Overnight I was alerted to a 45 minute documentary that brings together a variety of issues raised by myself and others regarding the evidence, its analysis, the conclusions drawn, and the many omissions in the prosecution of Lucy Letby.
Strangely, I wasn’t alerted to the documentary by an invitation to participate. Nor was I alerted by someone telling me that information I had exposed or discussed here in my substack posts had been formative in the documentary’s conception. Rather, I was alerted through the accusation by Deb Roberts on Twitter/X that I was credited in the documentary and was disgraceful in my failure to support or endorse it.
I went searching for a link to this documentary that I hadn’t actually seen and, upon locating it on YouTube, was greeted with the following response:
It seems that the documentary was being actively geoblocked by YouTube in the United Kingdom and, as I later found, several other countries. I was eventually able to watch the documentary via a VPN connection to Canada and below I will discuss my impressions and conclusions.
In looking at the various tweets (are we still calling them tweets since the website is no longer called Twitter?) and comments from Deb Roberts (@DebRoberts3), I am left wondering whether she is actually genuinely supporting Ceri, or simply grasping at the only straw she could find to try to discredit and disarm the people Ceri had acknowledged in the final credits of her documentary. It became increasingly clear as I veiewed the account of Deb Roberts that she is most likely a Twitter Troll who insults and polemically attacks based on, what I can only assume is, a shallow mind and underdeveloped opinion. In many cases she is refusing to consider evidence discussed within and extemporaneous to the documentary, even when it has been exposed by several different and unconnected sources. For example, take this thread in which I retweet evidence in a post from Twitter/X user @OverlordMainst1:
Practically every baby that died in the Lucy Letby trial at one point or another had been considered as having, was diagnosed with, or was treated for, sepsis. The insulin/c-peptide ratio was at issue for at least two. Several had also been suspected as having or were diagnosed with Necrotising Enterocolitis (NEC), a more severe and often fatal systemic infection. More than one even had sepsis or NEC noted as the cause of death on their original death certificate. I, and several other commentators, Ceri’s documentary and even the mainstream media have all published details regarding evidence presented at trial by the prosecution’s own witnesses of the different sepsis-like infections each infant appeared to have acquired during their stay at the Countess of Chester Hospital (CoCH). That CoCH had issues with sepsis and sepsis treatment during the relevant period is a matter of significant public record.
Sepsis was mentioned more than 70 times in one single quality account report for the hospital. It cannot even be said that the sepsis issue at CoCH was contained to only the adult nursing areas because at least four serious and reportable incidents involving babies were listed in a serious incidents table (page 39 of the linked quality account report) in which the auditors detailed serious healthcare associated infections (HCAI). Sepsis was mentioned in the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health (RCPCH) report delivered in November 2016. And finally, there was another baby (Baby Jacob) mentioned in newspaper articles who was present on the ward and twice fell ill with a sepsis infection at the same time that Baby A was treated for and died of suspected sepsis, Baby B collapsed with sepsis-like symptoms, Baby C was treated and died from suspected sepsis and pneumonia, Baby D died of what doctors said was likely sepsis, and eventually Baby E died of suspected sepsis with NEC written as the cause of death on the original death certificate.
Further, there is no reason (or clinical basis) for assuming that the insulin/c-peptide issue the authors of the study investigated (and that is supported by other work such as that of Prof Marks) would/could not occur in the presence of sepsis as seems apparent in the case of Baby F. If anything, it makes good sense to consider that the insulin/c-peptide discrepancy would occur or occur more rapidly in the presence of sepsis. That Deb Roberts persists in arguing that there is no evidence for sepsis or NEC and that any claims regarding the role of sepsis and NEC are baseless speculation is nothing short of incredible.
The Documentary
I found Ceri’s documentary to be approachable and generally quite reasonable. The foray into lip licking and its relationship to lying was possibly the only thing I might have approached differently. Otherwise, I found nothing I objected to and believe she covered off several important and salient points while leaving quite a bit of meat on the bone for future documentaries or articles (such as those I will continue to publish on this substack). Had I been approached I would very likely have agreed to participate and used my academic research skills to support her efforts. My only suggestion is that next time she release contemporaneously on several platforms (including, for example, Rumble). This might help build awareness for and ensure that there are several ways viewers can engage with her work. I thank Ceri for acknowledging the work of myself and others and, in particular, her recognition of value in my work.
The Defamation Geoblock
While I have not been told for certain, I can only surmise based on the content and imputations in the documentary that certain facial expressions and lip-licking could be inferred as subconscious evidence of lying, that that either Dr Ravi Jayaram or former Dr Dewi Evans are the source of the alleged ‘defamation complaint’ - if one even exists at all. Based on my own research and impressions I would lean towards Dewi Evans in this instance, because he has been previously involved in agressively seeking and upholding court orders in Wales to prevent reporting on the Munchaussen’s case discussed in the documentary. He appears more concerned with protecting his self-aggrandised reputation possibly, than seeking truth, honesty or seeing the right thing done. That said, I could spend hours giving you an academic lecture on defamation law and cases, suffice to say I think there would be significant challenges to appropriately making out a defamation cause of action in this instance. Not the least of which being that it is difficult to meet the requirement for demonstrating that your reputation or good name has been harmed, and that this has caused you significant enough loss to warrant injunctive relief and damages, when Evans:
is retired; and
has made his income for the last several years by being a publicly and judicially derided agressive professional witness-for-hire to prosecutors.
This last point is possibly the most significant reason why Evans might struggle to bring a successful action for defamation against Ceri because, as Commander Worf once said in an episode of Star Trek, you cannot tarnish a rusted blade. About the best he could likely hope for is what has happened, that he has used YouTube’s complaint system to get the video geoblocked in at least the UK. I hope Ceri is also using that same system to resist this unreasonable abuse of YouTube’s policies.
Deb Roberts is using the first PSYOPS tactic - sow confusion. It doesn't matter if it is lacking evidence or sense, many people will be put off thinking more deeply.
Well I have actually been able to view it on Vimeo, it is good forensic and certainly investigative.
And all adds to finding the truth.