with us or even better disagree with us. You can get involved by following us on Instagram at Everything is ContentPod. That is where we decide on topics and open the floor for all of your opinions. As of early February 2026, there are at least seven major television and streaming documentaries specifically focused on the case of Lucy Lettby. And the latest documentary, the investigation of Lucy Lettby, landed on Netflix early this month,

featuring in their words, never-before-seen footage, as well as interviews with the case investigators, a friend of Lettby and one of the victim's parents. When you're watching it, the words digitally anonymise pop up every time the grieving mother or Letby's college friend Maisie appear on screen because although the documentary used their real voices and real words, they used AI-generated humans to represent them. And in a piece for Newsweek, H. Allen Scott writes, On paper, the logic is sound.

In practice, it's deeply unsettling. The closer you look, the more the illusion unravels. They are taking face-tuned images, avatars trapped in the uncanny valley, mimicking sorrow without any of the soul. Instead of honoring the victims, grappling with the incomprehence, horror of Letby's crimes, we are left debating the ethics of a visual effect.

And Netflix defended the decision to Esquire, stating that the technology was used to protect the anonymity of contributors at their request. The Evening Standard said it was a morally egregious use of AI slot. Aside from the AI issue, which I definitely want to get into with you both, I can't stop thinking about how many documentaries are popping up seemingly constantly about things that have just happened or are still happening. And in fact, as we were researching for this podcast episode, we saw that there was already a podcast titled Finding Nancy Guthrie by the Daily Wire. The first app having been released on the 4th of February after she disappeared on the 31st of January. She's the mother of Savannah Guthrie, who is an American broadcast

journalist and an attorney, and she's one of the main co-anchors on the NBC News Morning Show today, which is why this is obviously getting so much coverage. But it is one of the most extreme examples of the conversation that we're about to have about true crime documentaries. Because do we need, in the case of Lucy let me, another documentary, especially since still active and evolving with ongoing legal processes regarding her convictions, further investigations and a statutory public inquiry as of the start of this year. Some of the previously unseen footage mentioned is the moment that Lucy gets arrested while she's in bed wearing pyjamas at her parents' house, in response to which her parents, speaking to the Sunday times,

said, why are they allowed to show the world what took place in our house that morning, and Netflix not even have the decency to tell us? We had no idea they were using the footage in our house. We will not watch it. It would likely kill us if we did. It's a complete invasion of privacy. And Lucy Mangon for the Guardian writes, when the footage is shown, you can hear her mother howl in distress as the police take let me away. It's an almost inhuman sound. It's hard to say what values such inclusion adds except to warn the viewer to brace themselves for sensationalism along the way as the case is pieced together. Social media is once again a digital courtroom with public opinion sharply divided between

those questioning the safety of the conviction and those who viewed the evidence as conclusive. Beth, I know that you've watched the documentary. Ritura needs to check if you have, but how did you feel coming away from it? So I almost feel like I should, or in my own heart, I felt like I needed. to defend my decision to watch this. And it was one because I was seeing the discourse about this. This was one of many, but one of, there was something quite exclusive in this

in terms of the other side of this. So there's the prosecutor's decisions, and then there's the public perception, and then there's the guilty verdict. And then there is, what is existing now, is lingering doubt about Lucy Lettby's guilt. And people were saying, well, what we see in this documentary is for the first time,

fellow consultants or consultants and fellow staff at the hospital expressing a little bit of doubt that she may not be guilty. And so I wanted to watch this. This is the first Lucy Lettby documentary that I have watched. I did keep up with some of the coverage. There was a really, it was a very viral piece. I believe it was the New York Times. It was a long read. And for a while, it wasn't available in the UK because it was while the trial was going on. And so I was seeing a lot of American journalists and people that I follow online discussing this. And I didn't have access to it. I think then I was on, I think I had someone send it to me because I was so curious. I had only seen the news that this was a really open shut case that this, she had definitely done. It was overwhelming

evidence. She was, she had been found guilty and in any appeal, she would be found guilty again. And so I think it was that curiosity that has led me to this point. And I will admit, when this story was first, I think it was when she was convicted and this story was all over social media. I was I tweeted a few things about like how disgusting it was and how what an awful crime, what an awful woman. And I got messaged and people being like, do you know this? Do you know this? You are speaking in such definitive terms about something that perhaps if you knew about them, you would feel the same. But it doesn't seem like you do know. And I had to admit like I don't know about this. I had read coverage and I'd read headlines. And so I just stepped back at that point. Having watched this documentary, I've never been glad that I have, I have no. I am not bound to come up with a verdict here. I'm not bound to say you are guilty and you are. Like I'm not on the jury.

Like I find this case specifically and perhaps we won't really get into it, but I find this a really challenging case, which is why I wanted to watch the documentary. I did find the AI distracting. I did find I'm very suspicious of some Netflix documentaries. I do think even if they are telling the truth, they are portioning it out in a way that they deem to be the most splashy. It often feels like they work backwards from a.

inclusion and from an angle. And I don't know, it just left me a lot more confused than ever. But I do think that many documentaries on one case, hearing her mother howl in the documentary almost turned off, it's a tough watch and I'm just trying to decide whether I think it was worth it. It's worth having another and another and another about the same case. And I don't know. Yeah. So knowing we were talking about this topic and hearing your thoughts about the documentary, I watched most of it last night, and I think I'm up to three quarters about the kind of like three quarter mark. And to be honest, I really agree with a lot of the points that you both raise that, I mean, the AI was just so distracting. And I found it like really unsettling and like quite sickening, seeing that kind of blurry face, the unnatural sheen of the hair, the kind of smooth, just like digitally altered face with the kind of very real testimony and the very real emotion behind the hair.

the kind of smooth, just like digitally altered face with the kind of very real testimony and the very real emotion behind it, it made me feel very sickened. Sickened is the right word, I guess. And I do think I was talking to my partner about this and we both come from a journalism background. And he was saying the kind of rise of this use of AI to kind of cover people's anonymity and, you know, to tackle that as an issue when you're having documentaries that are very sensitive, it feels counterintuitive. Because with a documentary, you have put so much work into establishing trust in the topic, into reporting on the facts.

Obviously, documentaries are biased. I'm not saying they're unbiased. They aren't. They have to have a story as a narrative. But you're trying to establish credibility. And then with these very personal human moments, you use AI to visually create this feeling of intimacy with. somebody that you can't see it. It just, it really sits with me in a very bad place. I don't know what's

wrong with just having the dark room, an actor speaking the person's messaging, something about the use of AI in these very personal human horrific instances. It just, it pulls me. And I, I'm so glad that you read other people's writing around it because I couldn't put my finger on why, but I do agree. I find it egregious. It feels like it takes away from the subject. And also, I think it damages the idea of trust in a subject because who knows in the future you don't have to prove that you've actually got a testimony from somebody involved. It just makes, I don't know, it just makes me add to the distrust of it all. With the idea of the actual documentary, with it starting off with a body cam footage, I felt so upset. I didn't feel like I had a right

to see that scene of her getting arrested. And I've not had that feeling before where I was like, oh God, I'm not meant to be here. I'm not meant to be seeing this. It felt so just like voyeuristic. And I guess because I'm not really into the world of true crime documentaries anymore, I used to be when I was a teenager, which is kind of a weird part of my teenhood. But the amount of access you now get, me catching up to it, I'm quite unsettled. And I'm very interested to dive into this topic because my skewing, having watched this documentary is quite negative towards this whole industry. Yeah, I really agreed with the Newsweek piece about how uncanny it was. I don't think we need that much texture and colour. I agree with you.

I think that it's better. if they wanted to use their real voices, have them in a dark room, have them blacked out, so they're just a silhouette. And I think that adds more truth to it. I think the kind of designs on it do give it like a kind of weird skew. Although I did want to go back to you,

I think because I was in Paris, I could read it, but there was a New York piece in May, 2024 that was titled, A British nurse was found guilty of killing seven babies, did she do it? And they actually reference it in the documentary. And I think it was about,

like you couldn't read it in the UK. Is that right? I think you had to... Yeah, I think that's, is that is the one actually that I yeah and it was may because I think you're right you were in Paris I think maybe I was in Bermuda on a press trip and so I could read it for the first time someone had sent it to me and that was when the three of us first discussed it which is yeah it seems like such I mean it's almost two years ago now I mean and I think that's why this case in

particular is so interesting because in there does if there is a miscarriage of of justice that is something that the public needs to know and we need to be aware of and the NHS is something that does impact all of us. And so to find out that potentially there could be certain hospitals or practices that are, you know, putting patients and babies in harm's way to a fatal extent is something that does feel like it's public interest. But the way the Netflix documentaries are made and these two kind of documentaries, it doesn't feel like it's kind of out of the goodness of their heart. You are kind of watching and fascination. And there is a part of me that at moments you can kind of forget that what you're watching is about someone's real life. You know, these are, did all of

the other parents consent? The fact that Lucy Leppi's parents weren't told beforehand that the inside of their home would be showed and they're really concerned that where they live, it's quite small, they're worried that their house is now going to become a tourist attraction. You know, by all means at this moment, people are contesting Lucy Leapie's guilt, but her parents are certainly not guilty and they must be going through unimaginable grief and pain as well as all of the parents of the victims of those babies. So there is an element where I kind of get torn in two because I think if it turns out that she is not guilty

and if it turns out that this evidence, you know, proves that, then, you know, I would want to know that. But do I need to know that now? Will the judge and jury of social media change how the case goes? Or would it be better for this to be carried out in courts and perhaps five years down the line? someone could retrospectively go in and say, look, this is how it all unfolded.

There's not been enough hindsight, has there? And that's the thing we're kind of digging down to with this, with the amount of documentaries, you said seven, with the kind of recent example that you brought up of Nancy Guthrie. You can't add nuance to a discussion with officials looking into a case when you are reporting on it as it's unfolding. It does kind of need that kind of air to breathe, kind of the thought behind it, the more kind of evidence to come forward. It does feel like the kind of

gold rush to create content around these cases and the kind of immediacy of them means, in my opinion, I don't know what you could possibly be adding. We had a message from Matt who said, cash grabs disguised as having some value for the public, traumatic events for consumption. And when it is so back to back, it does feel like a cash grab. It does feel like there is enough robust reporting on this with, you know, in the written form that someone making the the latest in an ongoing string must surely be doing it to be

to make money and to without really much consideration for the victims and it's always the victims families, whether it's a Dharma dramatization or Netflix or if it is a documentary where all of the parents of these babies are alive where her family are alive, where this is only years removed

and when it is still ongoing. Like it's so difficult not to think, not to think cynically about this. And it is always the surrounding, not characters, but the individuals involved in a surrounding way, the families who are going through, whether it's her family or the families of these babies, these are the victims of a thing

and will never not be the victims of this thing. And it does feel like someone, somewhere is robbing the hands together, thinking in dollar signs. And so often you see, I think it was the Dharma documentary where the families were like, we are still alive. You didn't ask for our permission. You didn't ask for this.

You have created something. And it's always focused on the most sensationalist part. It is always focused on who we think you are the villain. We love a villain. And everyone else becomes like a bit part in the worst thing that ever happens to you. And I do, I've really cemented my view that certainly dramatizations of true crime where a lot of the individuals connected to the case are still alive, still suffering, still trying to heal and live, there is no good reason. There is no ethical way to do that without one talking to them and getting permission from everybody.

And if you don't get permission, I don't think a lot of these are in the public interest. A lot of it is documentaries are very different, but in dramatizations, which I'm sure in our lifetime, maybe even, you know, if this case does get solved or closed, there will be an ITV drama about this. it just, I can't not feel that it is really a disgusting facet of our need to consume shocking things and not really worth its own. We also had a mess from Sarah which really kind of rocked me which said, my feelings on this have completely changed since a childhood friend of mine was murdered, along with her mum and sister two years ago. I used to love watching true crime documentaries probably because it felt like escapism from my own life.

But what I think about now is the loved ones of the victims who are, left behind and have to see adverts about their tragedy being labeled as entertainment with profit being the main motivation for the production company. I don't watch true crimes anymore, specifically those around murder and abuse, because there are surviving victims out there whose suffering is probably made worse by these documentaries. Unless the story has a deeper educational message about a systemic problem, if you believe in raising awareness, which they rarely do, I don't agree with it. And I don't really know any two ways around that.

I don't know how you can disagree with that. And I wonder if there is a way, like you said, Beth, if they speak to everyone and it's allowed, or if the documentary, for example, became a question around in what ways could hospitals be covering up, you know, malpractice or the way that the luck of funding? There are always ways, I'm sure, that documentaries can be informative and sensitive.

but it does seem, I think for me, and as we said, it's definitely like the pace with which they are being made. And like this Nancy Guthrie podcast existing, it's kind of, it's the natural end to where we've seen with like online sleuthing and stuff. People just want immediacy with everything. But you do need that hindsight. And there was another message.

I'm really sorry. I don't know what the name is because they had a username that didn't have the name in it. But they said, when the dog was, Docs are churned out so soon after a story that often developments after the release, but in the end, all anyone remembers is the sensationalised doc, and any changes after that will be ignored. And I think that's a really good point because Netflix did say they wanted to make the definitive

documentary on this case. I don't know how you're planning on doing that when the case is still open. I think also the kind of other side to the coin is, yeah, these documentaries are being made, but they're also responding to this kind of insatiable appetite for this content. and that's the thing that I find quite difficult because the kind of period we're in with what gets commissioned is so expressly linked to what performs well and I was just looking for data on this and it wasn't cited so I will attach it in the show notes but it is you know categorically true that I think it says something like 14 out of the 16 top Netflix documentaries in 2025

were all true crime docs and we know that in the top five of the films or TV category I always end up seeing something that's a true crime thing and they are being pushed out, pushed out, pushed out, but people are watching them and I think there is something to be said about why so much of this content performs the kind of horror of it,

something very appealing to people, what is going on there that makes people want to watch this stuff because they're not made in isolation, they're consumed in such huge numbers. And maybe too, like investigating why each of us is drawn to watching these types of documentary and people will watch multiple documentaries about the same case. They will have a special interest in a particular true crime, which is a knock on effect of having these like cottage industries off crime of podcasts,

of TV series of live shows where a true crime podcaster will cheerfully talk with the audience through the worst moments of someone's life. I think why these documentaries appeal to the consumer versus what is already out there, which is really thorough reporting. And I think, especially in the UK, since the trial has wrapped up, there has been, all of the information is kind of out there, apart from what I said. Like, I think this was the first time in a documentary where one of somebody who worked there said, quote, I live with two gilts, guilt that we let the babies down. And tiny, tiny, tiny guilt, did we get the wrong person? You know, just in case a miscarriage of justice. I don't think there was a miscarriage justice,

but you worry that no one actually saw her do it, which if you are a person that believes her to be innocent, this is really seismic. This is something that everyone should hear. And I will be honest, like I don't think I was alone in thinking that this was a cut and dry case, that there was absolutely no room for error, that there was overwhelming evidence.

And watching the documentary, it was revealed at least the process of convicting this person was more circumstantial. But I do wonder at my own appetite for these things. and Netflix ever in this battle to be the dominant voice to kind of, I was talking to my partner about this, kind of YouTubeify these sorts of cases where you can, if you are making a YouTube, sure, you can as an independent person just put something out very quickly and it can be consumed so rapaciously and so immediately. And Netflix, I think, wants a slice of that pie.

They want a monopoly. They want to be, they want eyes. And we know that what we'll get eyes is true crime, something sensational and something really gruesome. And I, just think it is also a case of appetite for people. You know, people in our DMs are calling it trauma porn. I think there is a fine line between we really do need thorough reporting on cases, especially when there is a potential of a miscarriage of justice, but also when it is a public interest case. But then there's a line where someone is treasing it as if it is a limited series.

I think Netflix, I said this earlier, like I think Netflix does often do this. It seems like they construct. what they think will be the most splashy, the most shocking, and they will then include and not include to suit that narrative. I'm not saying that they are lying or have an agenda beyond just getting eyes on the screen, but I think that sometimes is enough to dispel intentions of really good reporting and really truthful narrating. I was just thinking about what is my appetite for true crime,

because it's not something I gravitate towards. It tends to be something that a friend will be like, oh, my God, this new documentary. I get sucked in when I watch it, but I don't naturally go to watch those things. But I remember the biggest one was, do you remember when making a murderer came out on Netflix? I think it was like between 2015, 2018. That was, I think, the beginning of this real explosion into true crime. But I was also just thinking about, in Friday's episode, we spoke about the Epstein Files. And like you said, people are calling it trauma porn. What does it do to the collective psyche when we're

exposed to the most depraved acts by humans? Like, is it actually desensitizing? Because I remember watching making, making a murderer and it being really shocking and destabilizing. And now I feel like I, and I remember watching one that probably the last documentary I watched true crime before this was about a man who killed his wife and children, I think dumped them in like a water container or something. And you're watching it and you're like so shocked that that's happened. But then once you've seen it, you're like, somewhere in your brain that is lodged as that is something that. can and does happen. Like, is it good for us to be so entertained? Even if you think you're not being entertained, even if you think you're being informed, you are sitting there and watching it.

So it is entertainment. Like, does that produce anything good for a society or does it actually numb us a little bit to when these things happen? Because, oh, well, I saw that on a documentary before. It's not as horror. It's not as graphic or horrifying or extreme as something else. I don't know if it's necessarily great that we are so desperate to have such deep knowledge of this, even though there's so many studies to say that it's women consuming this and that comes from a place of actually sort of like self-protection, wanting to be really informed of what could happen to us, but still, I don't know if there's maybe, you know, a darker element where it means that we actually are somewhat desensitized to terrible

things. I think absolutely, I've read so many pieces on this, but basically point to an overconsumption of true crime means that you in the world are massively overestimating. you're the likelihood of violence at any moment. We know that there are these cases where it is a random act of violence, but most often it is in the home, someone you know if you are going to be killed or assaulted or harmed as a woman. It will be someone you know it will be an intimate situation.

But then you see consumers of true crime gone holiday and take every precaution and they've got special locks for the door and they are double. They are so concerned you'll see moms in Walmart going, there's a crisp packet near my wheel. I think I'm about to be trafficked. I think it absolutely, and it has been proven to, alter and warp, how safe we feel and how just we overestimate the likelihood of violence, which is such a limiting way to live. Women already have to make so many calculations.

This just gives them, they're sitting in the back of the Uber, pulling out their hair because they read somewhere that if you kidnups you and kills you, but then all your DNA is everywhere. All you've done is actually just fill a stranger's car with hair and someone's got to hoover that up, makes you feel less safe. And I think in this, I mean, it's so delicate in this case because it's about the National Health Service and it is about people's children, which is so sensitive. And I, it's so difficult because the ripple effect of this, you can't predict. But it does happen. The conversation that we have, I think people are increasingly paranoid and it gets out of hand so quickly.

And I do think true crime has so much to answer for. And almost I have little to no respect for most people that work in reporting on true crime. There are very few who do it sensitively and with the public in mind. Most of them are shock job. We had quite few messages about bias as well in documentaries, which I found really interesting. Robin messaged and said, I think the risk is that they've watched as a definitive guide to the events. We've all heard that media literacy is dying,

but I teach secondary school and, oh my God, everything is taken literally and at face value. They don't think critically or carefully. I think there is less understanding that docs contain. Look at the staircase. Fascinating case. but the editor has an affair with the subject. I also think the added element is,

and they included that in the Lucy Letby case with kind of little clips of TikToks that were blowing up with every development of the case. And that was just like the second tier of it all. Not only are there these very instant documentaries coming straight out, but there are people jumping onto TikTok lives, jumping onto reels, whatever,

to post their opinion as the case is unraveling. And it's just, it's such a mess of reporting and just not real reporting really. Someone also sent an interesting message. Joanna said she definitely mentioned the jinx. The TV show editing was his grounds for appeal before he died. So basically there was like a dramatized version of the life and death of Robert Durst, who was even after his appeal ultimately found guilty of first-degree murder.

But it is interesting that these documentaries can have real life world effects on how the case manifests. And that should also maybe be quite. scary because he managed to appeal on the fact that he thought that, you know, the dramatization or documentary or whatever that was made was misleading and this made him get an appeal again. He still was found guilty. But you're right, Richard. When I was watching the documentary, I couldn't stop thinking about the fact that they'd shown all these people who'd come out saying she's the worst person in the world then saying, oh, actually

maybe you shouldn't do it. And I just thought we have got to stop getting so involved in things that we shouldn't have an opinion. I know that we're having an opinion on it right now, but we're not talking about whether or not, we think that she's guilty or not. And it is fascinating. We had a message from Mani and he said, I think it's a consequence of how voyeuristic society as a whole has become.

And I think that is a really good way of thinking about it. I think we are incredibly used to having access to constant information, constant reporting, whether it's access to cameras, the body cam footage thing. There was a whole true crime, which I did watch. Actually, sorry, I watched this one as well when I was away in Valencia with my friend Poppy, there was a whole documentary that was all made up from body cam footage. And I think the more that we live in a surveillance culture where we know that there is video footage of everything, whether it's like, and in some instances, for instance, like the murder of Renee Good, you know,

these are good things. But as with any good thing comes kind of it spurns 50 bad things. And I think that we have to be really careful about how and why we use or weaponize our access to surveillance as a culture and try and be individually critical about whether or not something is good for us to consume and if we're going to consume it, always having the back of our mind who has made this, why are they making this and how much money they're making. Thank you so much for listening and for all of your opinions and takes on this topic. Whether we get five responses or 100, we read them all and appreciate every single one. Please also give us a follow on Instagram and TikTok at Everything is Content Pod.

and DM us and share your thoughts with us over there. We'll see you as always on Friday. Bye. Bye.