🧵1/10
This is Lucy Letby. The smiling, dedicated nurse you see in the photo.
Why did so many rush to scapegoat her?
And how do they sleep at night?
The doctors, prosecutors, journalists and commentators who turned a failing neonatal unit into a witch hunt and pinned every tragedy on one quiet nurse?
And all those within the judiciary and the wider establishment who now must know she is innocent, how do they live with themselves?
Do they justify sacrificing the life of an innocent woman, condemning her to die in prison, because it helps further their careers, secure promotions, win headlines, or protect the perceived “integrity” of a justice system that has clearly failed?
Where has basic human decency gone since the days of William Blackstone?
In 1769, in Volume IV of his Commentaries on the Laws of England, he wrote:
“It is better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer.”
Yet it seems we now live by Lord Denning’s infamous declaration:
“It is better that some innocent men remain in jail than that the integrity of the English judicial system be impugned.”
So much for progress.
Shame on everyone involved in causing and/or prolonging this absolute travesty. It not only shames the nation, but humanity itself.
#JusticeForLucyLetby #FreeLucyLetby
👇
🧵2/10
The entire case is flawed in my opinion. But the Baby C case is one of the main guilty verdicts that baffles me.
It defies all logic and completely discredits Evans' testimony in all the cases and, indeed, proves the prosecution was entirely focused on Lucy Letby and made the "evidence" fit.
Evans determined deliberate harm when he viewed the x-ray taken on 12 June 2015.
Lucy Letby had not even met the baby at that stage.
When the prosecution realised, it was suddenly decided that deliberate harm must have happened on 13 June.
How can they be allowed to get away with that?
It's absolutely outrageous.
The entire case falls on that alone. But all the evidence for all other babies is completely flawed as well.
#JusticeForLucyLetby #FreeLucyLetby
👇
🧵3/10
Lucy Letby is clearly not guilty of murdering Baby D. It is obvious the baby died of natural causes and poor medical care (Poor care by others, not Lucy).
Here are some facts.
The baby was delivered by emergency caesarean section after induction of labour failed. She was born more than 60 hours after her mother’s waters broke.
The mother should have been given antibiotics for prolonged premature rupture of membranes but wasn’t.
Shortly after birth on the afternoon of 20 June 2015 Baby D became “floppy” in her father’s arms. She was not given antibiotics until some four hours later when she was transferred to the hospital’s neonatal unit amid concerns of a suspected infection.
The baby sadly died two days later. The attending doctor, Dr Newby, attributed the death to natural causes linked to underlying issues and suspected sepsis. lucyletbyinnocence.com/transcripts/pr…
Dr Brearey determined that the baby died from natural causes linked to sepsis and he had no suspicions whatsoever of malfeasance.
The original pathologist, Dr Jo McPartland, determined Baby D died from congenital pneumonia with acute lung injury, leading to multi-organ failure secondary to necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC).
She described it as "clear cut" and the primary driver and "underlying cause" of the collapse and death, based on histological evidence (pneumonia in lungs, elevated inflammatory markers, bacteremia, NEC with perforation). There was NO evidence of air embolism (no froth, bubbles, or other signs).
Dr. McPartland has never wavered from her findings, even when probed in the “independent” Thirlwall inquiry about alternatives like air embolism. She consistently dismissed it, stating it's not supported by her findings or medical literature. thirlwall.public-inquiry.uk/wp-content/upl…
Dewi Evans, years later, determined the death was caused by air embolism from an injection of air into the intravenous line. Therefore Lucy Letby was wrongly charged and wrongly convicted of murder.
Dr Shoo Lee’s panel has since determined:
1. Baby 4 [Baby D] died of systemic sepsis, pneumonia and disseminated intravascular coagulation.
2. The mother should have received intrapartum antibiotics.
3. There was delay in recognising intrapartum distress and starting antibiotics, and treatment of respiratory distress after birth.
4. There was no evidence of air embolism.
It's also worth mentioning that Mother D had serious concerns about the poor standard of care both she and her baby received. The senior coroner, Mr. Nicholas Rheinberg, acknowledged that the baby's death might have been avoided had different courses of treatment been employed.
There are more facts that prove Lucy Letby did not murder Baby D but are any more necessary?
#JusticeForLucyLetby #FreeLucyLetby
👇
🧵4/10
A detailed explanation as to why the Baby K case is fundamentally flawed and Lucy Letby is completely innocent...
#JusticeForLucyLetby #FreeLucyLetby
👇
🧵5/10
Why Lucy Letby is not guilty of murdering Baby E fully explained…
#JusticeForLucyLetby #FreeLucyLetby
👇
🧵6/10
The insulin cases were described as the "smoking gun" but in reality they were no more than an empty water pistol.
First of all, let's assume insulin being administered exogenously is the only explanation. It's not, but let's pretend it is for a moment. Where is the evidence Lucy Letby administered it? She wasn't even on duty for part of the time.
To get round that irrefutable fact, they decided she spiked feed bags so another nurse would unwittingly poison the baby with no evidence whatsoever to back it up.
Let's disect that ludicrous theory.
How do we know other staff didn't spike the feed bags so that other nurses unwittingly poisoned the baby and, indeed, on other occasions Lucy Letby herself unwittingly poisoned the babies?
Maybe another nurse spiked the bags?
Or even Dr Brearey? After all, he botched a procedure on Baby O and failed to tell the coroner. Could he actually be Dr Death?
Back in the real world, we know he didn't because no bags were actually spiked because no babies were poisoned with insulin. There are alternative medical explanations which explain the hypoglycaemia in both babies.
But anyone who does believe babies were poisoned, can you explain why my scenario is not possible?
Anyway, regardless of all that, clear warnings from the lab, and experts, that the test carried out is not suitable for for the investigation of factitious hypoglycaemia completely demolishes the forensic evidence.
#JusticeForLucyLetby #FreeLucyLetby
👇
🧵7/10
If, for some reason, you are not quite yet certain Lucy Letby is completely innocent of all charges, both parts of this excellent documentary will put your mind at rest
youtube.com/watch?v=ikOJTE…
youtube.com/watch?v=Y2Ed56…
#JusticeForLucyLetby #FreeLucyLetby
👇
🧵8/10
Grok’s opinion on the Lucy Letby case
#JusticeForLucyLetby #FreeLucyLetby
👇x.com/i/grok/share/E…
🧵9/10
Proving Lucy Letby is not guilty in just one case is enough for the rest to fall.
The Baby C case would suffice. If not the ridiculous "smoking gun" insulin cases.
Judge Goss told the jury this (exact words from his 15 June 2023 cross admissibility direction):
“If you are satisfied so that you are sure in the case of any baby that they were deliberately harmed by the defendant then you are entitled to consider how likely it is that other babies in the case who suffered unexpected collapses did so as a result of some unexplained or natural cause rather than as a consequence of some deliberate harmful act by someone.
If you conclude that this is unlikely then you could, if you think it right, treat the evidence of that event and any others which you find were a consequence of a deliberate harmful act as supporting evidence in the cases of other babies and that the defendant was the person responsible.
When deciding how far, if at all, the evidence in relation to any of the cases supports the case against the defendant on any other or others, you should take into account how similar or dissimilar, in your opinion, the allegations and the circumstances of and surrounding their collapses are.”
A bit garbled I know. But that's judges for you. Anyway, let's paraphrase it and see how it would show the importance of the Baby C case, for example, in exonerating Lucy Letby in all other cases:
If you are satisfied so that you are sure in the case of Baby C that the baby was not deliberately harmed by Lucy Letby, then you are entitled to consider how likely it is that other babies in the case who suffered unexpected collapses did so as a result of some deliberate harmful act by someone rather than as a consequence of some unexplained or natural cause.
If you conclude that this is unlikely, then you could, if you think it right, treat the evidence of that event and any others which you find were a consequence of an unexplained or natural cause as supporting evidence in the cases of other babies and that Lucy Letby was not the person responsible.
When deciding how far, if at all, the evidence in relation to any of the cases supports the case against Lucy Letby on any other or others, you should take into account how similar or dissimilar, in your opinion, the allegations and the circumstances of and surrounding their collapses are.
jollycontrarian.com/index.php?titl…
#JusticeForLucyLetby #FreeLucyLetby
👇
🧵10/10
I will leave the final words in this thread to Professor Shoo Lee as he explains quite clearly that no crimes were ever committed. Clip attached.
Full press conference...
#JusticeForLucyLetby #FreeLucyLetby
Share this Scrolly Tale with your friends.
A Scrolly Tale is a new way to read Twitter threads with a more visually immersive experience.
Discover more beautiful Scrolly Tales like this.