Lucy Letby: Pawn in a high stakes game
Someone's will to use her as a fall guy has trapped her and them in a cruel, sociopathic game
For those wishing to look below the surface of the Lucy Letby trial, please see the following sources:
Science On Trial’s https://rexvlucyletby2023.com/
Law Health & Tech - Dr Scott McLachlan’s Substack
Professor Norman Fenton’s blog
Statistician Richard Gills’ analysis - Gill1109.com
Nurse Lucy Letby was found guilty of:
7 murders
7 attempted murders
She was found not guilty of two counts of attempted murder.
Verdicts were not reached on six counts of attempted murder.
The above sources of third party analysis, which were not part of Letby’s defence, detail a litany of problems with the investigation, prosecution and the evidence presented in the case, and raises questions about how capable her defence was.
That Letby was accused of causing a total of 22 deaths and found guilty of only 14 raises questions about the cause of the other 8 deaths. This undermines an overarching theory that she was the sole cause of all the deaths, which then undermines the integrity of those making that claim and the theory that she is a serial killer who bears sole blame for all these neonatal deaths.
Further, when one looks at the issues regarding evidence and testimony, there is no direct evidence that proves Letby committed the acts and highly questionable testimony from medics that the prosecution presented, including “expert” testimony from Dr. Dewi Evans who even stated in the dock that he was not an expert, who formed an opinion by simply looking at notes and presenting a single paper regarding one theory around air emoblisms. Evans inserted himself into the case as a police witness. Questions about payments to Evans should be asked.
VST is not here to repeat the analysis of others, so please take a look at the above sources for yourself.
Science On Trial has launched a campaign to back Letby’s appeal here.
Consider the following statement.
In 2020, Lucy Letby was charged with the murder of 7 infants and the attempted murder of 10 infants. These children were all under the care of Lucy Letby in the neonatal unit at the Countess of Chester Hospital, in Chester, UK. These attacks were reported to span the period running from June 2015 to June 2016. At the time, nobody suspected Lucy Letby of wrong-doing. It was only after the consultants who were running the neonatal unit became the subject of a critical report from the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health (RCPCH) that they went on to file a report with the police alleging the infant deaths were due to the actions of nurse Lucy Letby. In all but one case, the infants received autopsies and the coroner found that they died of natural causes.
Big Picture Context
Neonatal deaths at Countess of Chester Hospital (CoCH) were below the national average in the 2015-16 window that the Lucy Letby case was concerned with.1
In September 2016 a confidential review of the NICU was conducted by Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health:
The Royal cottage of Paediaitrics and Child Health {RCPCH) was invited to review the neonatal service at the Countess of Chester Hospital (CoCH) following re-designation from level 2 Local Neonatal Unit (LNU) to level 1 Special Care Unit (SCU) In July 2016 due to concerns about Increasing neonatal mortality. A number of causes had been postulated but there was no definitive explanation for the trend.
The Review team visited on 1 - 2 September and met staff and stakeholders including obstetric, network and transport representatives. We were not commissioned to conduct detailed casenote reviews but given the circumstances we recommend that this is initiated immediately prioritising the deaths that were considered unexpected.
From 2017, CoCH stopped caring for extremely vulnerable, significantly premature neonates born before 32 weeks, which would have the effect of further lowering its incidence of death from the time Letby was moved off the unit.
There were known and persistent contamination issues relating to the unit’s water and sewage services that had the potential to infect water used in treatment and hygiene on the ward (handwashing, patient bathing & hygiene) with pathogens that could be fatal to neonates.
Letby was a praised member of staff who, up until 2017, was not under any spotlight for wrong doing.
In 2017, the unit came under the scrutiny of the police, who began their investigations into 15 neonates. It got into the press:
For a great round up of many key issues presented in a lay accessible way, with a little extra Hummingbird connectivity upfront, check out this article:
Hypothesis
The following is speculation based on the case and the third party analysis linked to above.
At the lowest level, certain staff at various levels of responsibility within CoCH NICU have attempted to evade their responsibility for failures in neonatal care on the unit by inventing and pushing a false accusation of “murder” on Lucy Letby. After the RCPCH’s negative report, Letby became a problem for the Unit’s medics when she raised concerns about aspects of how the unit performed and was run. The group originating and pushing the theory happen to be Doctors, all of whom were excluded from the tabular analysis of who was on shift for the specified neonatal deaths. These doctors actively colluded and exploited their positions and seniority to progress their false accusation.
There is an uninvestigated possibility that Dr. Dewi Evans may have been known to the other CoCH doctors and they may have had contact with each other up to the trial. If this is true, one would have to question why.
NHS management likely did enough of the right thing in initially investigating the claims and finding in favour of Letby. This stance is now subject to highly biased hindsight. Public interpretation of that stance, which saw Letby given a letter of apology, is skewed by the case verdict and spun hard by the media into an example of Letby’s supposed powers of deceit and manipulation, for which she was never known and no evidence demonstrates.
At some point and as a result of a combination of persistent actions that combined attention, pressure and threat of wider liability, the NHS management and Trust structure began to capitulate to the accusations in various ways including transferring Letby. Eventually, enough people decided that it was politically expedient for the Trust to fall in line with the Doctors’ accusations, make Letby the fall guy and lay all blame for a huge number of the neonatal deaths on her. The benefit of transferring all responsibility for all issues around any neonate death onto her was that it absolved everyone else of their share of responsibility and possible attendant consequences. The chances of a “win” for the prosecution was high against a weak defendant with few resources, subject to the mental torture of isolation and protracted investigations, multiple police interactions and publicity. The historical odds of conviction are indicated by other cases run with the same/similar MO and kinds of circumstantial evidence and testimony, against vulnerable nurses who are relatively easy to accuse and convict.
A collusive group actively pursued an agenda that served to kill off possible unit-wide liability for neonate deaths that were actually caused by poor care, understaffing, poor leadership/oversight, and low standards of environmental safety, security and cleanliness. When considered in full scope, these issues mean that some people stood to face charges as potentially serious as manslaughter in various forms.
Beyond this, the NHS Trust as an entity could have faced charges of corporate manslaughter for its overall part in the neonatal deaths. All of this would go away for the staff and the Trust if the blame was pinned on a fall guy.
Ironically, some things do not change with the conviction of Letby, such as questions of the competence of any Coroner who rendered a verdict of death by natural causes for any of the neonates Letby was accused of or found guilty of murdering. Both circumstances contradict each other. If the Coroner’s verdicts are sound, Letby likely didn’t murder the babies. If the verdicts are sound but she did murder the babies, she must have been extremely sophisticated in her methods to repeatedly fool experienced Coroners. How did she acquire that level of expertise? If the Coroner’s verdicts are unsound and they missed signs of foul play, their entire competence across these and all other verdicts must immediately be called into question and thoroughly examined. So too must the competence of anyone in the Unit and Trust who accepted, for any period of time, the Coroner’s verdicts who later came to challenge and question them. What changed between each verdict and the point at which they accused Letby of murder? If that cannot be clearly answered, further questions must be asked of those accusing Letby in contradiction of the Coroner’s original findings of death by natural causes.
A juror left after 66 hours of time on the jury and the third party analysis of the case that this hypothesis as been based upon was not available to the jury. No assumptions about jury competence, impartiality, information balance and completeness should be made. It is likely that all bar one of the jury members now stand to reputationally lose if their verdict is overturned, meaning they have vested interests in allowing the present state of affairs to persist and have on going influence over the future. One member of the jury found her innocent. That person would be interesting to speak to.
The Trust and the Government may also see serious, wider liability matters at stake in this case. If Letby was found to be innocent, wrongly accused and subject to a miscarriage of justice, then all the CoCH NICU neonatal deaths need to be addressed from scratch, which opens up a massive wound. Further, those deaths bring back into the public mind the concept of manslaughter and corporate manslaughter by putting the doctors, other unit staff and management back on the hook for all the deaths. However, in the post-COVID gene therapy world, reminding the public of such liability exposure is highly undesirable because it could form a trigger to major class actions against the NHS, various practice units and individual vaccinators (which include doctors and nurses) who have all potentially committed criminal acts of battery. Individual informed consent could not be given by patients in line with the Green Book for various reasons including deliberately inadequate or misleading information having been given to patients about the COVID gene therapies to this date. UK patient and clinician information leaflets have always been false, as has the information and claims peddled by every level of the medical, scientific, legal, pharma and governmental spheres. Under these circumstances, it is impossible to have given informed consent. Pharma manufacturers’ own trial data proves that their claims of “95%+ safety and efficacy” were lies that everyone peddled. This cascades down through the NHS to result in potential battery at the vaccinator level and corporate manslaughter at the Trust or GP Practise level, unless there are clear limitations in law. Letby’s case overlaps this big issue of mass and corporate liability in the medical arena.
What to expect next?
The rush to assemble an inquiry in the context and shadow of Letby’s verdict is suspect. This will be done before she has the means to lodge and instruct an appeal. This is because the inquiry will operate on the assumption that her guilty verdict is sound and all inquiry proceedings will be falsely framed and coloured by that assumption. This is deliberate.
If Letby is able to lodge an appeal, a campaign of suppression, smearing and manipulation will be run in the media alongside a bent inquiry that will serve to reinforce the notion that only Letby could have killed those babies. This will serve to scupper her appeal by colouring any jury and the judiciary.
It is likely that Letby is now being separated from any contact with outside parties by the prison system so that she is unable to instruct legal representation and is prevented from knowing that there is a movement backing her appeal and questioning her conviction. Two separate VST sources have indicated this may be happening to Letby.
Letby’s physical safety in prison and her psychological state will both be risks to her safety that the system is likely to exploit. If she is rendered unable to appeal by virtue of mental or physical incapability, or is incapacitated, killed or “suicided” in the prison system, there is zero chance of any of the issues around CoCH liability ever being questioned again.
September 15th is a date being mentioned as critical in the lodging of her appeal with rumours that a capable bunch of people are coming together to provide some kind of support in furtherance of her appeal.
An individual who is independently analysing aspects of the conviction has said that two sources he was intending to speak to have been leaned on by the Police in the last few days. Whether they will speak to him, about what and to what extent remains to be seen.
The police also stand to lose out if their investigation is found to be lacking. It is not in the police’s interests to have their professionalism and objectivity questioned. The irony is that while the case took years for them to investigate and prosecute, it took only months for various expert and lay people to look at the “evidence” and immediately pick holes in all of it. The police stand to be utterly humiliated if a capable appeal with scope to re-examine evidence and submit further exculpatory evidence can be brought. The “expert” witness, Dr. Dewi Evans, could be found to be little more than a retired medical shyster whose primary business interest is getting paid by prosecutions to give testimony in their favour. He has a certain record and form, and deserves much closer sceptical scrutiny and publicity, as does his involvement with the case and police.
The politicisation of the case now makes targets of NHS management, which is a long standing fight inside the NHS between medics and management. This case swings the balance in the medics’ favour, in a time when the NHS pay and working conditions, as well as its future as a semi-privatised service all hang in the balance. Increasing numbers of the public now realise how badly wronged they have been by NHS medics throughout the fallacy of COVID, Midazolam and COVID gene therapies. Most medics are colluding and obeying Omertá in denying that the gene therapies are causing death and disease. The backlash is building and could eventually be massive. Any event that exacerbates medic wrongdoing at scale is a threat to stable government and the interests of the powerful medical profession.
Amongst all of this, the media has been largely co-opted to spin a line that cements unquestionable guilt into the public’s mind. This is a red flag in itself. Hero worship of the doctors who would otherwise have difficult questions to face about their liability has been deployed instantly following the verdict. One should ask why? Reporting is inaccurate, unquestioning, skewed and pushes the guilty verdict with prejudicial phraseology. These are all clear signs of co-ordinated propaganda campaigns.
Lucy Letby is a fall guy in a battle that is much, much larger than the several tragic neonatal deaths that she was accused of causing.
Because of the real scale of her case and what it represents, it is unlikely that true justice will be served in short order. More likely that she, like Andrew Malkinson, will be illegally and wrongly buried for political reasons that most people cannot and will not entertain. Thus, it will fall to the determination, resources and steel of a tiny minority of people to fight for justice, which is a fair trial for Lucy Letby in which she has the resources and access to all information in her defence. This is what appears to have been denied to her in her trial and the reasons why are extremely unclear, but could include all of the above.
Meanwhile, Letby will literally have to fight to survive whatever the prison system throws at her now that she has been branded a murderer of neonates. Given the ease with which public opinion has been swayed and manipulated yet again, it is likely that she will not be given the benefit of the doubt by inmates and guards alike.
Coping with personal injustice on top of whatever else she might be subjected to is probably the harshest of life’s tests.
Letby’s case, trial and verdict shows us again how pliable public opinion is and how easy it is to reset people’s thinking. People like to think they question everything, when really the opposite is true. Most people beg to be told what to think then come together and rejoice in their ignorant group think. They are the 65% who will kill you if they are told to do so by someone they are told is an authority. They will not even have the wherewithal to check the authority figure’s credentials or ask why they must kill the target. They will just act under instruction.
MK ULTRA didn’t just stop. It produced serious, successful results and has been running around the globe ever since in more and more sophisticated ways. It is part of the reasons why there’s still a 65%.
https://twitter.com/search?q=died%20suddenly&src=typed_query&f=media
I agree this case is highly political. It is much bigger than even just the COCH.. There are forces behind the scenes which want it this way. Here is the article I wrote around the bigger picture
https://callystarforth.substack.com/p/operation-hummingbird