That intro article takes you through 8 detailed articles on aspects of the murders and evidentiary issues around the case. Depending upon your knowledge etc, you can scan aspects of it and still develop adequate feel for quality/paucity/challenges/issues. This is especially the case for the pathogens. In short, contamination and infection are a culprit spanning a much wider window that has been inadequately resolved and could be almost the defining issue around the deaths and the engulfing cover up, driving the "need" for a fall guy.
Go through all 8 articles. Then, pick whatever you want from mainstream articles detailing the case and decide for yourself whether the mainstream reporting has clued you in to any/some/all of the issues covered in the above analysis and/or what Mark McDonald said on TalkTV to Dr David Bull and Dr Renée Hoenderkamp (a bit like my news test, above).
That the TalkTV segment comprised two doctors further beggars belief. If I was Letby under these circumstances, I shudder to think what state I would be in. One day, we will learn about the capability and approach of her legal defence.
Personally, I feel this is a case of crowdjustice but it will be a tiny minority of the extremely brave and necessarily anonymous, which makes me instantly suspect there will be an accidental hack and doxx on any such fund, such is the level of media spun, state-backed vitriol. The case and story is being used to actually reinvigorate a "should we bring back the death sentence?" narrative. That's not an accident. That debate didn't spin up around any murder cases I can recall, although my connection to mainstream UK output has waned so much I didn't know about Lucy's case until the day of the verdict because of periphery mainstream research on a whole other topic.
If you form an opinion on this case and whatever media treatment you come across, I would be interested to hear it given you're fresh on all this.
For me to have an opinion would require too much investigation. Politics consumes my day, and there is little to spare (which is why I hadn't read beyond the headlines). But I will certainly follow that link now.
Okay, it was part of a series. I read 4 parts, enough to install doubt in my mind, and justify my concerns about hospital safety (my father was damaged by a surgeon to old to be employed, and then got a superbug in a different hospital which led to major problems).
Prof. Norman Fenton has an interesting interview with Dr. McLachan on YouTube about this case. Dr McLachlan is a Lecturer in Digital Technologies for Health in the Division of Applied Technologies for Clinical Care with the Faculty of Nursing, Midwifery & Palliative Care. He also has a Master of Laws degree plus several other qualifications.
Yep. I used it to fire off again at Bull and Hoenderkamp and they've both reacted unambiguously, which tells you what they are. Shills for the narrative, and remarkably unsophisticated ones at that.
If you understand anything about the nature of the evidence and the verdicts, one could legitimately say:
"She was found guilty of some of the crimes she was accused of by majority verdict."
One could not legitimately say:
"The trial proved her to be a murderer; or she murdered the neonates; or she committed the acts she was accused of because direct evidence showed she did."
Bull and co have both made statements that fall in to the latter category while deliberately ignoring the analysis I've kept pointing them at.
They even trolled me while accusing me of being a troll.
It's farcical, but it was what I wanted to test.
Allison Parsons is doing the same thing.
This is because they are shills furthering the NHS privatisation agenda and I'm 70% certain they are all consciously in on it.
They are facilitating and paving the discussions that end up there AKA manufacturing consent.
If they're not, they are dumber than rocks but still actually achieving the same ends. I have greater respect for the willing shills because at least they are consciously pursuing a plan, using techniques and deliberately affecting the change they want.
You are right Lucy Letby case it massive. I have put a recommendation to your articles on my substack. And I agree about Toilet TV (woops typo) TALK RADIO/TV. Interesting you should mention the shirts because I have been noticing Renee Hoenderkamps communication to us via her clothing. Check her pics out. In almost every TALK TV clip on you tube she is wearing black and white. And when she has costume that is black and grey she wears unusual and expensive looking black and white boots. This is a masonic sign. She is telling us (and they always say they tell us loud and clear) who she is.
I've seen the headlines but this is the first article I've read about Lucy Letby. Interesting!
Do things in reverse order and see where you end up. This is largely like my recommended MO for reading news articles:
1. Read the headline.
2. Read the article from the bottom up.
3. Decide whether the article, read bottom up, justifies/matches/validates the headline.
4. If needs be, read it again, top down and re-decide.
So, re Letby, if you're going to read any more, start here:
https://lawhealthandtech.substack.com/p/scepticism-in-action
That intro article takes you through 8 detailed articles on aspects of the murders and evidentiary issues around the case. Depending upon your knowledge etc, you can scan aspects of it and still develop adequate feel for quality/paucity/challenges/issues. This is especially the case for the pathogens. In short, contamination and infection are a culprit spanning a much wider window that has been inadequately resolved and could be almost the defining issue around the deaths and the engulfing cover up, driving the "need" for a fall guy.
Go through all 8 articles. Then, pick whatever you want from mainstream articles detailing the case and decide for yourself whether the mainstream reporting has clued you in to any/some/all of the issues covered in the above analysis and/or what Mark McDonald said on TalkTV to Dr David Bull and Dr Renée Hoenderkamp (a bit like my news test, above).
That the TalkTV segment comprised two doctors further beggars belief. If I was Letby under these circumstances, I shudder to think what state I would be in. One day, we will learn about the capability and approach of her legal defence.
Personally, I feel this is a case of crowdjustice but it will be a tiny minority of the extremely brave and necessarily anonymous, which makes me instantly suspect there will be an accidental hack and doxx on any such fund, such is the level of media spun, state-backed vitriol. The case and story is being used to actually reinvigorate a "should we bring back the death sentence?" narrative. That's not an accident. That debate didn't spin up around any murder cases I can recall, although my connection to mainstream UK output has waned so much I didn't know about Lucy's case until the day of the verdict because of periphery mainstream research on a whole other topic.
If you form an opinion on this case and whatever media treatment you come across, I would be interested to hear it given you're fresh on all this.
For me to have an opinion would require too much investigation. Politics consumes my day, and there is little to spare (which is why I hadn't read beyond the headlines). But I will certainly follow that link now.
Okay, it was part of a series. I read 4 parts, enough to install doubt in my mind, and justify my concerns about hospital safety (my father was damaged by a surgeon to old to be employed, and then got a superbug in a different hospital which led to major problems).
Prof. Norman Fenton has an interesting interview with Dr. McLachan on YouTube about this case. Dr McLachlan is a Lecturer in Digital Technologies for Health in the Division of Applied Technologies for Clinical Care with the Faculty of Nursing, Midwifery & Palliative Care. He also has a Master of Laws degree plus several other qualifications.
Yep. I used it to fire off again at Bull and Hoenderkamp and they've both reacted unambiguously, which tells you what they are. Shills for the narrative, and remarkably unsophisticated ones at that.
If you understand anything about the nature of the evidence and the verdicts, one could legitimately say:
"She was found guilty of some of the crimes she was accused of by majority verdict."
One could not legitimately say:
"The trial proved her to be a murderer; or she murdered the neonates; or she committed the acts she was accused of because direct evidence showed she did."
Bull and co have both made statements that fall in to the latter category while deliberately ignoring the analysis I've kept pointing them at.
They even trolled me while accusing me of being a troll.
It's farcical, but it was what I wanted to test.
Allison Parsons is doing the same thing.
This is because they are shills furthering the NHS privatisation agenda and I'm 70% certain they are all consciously in on it.
They are facilitating and paving the discussions that end up there AKA manufacturing consent.
If they're not, they are dumber than rocks but still actually achieving the same ends. I have greater respect for the willing shills because at least they are consciously pursuing a plan, using techniques and deliberately affecting the change they want.
You are right Lucy Letby case it massive. I have put a recommendation to your articles on my substack. And I agree about Toilet TV (woops typo) TALK RADIO/TV. Interesting you should mention the shirts because I have been noticing Renee Hoenderkamps communication to us via her clothing. Check her pics out. In almost every TALK TV clip on you tube she is wearing black and white. And when she has costume that is black and grey she wears unusual and expensive looking black and white boots. This is a masonic sign. She is telling us (and they always say they tell us loud and clear) who she is.