THE GREATEST MISCARRIAGE CONTINUES

A FOLLOW UP ON LUCY LETBY

I previously wrote about the Lucy Letby trial farce here Operation Hummingbird

Lucy is of course no longer on remand. She has gone down for life, demonised for supposedly being a serial baby killer, and the worst Wicked Witch of the West since the likes of Myra Hyndly and Rose (West), on the basis of zero actual evidence against her apart from a bit of circumstantial bullshit.

Anyone who thinks British ‘justice’ is somehow superior needs to get a reality check. We have a wholly corrupt legal system and we also have pretty much the biggest mafia organisation in the world aka The City of London Corp. The journalist Julian Assange is still in Belmarsh, and there are countless people locked up without trial on remand for way over the legal time limit. And lets not forget that the concept of remanding in custody is in itself is a violation of one of the few clauses of the Magna Carta that still stand today:

‘No free man shall be seized, imprisoned, dispossessed, outlawed, exiled or ruined in any way, nor in any way proceeded against, except by the lawful judgment of his peers and the law of the land’

And another clause is still relevant:

‘To no one will we sell, to no one will we deny or delay right or justice’

‘Free man’ back then meant lords and barons, not serfs/peasants (which is why the Supreme Court have claimed they don’t know what it means in a response to an FOI someone sent: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/freemanfreemen_definition/response/865360/attach/2/FOI%202016%2043%20Clerk.pdf?cookie_passthrough=1

They can’t admit that we still live in feudal Britain or the peasants might revolt. Note when they mention housing or the homeless they carefully keep the word ‘land’ out of it. It’s fine . The peasants can live in castles in the air.

Anyway most of us are not considered ‘free men’ which is why the second clause above just states ‘to no-one will we sell …’ (of course we know they do ‘sell’ though). But in theory ‘no one’ should apply to us plebs and even women. In practice it’s another story. Many people who are not actually guilty are advised to plead guilty by legal aid funded lawyers, just to get out quicker and generate less costs. I myself pleaded guilty once to something I had not done, just to get out.

Shakespeare (or Bacon/whoever and his mates) had a point when they said in Henry IV

‘ …let’s kill all the lawyers’

A legal system which has evolved merely for the convenience of lawyers, judges, lords and parliamentarians, has got ‘f’ all to do with ‘justice’.

I put in an FOI to the Countess of Chester Hospital, the place where Lucy Letby was supposed to have morphed into public enemy number one, a few months ago in relation to the neonatal service that was provided by them between January 2015 and July 2016. Due to them failing to provide the information in any kind timely framework, I eventually had to go through the ICO. I then finally got a response. The reason I put in the FOI was because I suspect that COCH were being accused of negligence before the arrest of Letby in 2018. There would thus have been a motive for the doctors to cover their own backs.

I asked COCH in the FOI how many times they had been contacted regarding potential negligence claims for that period and how many claims they had actually received. They replied that they had received 24 notifications of intended claims and had received 4 claims. I also asked them how many complaints or concerns about doctors/locums or consultants they had received during that period . They claim they have no record of any at all. However in the RCPCH report of 2016, under Section 4.2 (staffing numbers and competencies), it is documented that in one of the cases of infant deaths under investigation the nurses had:

‘expressed concern about the capability of a locum registrar whose agency had previously been advised not to offer the doctor to the Trust again’.

The RCPCH report goes on to show that the nurses took steps to ensure the consultant was aware of this, but it was not clear to the Review Team that steps had been taken to learn from this or action had been taken to make sure the same situation did not recur.

Presumably we are supposed to trust that …. lessons will be learned ….

Taking the above into account, it is unclear why the hospital is claiming there were ‘no concerns raised’ during that period because there were concerns raised by the nurses as documented in the RCPCH report. According to Richard Gill , Lucy Letby had also raised a concern on the Datex system about a line being left uncapped by one of the doctors. https://gill1109.com/2023/09/26/conspiracy-theory-conspiracy-theorists/

It was also reported in the MSM that a mother who had had a cesarean at the unit in September 2015 raised a complaint https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/jul/04/cheshire-baby-deaths-nurse-questioned-suspicion-murder-lucy-letby

Of course that doesn’t make it fact, but there are further questions to be answered by COCH so I have followed up my FOI asking the Countess of Chester hospital why they have claimed there were ‘zero concerns raised’ .

It doesn’t seem ‘lessons are being learned’ since little Olly Stopforth has now died unnecessarily due to negligence in 2020 with zero help from Lucy Letby. https://www.chesterstandard.co.uk/news/24042684.olly-stopforth-inquest-jurys-narrative-conclusion-full/

Now that Letby has been found guilty of murder, the Trust might also try and defend the negligence claims by arguing that Letby breached the employer/employee trust level to such a degree that they are not responsible and therefore not negligent. We’ll have to wait and see on that after the standard twenty year or so enquiries or however long it takes to ensure everyone culpable is out of the picture.

Meanwhile Lucy has asked for permission to appeal all her convictions, been refused once, and now has been given a hearing at the Court of Appeal on 25th April, to ask for permission again. The grounds her lawyers are using are not known publicly, but I am guessing that one argument might be that the post-it notes with so called ‘confessions’ used in the case should not have been submitted in court, nor shown to the jury. PACE Act 1984 clause 76 (2) (b) suggests that if a confession is obtained unreliably it should not be used in evidence. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/60/section/76

The notes she scrawled in the privacy of her own home, very likely swayed the jury, but they were pretty obviously just expressions of the overwhelming stress and pressure she was under at the time and should no way have been used to suggest she was guilty of these horrendous acts. Many people scrawl stuff like that, including myself, and allowing them to be considered evidence of murder, is akin to going down the thought crime route.

I hope she gets to appeal. If she doesn’t then its political.