Sep 24, 2023Liked by Mr Law, Health and Technology
I have been in grateful awe of your coverage of this trial since stumbling across it.
The detailed work that you have presented enables the open minded person to understand the bigger picture, rather than to swallow the vile mainstream vitriol that is being churned out.
Thank you for being the learned voice of reason amidst such deranged times.
Sep 24, 2023Liked by Mr Law, Health and Technology
1. Let me know if I can personally help eg letter of support etc.
2. The newspapers don't help - I just can't image the Jury every coming out with not guilty with such dramatic and extensive newspaper coverage- the Jury would probably be marked men/women in their local community. Justice needs a dose of looking at in these complex and emotional cases, maybe Jury is not the way to go. At least the Appeal will be before Judges, which may help.
3. Hope that you are in touch with LL's legal team.
4. We need a cost to the attempted canceller , it is so easy to do at the moment perhaps a complaint to their employer that they are not allowing British Justice to run its course - fight fire with fire.
Sep 24, 2023Liked by Mr Law, Health and Technology
A quick review of Dr Nicola’s LinkedIn profile might suggest that she is rather too busy to have spent much time reviewing the Lucy Letby case. Furthermore her qualifications, although rather impressive, do not suggest any great expertise or working knowledge in forensic science, criminal law or statistics. On the other hand, the fact she has more than 11,000 followers on LinkedIn does however suggest she spends a lot of time and effort on self-promotion. I’m sure your employer knows what an exceptional human being they have on their staff.
Sep 24, 2023·edited Sep 24, 2023Liked by Mr Law, Health and Technology
Having experienced at first hand attempts to ruin my and my colleagues' reputations, I know the psychological costs of continuing to exercise your speech and views. But we know censorship never ends in enlightenment and historically many many things we all know now to be truths were established because of courageous people who wouldn’t back down despite horrendous attempts to shut them up. Please carry on.
Sep 24, 2023Liked by Mr Law, Health and Technology
There does seem to be an army of people on social media who have followed this case almost obsessively from day to day. Some of them are just stalking people who make any critical comment. Then there is a certain group who certainly know the facts of the case but basically only allow for the prosecution narrative. This group loves to attack people who express doubts about the verdict or even just remark that this case strongly resembles the Lucia de Berk case on every little detail they get wrong. “You haven’t followed the case like I did” means to them that you are not allowed to take part in the discussion.
This group would probably pull you up on point 1 you made. Lucy was found not guilty on that murder charge by the judge. The story is apparently that the prosecution wanted to withdraw the murder of baby K. The judge would not let them so they were not going to bring any evidence and the not guilty was recorded at a pretrial hearing before the actual trial started. The attempted murder charge for the same baby remained.
I have noticed how restrained the Dutch press has been about reporting the Lucy Letby case. I guess the national shame about what was done to an innocent person is still strong in the Netherlands. So many people here say that this case has an eerie resemblance to Lucia de Berk.
The CPS had decided that “the legal test for murder is no longer satisfied”. I guess the hospital the baby was moved to had another take on the cause of death, but this is just me guessing. It would probably not have looked good for the prosecution to leave the case in.
Sep 24, 2023Liked by Mr Law, Health and Technology
And we know in many cases that people are found guilty who later turn out not to be.
The biggest such turn recently was the sub-postmasters who were falsely accused of theft when it was the Horizon computer system that was faulty. It seems in this case top people at the Post Office knew there was a problem with the software yet still pressed on with prosecutions.
Andrew Malkinson is another recent case falsely jailed for a rape he did not commit, in jail for 17 years before the conviction was quashed. Again the police had evidence that he was not guilty many years prior to this but chose not to tell his lawyers.
He mentions that his own jail time was not really for the absurd ‘jigsaw identification’ but as punishment for supporting Julian Assange. I wonder if the same in your case, maybe it is Covid narrative scepticism.
I am so grateful that you have spent so much time, reason and research looking into the full facts rather than what has happened during the trial when the media including the Prosecution Barrister have picked out bits, not completed sentences and called LL "Killer Nurse", "Monster" etc , presumed guilt from the onset which was impossible to avoid even for the Jury. Obviously the Prosecution avoided the word Monster but repeatedly referred to Lucy as "You Killed them didn't you", having no evidence to substantiate.
I knew LL was innocent once I read about the sub optimal care that these babies received including delays in treatment, poor observational skills (failing to pick up downturns in babies condition, poor clinical procedures, over stretched under staffed, inadequate experience, I don't believe any of the clinical staff were neonatologists, fluid and nutritional depletion, under-resourced etc. The Judge too lacked the expertise in these medical matters when he stated that delays, including antibiotics, several cannulations including, ( not sited correctly), several chest tubes, ( blocked, in the wrong place) would not have made a difference to the out come, delay in Surfactant (50 hours) (This prevents lung tissue from sticking together in Prem Babies therefore enabling breathing, this resulted in babies dying through not being able to breath, this again the Judge said did not effect outcome. He was wrong. The detailed, medical information probably required a specialist jury . Any man or woman off the street could be told anything from the so called "Expert" witness and Prosecution barrister and they would have believed them. All in all the trial was biased, unjust and unsafe.
Once again very grateful to you Mr Law and all your advisers for your wonderful work to seek out justice. I too am a retired Nurse but fortunately have the experience, knowledge and analytical skills to see the bigger picture.
Sep 24, 2023Liked by Mr Law, Health and Technology
Lucy has been found guilty by your third degree interrogators long before the verdict came, and nothing you say will change their mind. Bless you though for raising the questions that should have been asked and answered. You are an inspiration! Xoxo
Sep 25, 2023Liked by Mr Law, Health and Technology
I enjoy your newsletter not just for the robust investigation of the Lucy Letby case but for the fact of getting real information instead of mainstream media spin. In any case they are a joy to read being meticulous, careful and elegant analysis. No justice system need to fear impartial intelligent input into the science, and detailed analysis is only of benefit to everyone. Like the funnies too. My favourite is the child who didn't like maths.
I think it's terrifying how much group think there is in the world at the moment, there seems to be no desire to question/ challenge anything anymore. You can see it during covid and with climate change, anyone who wants to even ask questions is publicly lynched, usually by people who can't be bothered to do any research themselves. I think you tread on particularly dangerous ground because you dare to ask questions of our nation's great deity the NHS. Unfortunately many people would prefer to believe the easy option that there was an 'evil nurse' than that the NHS failed vulnrable babies in the most terrible way. I really hope this strengthens rather than deters you and you continue to fight for free thinking.
PS I'd imagine this would be something Toby Young may be willing to support you with if needed.
Sep 25, 2023Liked by Mr Law, Health and Technology
I came across an article about cognitive biases written by a Dr with the same name as mentioned in your post - I don’t know whether they are the same person or whether they are two different Drs with the same name. The article explains a number of biases such as confirmation bias, overconfidence bias, the bandwagon effect, … - biases which in my view would seem to apply to those trying to shut down any questioning of the Lucy Letby verdicts, and those trying to silence you. The irony might be amusing if only it wasn't so sad.
Your work is invaluable in trying to uncover the truth in the Lucy Letby case – please don’t be intimidated and carry on! I hope LL’s defence team are aware of your work? The attempts to silence you are both disgusting and very concerning.
I have been in grateful awe of your coverage of this trial since stumbling across it.
The detailed work that you have presented enables the open minded person to understand the bigger picture, rather than to swallow the vile mainstream vitriol that is being churned out.
Thank you for being the learned voice of reason amidst such deranged times.
Keep fighting the good fight.
From a non-retired NHS nurse.
Here here!!
1. Let me know if I can personally help eg letter of support etc.
2. The newspapers don't help - I just can't image the Jury every coming out with not guilty with such dramatic and extensive newspaper coverage- the Jury would probably be marked men/women in their local community. Justice needs a dose of looking at in these complex and emotional cases, maybe Jury is not the way to go. At least the Appeal will be before Judges, which may help.
3. Hope that you are in touch with LL's legal team.
4. We need a cost to the attempted canceller , it is so easy to do at the moment perhaps a complaint to their employer that they are not allowing British Justice to run its course - fight fire with fire.
A quick review of Dr Nicola’s LinkedIn profile might suggest that she is rather too busy to have spent much time reviewing the Lucy Letby case. Furthermore her qualifications, although rather impressive, do not suggest any great expertise or working knowledge in forensic science, criminal law or statistics. On the other hand, the fact she has more than 11,000 followers on LinkedIn does however suggest she spends a lot of time and effort on self-promotion. I’m sure your employer knows what an exceptional human being they have on their staff.
Having experienced at first hand attempts to ruin my and my colleagues' reputations, I know the psychological costs of continuing to exercise your speech and views. But we know censorship never ends in enlightenment and historically many many things we all know now to be truths were established because of courageous people who wouldn’t back down despite horrendous attempts to shut them up. Please carry on.
There does seem to be an army of people on social media who have followed this case almost obsessively from day to day. Some of them are just stalking people who make any critical comment. Then there is a certain group who certainly know the facts of the case but basically only allow for the prosecution narrative. This group loves to attack people who express doubts about the verdict or even just remark that this case strongly resembles the Lucia de Berk case on every little detail they get wrong. “You haven’t followed the case like I did” means to them that you are not allowed to take part in the discussion.
This group would probably pull you up on point 1 you made. Lucy was found not guilty on that murder charge by the judge. The story is apparently that the prosecution wanted to withdraw the murder of baby K. The judge would not let them so they were not going to bring any evidence and the not guilty was recorded at a pretrial hearing before the actual trial started. The attempted murder charge for the same baby remained.
I have noticed how restrained the Dutch press has been about reporting the Lucy Letby case. I guess the national shame about what was done to an innocent person is still strong in the Netherlands. So many people here say that this case has an eerie resemblance to Lucia de Berk.
Why did the prosecution want to withdraw baby K ?
https://www.nursingtimes.net/news/children/nurse-accused-of-chester-baby-murders-given-not-guilty-verdict-on-one-count-15-06-2022/
The CPS had decided that “the legal test for murder is no longer satisfied”. I guess the hospital the baby was moved to had another take on the cause of death, but this is just me guessing. It would probably not have looked good for the prosecution to leave the case in.
Thanks. I had been looking for that link this morning.
And we know in many cases that people are found guilty who later turn out not to be.
The biggest such turn recently was the sub-postmasters who were falsely accused of theft when it was the Horizon computer system that was faulty. It seems in this case top people at the Post Office knew there was a problem with the software yet still pressed on with prosecutions.
Andrew Malkinson is another recent case falsely jailed for a rape he did not commit, in jail for 17 years before the conviction was quashed. Again the police had evidence that he was not guilty many years prior to this but chose not to tell his lawyers.
Of interest is this interview of Craig Murray: https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2023/09/the-slow-motion-execution-of-julian-assange/
He mentions that his own jail time was not really for the absurd ‘jigsaw identification’ but as punishment for supporting Julian Assange. I wonder if the same in your case, maybe it is Covid narrative scepticism.
I am so grateful that you have spent so much time, reason and research looking into the full facts rather than what has happened during the trial when the media including the Prosecution Barrister have picked out bits, not completed sentences and called LL "Killer Nurse", "Monster" etc , presumed guilt from the onset which was impossible to avoid even for the Jury. Obviously the Prosecution avoided the word Monster but repeatedly referred to Lucy as "You Killed them didn't you", having no evidence to substantiate.
I knew LL was innocent once I read about the sub optimal care that these babies received including delays in treatment, poor observational skills (failing to pick up downturns in babies condition, poor clinical procedures, over stretched under staffed, inadequate experience, I don't believe any of the clinical staff were neonatologists, fluid and nutritional depletion, under-resourced etc. The Judge too lacked the expertise in these medical matters when he stated that delays, including antibiotics, several cannulations including, ( not sited correctly), several chest tubes, ( blocked, in the wrong place) would not have made a difference to the out come, delay in Surfactant (50 hours) (This prevents lung tissue from sticking together in Prem Babies therefore enabling breathing, this resulted in babies dying through not being able to breath, this again the Judge said did not effect outcome. He was wrong. The detailed, medical information probably required a specialist jury . Any man or woman off the street could be told anything from the so called "Expert" witness and Prosecution barrister and they would have believed them. All in all the trial was biased, unjust and unsafe.
Once again very grateful to you Mr Law and all your advisers for your wonderful work to seek out justice. I too am a retired Nurse but fortunately have the experience, knowledge and analytical skills to see the bigger picture.
Lucy has been found guilty by your third degree interrogators long before the verdict came, and nothing you say will change their mind. Bless you though for raising the questions that should have been asked and answered. You are an inspiration! Xoxo
I enjoy your newsletter not just for the robust investigation of the Lucy Letby case but for the fact of getting real information instead of mainstream media spin. In any case they are a joy to read being meticulous, careful and elegant analysis. No justice system need to fear impartial intelligent input into the science, and detailed analysis is only of benefit to everyone. Like the funnies too. My favourite is the child who didn't like maths.
Please keep up your incisive analysis.
I think it's terrifying how much group think there is in the world at the moment, there seems to be no desire to question/ challenge anything anymore. You can see it during covid and with climate change, anyone who wants to even ask questions is publicly lynched, usually by people who can't be bothered to do any research themselves. I think you tread on particularly dangerous ground because you dare to ask questions of our nation's great deity the NHS. Unfortunately many people would prefer to believe the easy option that there was an 'evil nurse' than that the NHS failed vulnrable babies in the most terrible way. I really hope this strengthens rather than deters you and you continue to fight for free thinking.
PS I'd imagine this would be something Toby Young may be willing to support you with if needed.
I came across an article about cognitive biases written by a Dr with the same name as mentioned in your post - I don’t know whether they are the same person or whether they are two different Drs with the same name. The article explains a number of biases such as confirmation bias, overconfidence bias, the bandwagon effect, … - biases which in my view would seem to apply to those trying to shut down any questioning of the Lucy Letby verdicts, and those trying to silence you. The irony might be amusing if only it wasn't so sad.
Your work is invaluable in trying to uncover the truth in the Lucy Letby case – please don’t be intimidated and carry on! I hope LL’s defence team are aware of your work? The attempts to silence you are both disgusting and very concerning.
Some interesting relevant info sources:
-Scienceontrial has done some calculations on insulin
-we also have a statement from prosecution expert suggesting a 0.56ml dose per hour by TPN bag.
- we also have the treatment of baby E with .02 IU
Below serve as inputs to baby Fs treatment and also have some relevant directions re TPN administration - cautions etc.
There is also an insulin IV practice doc which has an example of Actrapid IV dosing for an adult.
Unfortunately i do not have the background to be confident about calculations etc. but perhaps with your background they will be useful.
https://foi.avon.nhs.uk/Download.aspx?r=2&did=9577&f=Total%20Parenteral%20Nutrition%20Guideline-4_2.pdf
https://foi.avon.nhs.uk/Download.aspx?r=2&did=9576&f=Parenteral%20Nutrition%20Prefilled%20Bags-7.pdf
https://www.leedsformulary.nhs.uk/docs/PaediatricStandardPNguide.pdf
https://www.bsuh.nhs.uk/library/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2020/08/Neonatal-TPN-prescription-0215.xls
https://foi.avon.nhs.uk/Download.aspx?r=2&did=25500&f=Standardised%20Parenteral%20Nutrition%20In%20Cardiac%20Neona-1_1.pdf
https://www.chsa-diabetes.org.au/clinicalpractice/Intravenous%20Insulin%20Infusion_Clinical%20Support%20Guide_2020.pdf
What do you make of this, frankly I do not believe it to be true.
https://x.com/1classico/status/1706608571746553912?s=46&t=OUdAtbyaZ6dfCdggD1gWbQ
Dr. Nicola Davies is a zombie... that is, a walking-dead. Because the reincarnated Attila Our Hun has his eyes on her.