LIES, LIES AND VIDEOTAPE

Analysing video footage of consultants and 'experts' in the Letby case.

11th September 2023

There has been much analysing of Lucy Letby, by online shrinks who have never met her, but what about the others in this shit show? What about the paediatricians who apparently ‘caught her’? What tell tale signs of pathology , if any, can be seen in them? Are they honest or are they covering up?

First up watch this video, she is ex CIA expert on spotting deception:

Now watch this ITV interview with Ravi Jayaram: Is he being honest? Or is he attempting to deceive?

From 0.40 the interviewer states 'what was it like when babies started dying and you couldn't understand why?' Ravi looks very worried and then responds by saying 'I've (little pause) been a paediatrician since 1992 and I have never in my career seen anything like this ..'

So he does not answer the question, instead he avoids it instead letting us all know the length of his experience, too much qualification and an element of attempt to 'convince'. A natural response would have been 'confusing' or 'disturbing' or 'concerning' . He goes on to say

...'and actually initially, there was a feeling of thank goodness that Lucy was on because she was really good in a crisis, she was really good at managing these things ...'

With those words he relaxes a bit and looks relieved (because he is now able to be honest) but it is important to note that he says '... initially , THERE WAS a feeling'. He does not say ‘I had a feeling’ or 'I felt' or even 'we felt'. I would suggest therefore that he himself was not happy that Lucy was on perhaps he already disliked her or had a grudge - speculation , but the use of THERE WAS shows that it is OTHERS who were relieved Lucy was on, not him.

At 1.08 the interviewer (who is watching Ravi like a hawk) states:

'So the thought starts sinking in that there could be a killer on the unit ... I mean that's thats a big moment' (It is really important to know that this is a statement, not a question and a typical media tactic to put suggestion into the head of the respondee)

Ravi looks terrified . Blinking , swallowing. He responds by mirroring the interviewer. He takes a breath and stumbles over his words, looking away from the interviewer:

'It's its a big er its a big moment adn its a chilling moment, I don't think anybody has a rule book for how you deal with a situation (he looks away) where (pause, then looks back at interviewer) you're suspecting that somebody is causing deliberate harm to babies on your neonatal unit (then he looks away again and blinks).

Firstly the phrase 'its'a big moment' has been given to him by the interviewer but its a very strange way to describe the situation. 'Big moment' - what does that even mean??' I would use it to describe say winning Wimbledon or something.. But why is Ravi stumbling over his words and so scared? He is not supposed to be on trial, Lucy has been convicted. WHen he looks away on the word 'where' his eyes flicker from side to side and he appears to be giving himself time to think how to describe the situation and then he (I would surmise) makes sure he looks directly at the interviewer to give the impression of honesty '...you're suspecting that somebody is causing deliberate harm to babies on your neonatal unit'.When asked about the night he claims he walked in and found Lucy standing over the cot of baby K at 2:03 Ravi responds looking very worried taking deep breath and looking away:

'That is a night that is etched on my memory and ... will ..' (he looks back at interviewer 'be in my nightmares forever' (his eyes close) and he looks away .... 'to be honest'

But this comes across as dishonesty in my opinion. No need for the qualification 'to be honest' if what he is saying is true, then of course he would not forget but he seems to need to convince .He then goes on to relax more and talk more naturally without stalling or struggling and I would suggest that some of what he is recalling is the truth, but it is important to note that he never claims to actually see Letby dislodge the tube.

At 5.11 he speaks about a letter from Lucy which management read out which he describes as 'a very aggressive letter' in which she states that she is coming back to work and

'you have to work with me and I'm gonna prove to you that I'm a great nurse and I'm not a killer like you say ...'

Nothing aggressive about that. Just a statement by someone trying to win back the support of her colleagues after being accused of horrendous things. If Ravi genuinley finds that aggressive (and it appears he does because no signs he is lying about that) then it suggests he feels threatened because the management clearly think he has bullied Lucy.

at 6.45 the interview states :

'it must have been a surreal experience to be sat across the table in that mediation session from somebody who at this point you're sure could quite well be a killer' Ravi replies

'Yes' he closes his eyes (sign he is likely not being honest) and then looks away 'it was bizarre ......'

at 7:25 he speaks of how he feels it speaks volumes that the police thought they should get involved after listening to him for less than ten minutes- not sure why it speaks volumes to him, surely he is well aware of the way police are like lapdogs around consultants in the same way that most others are. Obviously any accusation from them is going to hold much more weight than say an accusation from a patient or a cleaner. It shouldnt' be that way, but that is a fact of life. He knows his status.

At 7.33 he goes on to state 'and .. I could have punched the air'. This is a strange statement to make regarding him finding out that the police would investigate. Surely a normal reaction would have been relief, not triumph. AT 7.41 we get the most revealing part of all when he responds to the question put to him as to whether lives could have been saved if management had taken action sooner. First he gives a nervous twitching of the leg and looking desperate His response is looking away

'...it's a horrible thing to say' eyes wide big swallow 'but I do genuinely believe that ... ' here the film is cut and ITV go to a close up of him. It sounds like a continuation of speech with no break but his voice is completely different it has dropped lower - I think ITV may have cut something out there. He carries on

'.... there are four or five babies who could be going to school now' ( he looks back at interviewer) then swallow adn looks away then looks back and nods his head 'who aren't'. A natural head movement would have been to shake his head for the negative but instead he nods, as if he is trying to convince himself that somehow management must be responsible for not nabbing Lucy quicker. WE have to wonder why he thinks it is a horrible thing to say that management should have intervened earlier. It would only be a horrible thing to say if what he was saying was not something he genuinely believed was the truth.

I cannot of course rule out that when ITV cut the film, it might have been to allow Ravi to compose himself, if upset, but why then try and make the footage completely smooth, surely it would be beneficial to the cause to let people know that Ravi was genuinely emotional and actually play into that. Instead they cut the film and we don't really know what happened in that moment.

At 1:34 the interviewer states.

“Did it reach a point where when an alarm went off you were instantly worried that the same thing would be happening again?’

Gibbs looks stuck and makes strange movements with this mouth. His eyes flicker “Probably only by late 2016 .. by June certainly …”

(June is not ‘late’ 2016) - it is more likely that what he said first (ie. late 2016) is more in line with what he really remembers , but by citing June he is trying to convince the interviewer or maybe even himself that he had serious concerns at that point.

At 2.14 the interviewer says

‘And at that point your concern wasn’t that she wasn’t up to the job or that she wasn’t a competent nurse (Gibbs nods his head), the concern was that she was deliberately harming babies’

Nodding his head at the point that the interviewer comments on whether the concern was that Lucy Letby perhaps wasn’t competent, is a sign that he agrees that his concern at that point was that Letby was incompetent. That means his concern was not really that she was a serial killer.

Gibbs replies ‘Our worry was that she might be doing that because we couldn’t understand why these babies, quite a few of them, were collapsing, why some of them were dying.”

So the paediatricians cannot explain the deaths and collapses of the babies so they assumed they must have been murdered.

4.22 Gibbs states regarding the police investigation “as for who was doing what when, who was standing where, when, who was last with the patient before they collapsed, trying to remember that to give the information to the police as part of their investigation several years after the event was very difficult ..”

Yes it would have been near nigh impossible to get the facts straight.

The NHS have CHIS (Covert Human Intelligence Officers) working for them. I wonder why one of these wasn’t put on the case? Here is a link to an article about CHIS that I wrote which was published in issue 12 of the Lightpaper.

Lightpaper Issue 12. The article is on page 10 (The Rule of Lawlessness).

I wonder , given that at the time, in 2016, consultants had suspicions of a serial killer at play murdering babies, a hidden camera wasn’t installed on the unit? Or even just an audio recording device? It doesn’t matter that this could not be officially sanctioned, CHIS are not subject to the laws the rest of us are supposed to obey. In the age of tech you would have thought the lives of these babies were worth just a tiny bit of REAL sleuthing. But in the NHS the culture dictates that one does as one is told. One turns a blind eye and waits for A.N. other to do the dirty work.

Or , just maybe, there was nothing to see here. Maybe Lucy was just an ordinary girl getting on with her job of caring for babies in very challenging circumstances in a filthy and understaffed hospital.