The Commercialisation of Guilt: Did Judith Moritz and the BBC "Sell" the Lucy Letby Verdict?

In the history of British miscarriages of justiceMiscarriage of Justice: A failure of a court or judicial system to attain the ends of justice, typically resulting in the conviction of an innocent person. Notable UK examples include the Birmingham Six and the Guildford Four., the role of the media has often been to ask the difficult questions that the courts ignored. In the case of R v Letby, however, the media did not just report the prosecution’s case—they monetised it.

At the heart of this "guilt industry" stands Judith Moritz, the BBC’s North of England Correspondent. While the public trusted the BBC for impartial reporting, a forensic examination of Moritz's conduct reveals a disturbing alignment of professional duty and private profit. Our investigation suggests that the "unmasking" of Lucy Letby was less a journalistic endeavour and more a commercial product, built on a narrative of monstrosity that was too lucrative to fact-check.

1. The Journalist as Prosecutor

Judith Moritz was not merely an observer in Manchester Crown Court; she was the architect of the public’s perception. With "unrivalled access" to the trial, she curated the daily intake of evidence for millions of Britons.

However, impartiality appears to have been abandoned for storytelling. Moritz frequently focused on what she termed the "beige" nature of Letby, framing her normality as a "mask" of deception. This circular logic—that looking innocent was proof of being a "deceptive monster"—inoculated the public against the presumption of innocence.

Why would a senior journalist rely on such confirmation biasConfirmation Bias: The tendency to interpret new evidence as confirmation of one's existing beliefs. Once reporters decided Letby was "beige" but guilty, even her normal behavior was interpreted as "calculated" or "cold."? The answer may lie in the contract she signed.

2. The Conflict of Interest: A Bestseller Built on a Verdict

The most profound ethical breach in this case is the timing of Moritz's commercial enterprise. Orion Publishing Group, a subsidiary of the "Big Five" publisherThe Big Five: The five largest trade book publishers in the world (including Hachette, Orion's parent company). A deal with a publisher of this size typically guarantees high distribution and marketing, creating immense pressure for a marketable "story." Hachette, acquired the rights to Moritz and Jonathan Coffey’s book, Unmasking Lucy Letby, well before the judicial process had definitively concluded.

The economics of the "True Crime" industry are brutal:

• The "Monster" Premium: A book detailing the crimes of a "serial killer" is a mass-market bestseller.
• The "Mistake" Discount: A book about a complex legal stalemate or a miscarriage of justice appeals only to a niche audience.

Industry standards suggest a book deal of this magnitude would command an advance of £50,000 to £100,000. But this payout was contingent on a specific ending: a guilty verdict. Had the jury acquitted Letby, the manuscript’s premise—"The Nurse Who Killed"—would have been destroyed.

By signing this deal while still reporting on the case, Moritz created a subconscious, if not conscious, bias. Every report she filed for the BBC that reinforced the prosecution’s case also reinforced the value of her private asset.

3. Fabricating the Monster: The Panorama "40%" Lie

The drive to secure this "guilty" narrative appears to have led to the broadcasting of demonstrable falsehoods. The most damning example is the BBC Panorama special, Lucy Letby: Who to Believe?.

In a segment designed to portray Letby as dangerous even during her training, the programme displayed a dramatic graphic claiming that breathing tubes became dislodged on "around 20" occasions during her shifts at Liverpool Women’s Hospital. This was presented as "empirical" proof of a pattern of harm.

The Reality:

Following independent scrutiny, the BBC was forced to issue a humiliating correction.

• The Lie: The programme claimed ~20 incidents.
• The Truth: There were only four dislodgement events.
• The Manipulation: These occurred over 11 shifts, not 50, and the BBC admitted it did not know the total number of ventilated babies, making their implied "40% failure rate" a statistical fabrication.

To inflate a figure from 4 to 20 is not a rounding error. It is a fabrication that quintuples the alleged frequency of a violent act. It turned a likely accidental occurrence into a "rampage," silencing doubt with false data.

4. The Silent Correction: Misleading Millions

What makes this error even more egregious is the BBC's handling of it. Reports indicate that Letby's defense team had warned of the unreliability of such statistical claims, yet the programme was allowed to air to millions of live viewers with the false "20 incidents" figure intact.

While the BBC eventually corrected the statistic for the iPlayer version, adding a quiet note that the programme had been "edited since broadcast", the damage was already done. Millions of viewers went to bed believing the lie. By only correcting the record on iPlayer, the BBC allowed a defamation to stand in the public memory.

5. The "Texas Sharpshooter" Fallacy

Moritz’s reporting also championed the now-infamous "shift chart"—the visual representation showing Letby present at every death. She framed this as the "common denominator," explicitly validating a statistical error known as the Texas Sharpshooter fallacyTexas Sharpshooter Fallacy: A logical error where someone emphasizes a cluster of data (Letby's presence) while ignoring the data that contradicts it (deaths when she wasn't there). It's like shooting at a barn and then painting the target around the bullet holes..

By presenting a correlation (presence) as causation (murder) and omitting the unit's staffing crisis, Moritz misled the public. Leading statisticians have condemned this reasoning, yet Moritz used it as a visual bludgeon to dismantle the presumption of innocence.

6. A Failure of Institutional Ethics

The BBC’s handling of Judith Moritz represents a catastrophic failure of its own editorial guidelines. As a public service broadcaster, the BBC has a duty to impartiality that overrides any commercial interest.

What a Responsible Employer Would Have Done:

1. Immediate Suspension of Commercial Activity: The BBC should have strictly forbidden any commercial book deals related to the case until all legal proceedings were exhausted.
2. Removal from the Case: Once Moritz signed the deal, she should have been recused from reporting on the Letby trial.
3. Public Retraction: Instead of a silent edit, the BBC should have issued an on-air apology during prime time.

Conclusion: A Dangerous Precedent

If Lucy Letby is innocent, as a growing body of scientific opinion suggests, Judith Moritz will be recorded not merely as a journalist who got it wrong, but as a key instrument of the miscarriage of justice. The BBC allowed a correspondent to profit from a "guilty" narrative, ignored warnings, and broadcast fabricated statistics. This sets a dangerous precedent for British journalism.

---

📊 Fact Checker: The BBC vs. The Truth

Evidence Claim	Judith Moritz / BBC Representation	The Actual Fact / Expert Consensus	Impact on Public Opinion
Tube Dislodgements	Claimed "around 20" incidents occurred in 50 shifts.	Actual number was 4 incidents in 11 shifts. Percentage calculation impossible.	Painted Letby as physically violent and aggressive during training.
The "Shift Chart"	Presented as the "Common Denominator" proving guilt.	Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy. Ignores all deaths that occurred when Letby was absent.	Created a visual confirmation of guilt that bypassed logical scrutiny.
Insulin Levels	Described as "irrefutable" proof of poisoning.	Unreliable. The immunoassayImmunoassay Test: A screening test used to detect insulin. It is known to produce false positives in post-mortem samples due to the "Hook Effect" unless confirmed by a second, more precise test (Mass Spectrometry), which was never done in this case. was never confirmed by Mass Spectrometry.	Established "intent" and a "poisoner" profile, anchoring the rest of the case.
Book Premise	Marketed as "Unmasking" a killer.	"Reversing Ferret": Marketing shifted to "Nurse, Friend... Killer?" as doubts emerged.	Shows commercial adaptability; prioritising sales over consistency or truth.

Scroll right on mobile to view the full table.