Oct 19, 2023Liked by Mr Law, Health and Technology
Odd. All the things that should be brought out and tested in a legal case were just ignored. The whole case against Lucy Letby seems to be that she was nearby slightly more often than other staff when several babies died. That it was her job to be nearby you would think was a good explanation for that rather than malicious intent.
Oct 19, 2023Liked by Mr Law, Health and Technology
Well written, well thought out, E&OE aka Mr. Law!
There are so many guilty parties besides Lucy Letby, the doctors, consultants, nurses, attendants each of whom have denied any responsibility for the demise of these premature, sickly babies and all of whom have covertly decided that Lucy gets all the blame.
And the MSM (main street media) are having a field day with plastering Lucy Letby's photo over the front pages and making her face a reminder of a who the new serial baby killer is, which was a young, naive, overworked, feckless, nurse who probably had no idea she was being stitched up by her peers, her Supervisor(s), the attendant doctors/consultants, the parents as that 'baby killer'.
What has happened to Lucy is like a herd of cattle that has gotten spooked and has run over anything in its path, in this case, Lucy Letby was the convenient scapegoat, especially when the NHS has been continuously underfunded for over 13 years when the Conservatives took power and made it their purpose to privatize health care and thus sabotage the NHS. Those Conservatives must be clapping and dancing in the streets with every new baby's death that Lucy is charged with.
"...not only did Dr Brearey vaccinate Baby G anyway, both he and his medical colleagues failed to consider that nausea and vomiting as was seen in Baby G the next day, were common side effects of that administration. "
How many of these babies deaths were likely caused by vaccination of 'magical vaccines' which have never been safety tested on newborn babies, let alone tested on premature sickly babies?
Administering 'magical vaccines' to a premature sickly baby is akin to inducing a silent end of life. Again the whole subject of 'vaccines' has become a cult in which science is not permitted, only the cattle call of the powerful pharmaceutical industry baying for the public at large to get vaccinated again and again despite the reality that vaccines cause more harm than good and do not 'save' more lives.
In infants and other young children (up to and including 17 years of age) as of October 6, 2023, there are 67,866 reports of adverse events in total. Of these, there are 1,298 reports of seizures. Of these, there are 1,064 reports filed within 7 days (82%), 1,004 filed within 3 days (77%), and 766 filed on the same day (59%).
It gets worse.
For infants only, which includes babies ages 0-4, as of October 6, 2023, there are 5,641 reports of adverse events in total. Of these, there are 52 reports of seizures. Of these, there are 35 reports filed within 7 days (67%), 35 filed within 3 days (67%), and 13 filed on the same day (25%).
To be clear, if an infant suffers a seizure, there can be lifelong complications and the implications of long-lasting and permanent damage increases the younger the infant is, and if the seizure is clonic: involves physical twitching or jerking. Brain damage can also occur if seizures are recurrent.³
Let’s be really clear here: NO BABY NEEDS THESE INJECTIONS. It is, in my opinion, absolutely malfeasant to inject a baby or a child with these products which do nothing to aid in prevention of illness and in fact, have been proven to induce a wide-range of adverse events that include serious ones, including seizures and death."
Oct 19, 2023Liked by Mr Law, Health and Technology
Excellent work. The more you post, the more I am convinced that there has been a gross miscarriage of justice. Do you have details of where I can contribute to funding an appeal?
The information to hand says the appeal team consist of the same legal minds as the original defence team - Ben Myers KC and Richard Thomas as instructing solicitor. I would suggest contacting Richard Thomas to see whether he is running a Trust Fund to support Lucy's appeal.
The question therefore must be... can we expect any better representation of defence experts at the appeal or subsequent criminal trials if there remains no approach to funding such experts to the same or similar degree as the prosecution?
The answer is likely that the appeal and subsequent trial/s are going to end up being led by the nose by the prosecution, just like the original trial.
If I thought it would make a difference, I would set up a Trust account myself and collect donations for the purpose of funding defence experts - but being as far on the outside of this as I am, I am almost certain her legal team will simply continue to ignore the existence of analysts like myself
I always thought that a lot of the evidence against Lucy was flimsy at best but this is high lighting an entire new set of questions that need to be answered. Keep up the good work
Much wasted bandwidth on conspiracy theories lately, when there is no evidence of conspiracy anywhere, only a trial riddled by appalling incompetency, 95% of which rests with the defence.
We plebs can only wait for the outcome of the appeal application process, until then all are pissin’ in the wind.
I agree... much of the conspiracy theorising is irrelevant distraction and unnecessary. You don't necessarily need a conspiracy theory to explain how things ended up the way they are. Problem focus and situational blindness combined with the 'refreshed memory' of now-senior but then poorly supervised baby doctors who are unwilling to recognise and take responsibility for their own evidenced failings is sufficient. Scapegoating is also in and of itself common.
And only amplifies the incompetency of LL’s defence, which the prosecution took full advantage of, aided and abetted by one, if not the premium one, the most easily led juries in the history of justice.
One other thing, no one seems to have seen fit to seek out, and get comment from Dr George Kokai, do we know why?
just wonder if you are in touch with Science on Trial, they would certainly benefit from your expertise and analysis and combined weight , might get your analysis into play, so that it can be considered along with everything else in Lucy's case.
Unfortunately, while some of the items she discusses have merit, the Californian lass running Science on Trial is more about making a name for herself in many respects than credible analysis. I tried to join one of their meetings and she talked over me about something she knew nothing about, and locked me out of the conversation when I tried to discuss the legal reasons why certain things happen in a court (during a trial) the way they do. There is no explaining anything to her that she hasn't already accepted for herself. The other issue is that her approach is abrassive to proper legal process such that I do not believe she could ever be used as a witness or consultant by my learned colleagues at the bar. I am probably closer to ever being involved in an expert or consulting capacity than she is. (Try and look up her alleged Cambridge PhD at some point... the PhD that she claims to have but for a variety of reasons never quite finished for a variety of ever changing 'technical' reasons. Cambridge have no record of her PhD, and tell a vastly different story to her)
Oct 19, 2023Liked by Mr Law, Health and Technology
I also had a slight problem with them cancelling somebody's commentary because it was not what they wanted to hear. so I ended my connection with them. It has been my impression that they are centre stage, and that other input no matter how credible or complete cannot find an opening with them. which is not good news . I have to confirm that I received the same impression. But it is still very much my sincere hope that so many us of have read your work see your credibility and the weight of your arguments that somebody somewhere will want to bring them in, to really broaden the scope. I cannot see why anybody interested in the truth would not care to look at considered arguments and the points you make.
Lucy did raise concerns with senior nurses and considered making an incident report after finding baby G alone on a procedure trolley and disconnected from her monitor after a cannulation procedure
Odd. All the things that should be brought out and tested in a legal case were just ignored. The whole case against Lucy Letby seems to be that she was nearby slightly more often than other staff when several babies died. That it was her job to be nearby you would think was a good explanation for that rather than malicious intent.
Well written, well thought out, E&OE aka Mr. Law!
There are so many guilty parties besides Lucy Letby, the doctors, consultants, nurses, attendants each of whom have denied any responsibility for the demise of these premature, sickly babies and all of whom have covertly decided that Lucy gets all the blame.
And the MSM (main street media) are having a field day with plastering Lucy Letby's photo over the front pages and making her face a reminder of a who the new serial baby killer is, which was a young, naive, overworked, feckless, nurse who probably had no idea she was being stitched up by her peers, her Supervisor(s), the attendant doctors/consultants, the parents as that 'baby killer'.
What has happened to Lucy is like a herd of cattle that has gotten spooked and has run over anything in its path, in this case, Lucy Letby was the convenient scapegoat, especially when the NHS has been continuously underfunded for over 13 years when the Conservatives took power and made it their purpose to privatize health care and thus sabotage the NHS. Those Conservatives must be clapping and dancing in the streets with every new baby's death that Lucy is charged with.
"...not only did Dr Brearey vaccinate Baby G anyway, both he and his medical colleagues failed to consider that nausea and vomiting as was seen in Baby G the next day, were common side effects of that administration. "
How many of these babies deaths were likely caused by vaccination of 'magical vaccines' which have never been safety tested on newborn babies, let alone tested on premature sickly babies?
Administering 'magical vaccines' to a premature sickly baby is akin to inducing a silent end of life. Again the whole subject of 'vaccines' has become a cult in which science is not permitted, only the cattle call of the powerful pharmaceutical industry baying for the public at large to get vaccinated again and again despite the reality that vaccines cause more harm than good and do not 'save' more lives.
Regarding the toxicity of administering vaccines to struggling premature babies, read this:
https://jessicar.substack.com/p/confirmations-emanating-from-vaers
"...looked in VAERS and here is a summary:
In infants and other young children (up to and including 17 years of age) as of October 6, 2023, there are 67,866 reports of adverse events in total. Of these, there are 1,298 reports of seizures. Of these, there are 1,064 reports filed within 7 days (82%), 1,004 filed within 3 days (77%), and 766 filed on the same day (59%).
It gets worse.
For infants only, which includes babies ages 0-4, as of October 6, 2023, there are 5,641 reports of adverse events in total. Of these, there are 52 reports of seizures. Of these, there are 35 reports filed within 7 days (67%), 35 filed within 3 days (67%), and 13 filed on the same day (25%).
To be clear, if an infant suffers a seizure, there can be lifelong complications and the implications of long-lasting and permanent damage increases the younger the infant is, and if the seizure is clonic: involves physical twitching or jerking. Brain damage can also occur if seizures are recurrent.³
Let’s be really clear here: NO BABY NEEDS THESE INJECTIONS. It is, in my opinion, absolutely malfeasant to inject a baby or a child with these products which do nothing to aid in prevention of illness and in fact, have been proven to induce a wide-range of adverse events that include serious ones, including seizures and death."
Excellent work. The more you post, the more I am convinced that there has been a gross miscarriage of justice. Do you have details of where I can contribute to funding an appeal?
The information to hand says the appeal team consist of the same legal minds as the original defence team - Ben Myers KC and Richard Thomas as instructing solicitor. I would suggest contacting Richard Thomas to see whether he is running a Trust Fund to support Lucy's appeal.
The question therefore must be... can we expect any better representation of defence experts at the appeal or subsequent criminal trials if there remains no approach to funding such experts to the same or similar degree as the prosecution?
The answer is likely that the appeal and subsequent trial/s are going to end up being led by the nose by the prosecution, just like the original trial.
If I thought it would make a difference, I would set up a Trust account myself and collect donations for the purpose of funding defence experts - but being as far on the outside of this as I am, I am almost certain her legal team will simply continue to ignore the existence of analysts like myself
Yes, you are correct. I wish I could make a contribution but am unable to.
I always thought that a lot of the evidence against Lucy was flimsy at best but this is high lighting an entire new set of questions that need to be answered. Keep up the good work
Much wasted bandwidth on conspiracy theories lately, when there is no evidence of conspiracy anywhere, only a trial riddled by appalling incompetency, 95% of which rests with the defence.
We plebs can only wait for the outcome of the appeal application process, until then all are pissin’ in the wind.
I agree... much of the conspiracy theorising is irrelevant distraction and unnecessary. You don't necessarily need a conspiracy theory to explain how things ended up the way they are. Problem focus and situational blindness combined with the 'refreshed memory' of now-senior but then poorly supervised baby doctors who are unwilling to recognise and take responsibility for their own evidenced failings is sufficient. Scapegoating is also in and of itself common.
And only amplifies the incompetency of LL’s defence, which the prosecution took full advantage of, aided and abetted by one, if not the premium one, the most easily led juries in the history of justice.
One other thing, no one seems to have seen fit to seek out, and get comment from Dr George Kokai, do we know why?
Hi
just wonder if you are in touch with Science on Trial, they would certainly benefit from your expertise and analysis and combined weight , might get your analysis into play, so that it can be considered along with everything else in Lucy's case.
Unfortunately, while some of the items she discusses have merit, the Californian lass running Science on Trial is more about making a name for herself in many respects than credible analysis. I tried to join one of their meetings and she talked over me about something she knew nothing about, and locked me out of the conversation when I tried to discuss the legal reasons why certain things happen in a court (during a trial) the way they do. There is no explaining anything to her that she hasn't already accepted for herself. The other issue is that her approach is abrassive to proper legal process such that I do not believe she could ever be used as a witness or consultant by my learned colleagues at the bar. I am probably closer to ever being involved in an expert or consulting capacity than she is. (Try and look up her alleged Cambridge PhD at some point... the PhD that she claims to have but for a variety of reasons never quite finished for a variety of ever changing 'technical' reasons. Cambridge have no record of her PhD, and tell a vastly different story to her)
I also had a slight problem with them cancelling somebody's commentary because it was not what they wanted to hear. so I ended my connection with them. It has been my impression that they are centre stage, and that other input no matter how credible or complete cannot find an opening with them. which is not good news . I have to confirm that I received the same impression. But it is still very much my sincere hope that so many us of have read your work see your credibility and the weight of your arguments that somebody somewhere will want to bring them in, to really broaden the scope. I cannot see why anybody interested in the truth would not care to look at considered arguments and the points you make.
Lucy did raise concerns with senior nurses and considered making an incident report after finding baby G alone on a procedure trolley and disconnected from her monitor after a cannulation procedure