LUCY LETBY CONVICTIONS, WHO BENEFITS?

Regular trial? Or planned Problem, Reaction, Solution?

4th July 2024

Further to my previous articles about the unsafe and very likely wrongful conviction of Lucy Letby Operation Hummingbird, Lies, Lies and Videotape and The Greatest Miscarriage Continues, it is now the case that Lucy has not only been denied the chance to appeal her convictions, but has also been taken to court for a retrial on one of the charges that the previous jury could not reach a verdict on. 

She was accused of the attempted murder of ‘baby K’, a fifteen week premature baby, weighing only 1.52 lbs who died back in 2016 of natural causes.  The judge told the jury to make their decision only on the evidence in front of them, but there was no real evidence, nor forensic scientific evidence apart from dubious claims by the consultant and TV doctor Ravi Jayaram, who had previously been shown by the defence to have been ‘confused’ about his facts. Jayaram appears to have an intense dislike of Lucy as well as a vested interest in her continued status as scapegoat for the incompetence/negligence of Countess of Chester Hospital. Any negligence of course reflects more on doctors and consultants than nurses so doctors at the COCH will have an interest in avoiding any admission of same. 

There were no witnesses to this so-called crime, in which Lucy is supposed to have deliberately dislodged a breathing tube which was attached to the baby about an hour or two after it was born.  And what has been ignored by the court is that breathing tubes commonly get accidentally dislodged in neonatal units, see link here for an article on this subject:

https://www.childrensnational.org/about-us/newsroom/2019/nicu-slashes-unintended-extubation-rates

Jayaram claims that he caught Lucy ‘virtually red-handed’  tampering with the baby’s breathing tube. This is an odd way to describe catching someone in the act:   

‘I have lost my wallet.  I saw you virtually steal it??’  …..  

Either I saw you steal it or I didn’t.  Jayaram claims he  virtually caught Lucy in the act.   He didn’t claim that he actually caught her.

Jayaram seems to have a habit of describing what are purported to be his memories in creative ways.  It is common for someone being dishonest to qualify their language, i.e. elaborate when elaboration is unnecessary: 

‘Were you late for work lad?’

‘No boss. Not exactly.  I got up really early this morning relatively speaking, and switched on the radio and while I was skipping breakfast I heard that bus drivers are getting more heart attacks than usual ….’

For an honest person, ‘No, I was here at 9am’ would suffice.

These language give-aways can be subtle and often pass under the radar.  Whether the jury were capable of seeing these nuances I doubt.  Juries are made up of people and the majority of people are not usually known for their deep thought processes. Most are way too trusting of our rotten institutions and highly suggestible.

Jayaram had previously been shown by the defence barrister Ben Myers to have made a false claim in court.  He had attempted to support his allegation that Lucy dislodged a breathing tube by making it look as if the baby could not have moved and dislodged its own tube accidentally, due to the fact it had been sedated with morphine at the time the tube was dislodged. However the truth, as shown in the actual hospital records, shows otherwise.  Baby K was only sedated with morphine after the incident and therefore very likely dislodged the tube itself by accident. In any case had Jayaram been so shocked (he claimed that the moment would stay in his nightmares forever), he would certainly have made a report about this incident. Lies, Lies and Videotape After all, he claims he  virtually caught Lucy in the act.   He didn’t claim that he actually caught her. Lucy had supposedly just tried to murder another baby yet he reported nothing at the time.  This major red flag which questions his story altogether was just ignored by the jury. Lucy had highlighted issues on the ward and consultants Ravi Jayaram and Stephen Brearey may have taken issue with that.  The fact that the police just accepted the emotional rantings of  a man who actively disliked Lucy as enough evidence to decide Lucy was the only suspect and to dismiss all other possibilities or investigations almost right from the start, is one of the main reasons this miscarriage of justice has occurred. Justice Goss is another reason.  He informed the  jury in the first trial that they did not have to be certain of any precise act used by  Letby to kill or cause harm. 

I fail to see how someone can be found guilty of murder without a court being able to describe exactly how  that act of murder was committed. Vague assumptions about how someone might have killed somebody else are not normally supposed to be good enough in a court of law to convict someone.  So the judge altered the goal posts to allow for this.  Defence barrister, Ben Myers, when asking for permission for Lucy to appeal her convictions pointed out that Justice Goss had been wrong to direct the jury in this way, because it allowed them to convict her without being certain beyond reasonable doubt of her guilt, as the law requires. However the prosecution argued that this didn’t matter because there was circumstantial evidence of Lucy’s guilt because she was present when ‘things happened’.  But courts are supposed to deal in facts, not assumptions.

‘I have lost my wallet. You were there …..’

Yeh, well so were many other people.  And we already know as I have described before in Operation Hummingbird , that that evidence was withheld from the jury which showed that Lucy was no  more present than any other member of staff when unexplained baby deaths happened on that ward.

The agenda to scapegoat Lucy is glaringly obvious and the result of the retrial was sadly only too predictable. The jury have found Lucy guilty of the attempted murder of Baby K.

This raises questions regarding the nature of our so called ‘justice system’.  In Britain which is a common law based system, we operate an adversarial system, which differs from the legal system on the continent which is code based and operates as an inquisitorial system. In the adversarial  system, some evidence can be kept back from a jury if disclosure is not specifically requested by the opposing legal team. In this case the jury were given a timetable which only showed half the story.  Had they been given access to all the relevant rota information for staff at COCH they would have known that Lucy was not the only person who was present for sudden and unexplained baby deaths.  The prosecution presented the jury with a deliberately selective rota, to make it look as if Letby was the only person who could possibly be a suspect.  If we operated an inquisitorial system this should not have been the case.  This is because in an adversarial system the Judge basically just watches opposing legal teams battle it out.  The presumption of innocence is the most important issue and it  is up to the prosecution to prove guilt beyond all reasonable doubt.  Truth is not the main issue.  

In an inquisitorial system, truth is the goal.  The Judge plays a much more active role in establishing facts of the case.  He can look at science more closely and an investigating magistrate will have gone through the evidence before it reaches trial. No right to withhold evidence exists with the lawyers, the judge has the power to look at all the facts he believes relevant. Juries are only used in the most serious cases as in the French court of Assizes.   Therefore any jury is already aware that the accused would not be in the dock unless the judge already believes them to be guilty.  Truth is deemed more important than any  individual right to liberty or a fair trial. Franz Kafka’s classic novel ‘The Trial’, set in Prague,  brilliantly illustrates the dark side of the inquisitorial system.

It might seem that the Inquisitorial system is more thorough as it has seeking the truth as its main objective but the adversarial system goes by the philosophy that it is better to let ten guilty men go free, than convict one innocent man (or woman).  I agree with that.  Which is why the normal rules of the adversarial system should have been followed in the Letby case.  Instead we have a situation, aided by the gutter press, where she was ‘guilty till proven innocent’  instead of the other way around.   

Either way, miscarriages of justice happen.  In the civil/coded continental system, judges are fallible and many will also be corrupt or corruptible.  In the common law system, corruption is common place too and the innocent still get convicted, as the guilty go free.  There is no perfect system because human beings are all fallible and everyone of sound mind is capable of  dishonesty. However the establishment are keen to get rid of juries and one way of doing this would be to swap the adversarial system for an inquisitorial one.  This would free up the courts as juries are costly and time consuming.  They also have a lot of power (mostly unused because they are not aware of it).  For example Jury nullification can be used to let an accused person go free even if they are found guilty, if the jury think the law is for example unjust or outdated.  The establishment would rather you believe the judge holds the most power in a criminal trial but in truth he/she does not.  

Much has been made by the police of Letby searching on Facebook for baby K’s surname in 2018.  However she knew she was under suspicion and the allegations that had been made against her by Jayaram and Brearey. Therefore I see nothing abnormal in her searching to find out who this baby was that she was accused of trying to kill!!  I am sure if someone accused anybody else of attempting to murder a baby the first thing they would want to know is who was that baby! It would be the first question you would want answered because you cannot defend an allegation if you don’t know who it is you are supposed to have tried to kill!!  Lucy has also been criticised for not showing enough emotion throughout her trial. But there is no rational argument for why Lucy should show great emotion by bursting into tears.  The babies died approx 8 years ago anyway and they are not Lucy’s babies.  There is no reason for her to have emotional investment with these families.  Any tears would have been for her own plight  only, and perhaps her own family or cats but if she had shed any, she would have been criticised for self pity.

She was never going to get a fair trial the second time around.  There is no way the jury had not already heard about this case, they knew she had already been convicted of murder and had been demonised by the press.  Although they were told by Justice Goss to just go on the so called ‘facts’ in front of them, that is like saying to someone who has read reports about a pilot being unfit to fly, after a plane crash, to judge whether he should fly planes again without that knowledge.  They can’t.  Knowledge is knowledge. You cannot pretend to yourself that you do not have it.  I see no benefit in this retrial other than maybe to put the parents of baby K through the mill again.  It certainly won’t make any difference to their grief or bring back their dead baby (who died from natural causes due to being extremely premature and being on a unit which was unfit to care for such an infant.) 

There is of course a very strange situation with this case.  Why are all the babies and parents anonymous, alongside several of the staff who gave evidence at the trial (on either side)?  This is not normal and I believe may be unprecedented for such a serious case.  A judge cannot normally stop the media publishing names of child victims. Although these babies were newborns they probably would have already been given names by their parents, at least informally. And  even in the James Bulger case when the murderers were children themselves, all the names were public. And there have been countless other examples of children and babies whose names have been published. Amongst them are Victoria Climbie, Arthur Labinjo-Hughes (a child who might have survived had it not been for the ridiculous and unnecessary lockdown) and Jessica Chapman and Holly Wells (known as the Soham murders).  

So what is this about?  Why did high court judge Mrs. Justice Steyn, two years before Letby’s first trial, make an order to ban the publication of anything that could lead to the identification of any of the surviving children or their families.  The reason we are given is that the parents of all the children are supposed to have unanimously provided witness statements explaining that they not only wanted to remain anonymous,  but also did not want details of their jobs, ethnicities or nationalities, medical conditions nor the circumstances of their childrens' conception, gestation and births to be made public.  

I could believe that one or maybe even a few of the parents might go to the trouble to do this, but not all.  Some of those parents would seek publicity.  It is human nature to want to tell your story and people today place everything online.  It would be unusual for someone not to want to be able to do so should the need arise.  There is also the question of being able to sell their story maybe later down the line.  It seems very odd that there is this blanket silencing and I would surmise that this situation has not been instigated by the parents, but by the courts themselves, in effectively gagging the relatives indefinitely. For some reason the little boy’s club have decided they do not want the public to be able to hear the families’ side of the story.  I can see why some of the staff at the hospital might want anonymity (many stick by Lucy and are convinced she is innocent), but families would have not gone to such lengths unless they were pressurised to do so.

What is the state trying to cover up?  Could some of the parents have a different story to the total BS we are being fed?  Why on earth would parents not want their ethnicity or nationality known? I can think of a couple of reasons for the opposite. Why they might want it known that, say,  as a member of an ethnic minority or some other marginalised group, they had received poor care for their baby.  I would not rule out the possibility that the lives of babies from certain backgrounds are perhaps in some cases deemed by the establishment not worth saving. Chester is a key area for county lines drug running due to easy access to Liverpool and the docks.

Adult witnesses are rarely granted anonymity unless their lives are in danger.  Not sure why the adults in this case, either staff or parents, would believe that their lives would be in danger from giving evidence against Lucy. Is she a yardie, a moll, or Lucy Kray??  I can’t quite visualize her devastated looking parents launching their own revenge mafia.   Are we supposed to believe Lucy herself will take revenge should she ever be released?  If she wanted revenge against anyone surely it would be against her main accusers and they are already known to her. Ravi Jayaram and Stephen Brearey. 

This does not add up .  It’s a cover-up exercise. The question is why? 

There is very likely masonic involvement as there routinely is in all high profile cases, especially when you find unsafe or wrongful convictions.  This is probably why she had zero chance of getting an appeal: Lucy appeal refusal note . A parliamentary home affairs committee on the subject of the role of masonic interference in public life, showed in 1999 how very senior West Midland police officers involved in the Birmingham pub bombings (Birmingham six) investigation were masons as was a stipendiary  magistrate who had been involved in several other controversial cases where it was admitted that masonic dealings may have been a relevant factor.  Likewise in the Stalker-Samson enquiry, where Stalker was the Assistant Chief Constable of Manchester,  chosen to investigate allegations that the security forces in Northern Ireland had been conducting a shoot to kill policy. Stalker was removed in highly controversial circumstances and replaced by Colin Sampson. There were many claims that freemasons were behind this.  The enquiry by the committee found that it:

could not exclude the possibility that freemasonry played  a significant role in the Stalker affair.

For our cult masters this is as good an admission as you are ever going to get.

Then there is the case of Jack the Ripper, when masonic ritual symbolism was used in the actual murders. A pair of compasses was carved into the face of victim Catherine Eddies and cryptic graffiti at the scene all pointed to masonic ritual murder.  The police commissioner, chief inspector, coroners and police doctors were all freemasons. One of the suspects Michael Maybrick was on the Supreme Grand Council of Freemasons.  Bruce Robinson in his book ‘They All Love Jack’  cites Maybrick as the ripper and goes deeply into the masonic involvement in the ripper murders.

 Judges were advised back in 1999 by a Parliamentary home affairs committee that they should declare any masonic membership.  To date most of them don’t.  That home affairs committee was the second one to explore the subject of the role of masonic interference in public life and it reiterated the need for disclosure on this matter by judges. But of course this was left voluntary. It is paramount though, that the public are informed when networks of professionals working on controversial or high profile trials are masons. There can be no justice in a system where this kind of compromising information is hidden from public view. The Rule of Law which is part of the United Kingdom constitution is itself supposed to guarantee independence of the Judiciary.  But there can be no independence when judges, magistrates, chief of police, lawyers, medics, scientists and everyone but the kitchen sink is involved in swearing strange esoteric oaths to other little boys (and now girls) as part of their masonic career.

As far as the continuing cover up goes, Countess of Chester Hospital have provided me with seemingly false information in an FOI I sent to them a few months ago.   I had asked them how many complaints they had received about doctors, locums or consultants for the period January 2015 to July 2016.  They claimed they had no record of any concerns.  But the RCPCH report of 2016 shows otherwise.  I made a note about this several months ago:   

 

There are so many glaring abnormalities and weird conclusions derived in this case that it appears political.  There is of course the usual state establishment attempts to cover up their hospital negligence and any prosecutions or  financial loss that might have stemmed from that, but I believe this case goes further than that on the political agenda. No witnesses to the so called murders or forensic evidence of any kind has been put forward, The problems both I and others have described from the beginning,  and the blatant willingness to convict Lucy of multiple murders and attempted murders when none of those babies deaths were put down at the time as anything other than natural causes, suggests that there is something else going on here. Could it be that this case is being used as an example of the drawbacks of a jury trial in the adversarial system?  Could it be that at some point, several years hence,  our Lords and Masters are going to allow the Criminal Cases Review Commission to flag up this case as a possible unsafe conviction and then we are going to see the battle played out in the media of the advantages and disadvantages of the two different systems, adversarial and inquisitorial.  I see talk of jury fallibility and juries not being capable of understanding complexities etc. etc.  We will be shown how, in an inquisitorial system, the shoddy work by the police wouldn't matter because the judge would have investigated the hospital and had all possible evidence disclosed before the trial. Other possibilities of natural deaths and/or other potential suspects would thus have emerged.  

This is problem, reaction, solution stuff.  They create a problem, (turning natural unexplained deaths into murders), they do the reaction by pointing the finger at the nearest dispensable scapegoat (Lucy) and then they bring in the solution a bit further down the line  …. an inquisitorial system, finally giving all power to judges (themselves), and where they can, getting rid of those annoying things called juries (you and me) in the process.  

Only time will tell on that one.  I believe Lucy will be vindicated.  Her conviction will eventually be overturned, one way or another, and she will be free.  But only after her career, health, happiness, and livelihood having been stolen by the cabal to use as the burnt offering for masonic manipulation of public opinion. Reason being to fuel those voices who wish to eradicate the age old common law system and replace it with a continental style civil/code one. Individual rights will be conveniently further eroded and everything will be banned unless they document specifically that it is not. 

Expect more petty legislation on the way, as if we haven’t got enough already.