Lucy Letby

nothing new today that will get her to the court of appeal - she was interviewed by police recently over more deaths. she'll never get out

Dewi Evans should do the right thing and just admit he hasn't got a clue what he is talking about despite being the main prosecution "expert".

Dr Evans apparently has changed his mind, unconfirmed, about how 3 of the deaths happened - not changed his mind about who killed them.

Aye,  hedoesn't really know how they died, but she was around so it had to be her.

dont think he even said she killed them, he confirmed cause of deaths which now    he says  was wrong,

Mesmerised - when did Dewi Evans offer his opinion on who he thought killed them? I thought his role was to analyze medical evidence and provide expert testimony on whether the clinical events in question were natural or consistent with harm caused intentionally.

they already tried to get dr evans' evidence excluded - failed - then appealed against that - failed. there were several other expert witnesses not just dr evans. the prosecution said the jury could disregard dr evans' evidence for one baby - she was still found guilty. the defence didn't call any witnesses other than a plumber. then there's the other evidence - eyewitness accounts, the notes saying i killed them, the changed medical records, the online stalking, the lies she told. she's never getting out.

The plumber thing just shows how bad her defense team was. If she had had a decent team we might not be in this ridiculous situation where a woman is languishing in prison for the rest of her life without a shred of evidence of any wrongdoing. The whole case against her is preposterous.

she had one of the best barristers in the land

If he was a top barrister, he was a long way off his game in this case.

her new barrister has been representing jailed serial killers for 20 years. he's never got one out yet. he's now got another to add to his list

She needs a gofundme to get her some decent lawyers.

I bet the parents of the little babies who were murdered by her are really happy about weirdos trying to get her out.

Right wing nutters for baby killers and the kool aiders lap it up.

It's not a coincidence it's the same low information Kamala backers who also think Letby is guilty.

Ron

I assume you are low information on this case.

How many days of the trial did you attend?
How many hours did you look at the original evidence?


Yet not only do you believe you know more about the case than the judge & jury you are also so “high information “ that you can identify mistakes by one of the most experienced barristers in the country.

Top bombing Ron. The mother of low information.
He loves a rapist & a serial killer. What a sick individual.


May god have mercy on his soul.

Typical low information Kamala backer appeal to authority argument.

Oh another very high information comment from the clown who loves rapists and serial killers.

So as you were too much of a coward to answer simple questions truthfully can we assume you spent zero hours in the courtroom at the trial.

Top bombing.

May God have mercy on your soul.

You must be losing fortunes on here with your reliance on experts and fake news and fake polls. If you are a punter credentialism  doesn't matter, the only thing that matters is whether your opinions are predictive.

That’s the spirit clown

Just refuse to address the obvious point that you are “low information “ and biased towards your love of rapists and serial killers.

So you didn’t spend a single second in the courtroom. Wow a real “high information “ expert.

it's not an "appeal to authority argument" when you cite the relevant authorities

Being able to predict better is not proof of loving of rapists and serial killers. Only a low information Kamala voter type would conclude that.

Any medium information punter should know if you based all your bets on what the authorities and experts say, you would never win enough to be in profit.

And there's a high probability you would be fully vaccinated and boosted, as most Kamala backers are.

Clown

Any chance you could actually stick to the subject of your love for rapists & serial killers and how you are “low information “ on the court case.
A very sick individual.

FFS vaccine has got absolutely nothing to do with the barrister in the convicted killer’s court case.

Which university did you study law at Ron? Must be a good gig being an expert on court cases without actually bothering to attend court.


May God have mercy on your soul.

As I am not a fully vaxxed, authority worshipping NPC Kamala backer I don't need to study law or make specious appeal to authority arguments. The jury were in no position to make the right call because her defense team never took the opportunity to provide a suitably qualified expert witness, and the jury had no way of knowing Dr Dewi was a dunce. Had they known that, it would be a very different matter indeed.

I don't need to study law


Good job you believe you don’t need to study law to understand law. Which University would accept you?
You clearly have aced your studies at tge University of life & working well in your PhD in YouTube studies.

Shame you can’t offer one shred of evidence regarding the innocence of the convicted baby killer you love.

The witness in question has spoken up ….
Dr Evans added: "Mark McDonald's observations regarding my evidence is unsubstantiated, unfounded, inaccurate.
"His method of presenting his information reflects clear prejudice and bias.
"I find his style most unedifying, most unprofessional. It's highly disrespectful to the families of babies murdered and harmed by Lucy Letby."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cz6l0dynz7zo

There's no question about it. If the jury was denied the opportunity to hear important evidence they could not possibly be expected to come to the right conclusion. Similar to the jury in the E Jean Carroll case who were not allowed to hear Trump's alibi. If they had heard his alibi backed by hundreds of witnesses the case would have been closed.

Fair play clown.

Not content with your university of life degree has shown up your “low knowledge “ regarding the role of a barrister you have promoted yourself to a judge on the appeal court.

Nice work…and to think all your teachers thought your were hopeless and would never amount to anything. Just show them your youtube PhD and watch their faces change.

You have certainly nailed this being an expert without any studying, intelligence or knowledge gig.


May God have mercy on your soul.

Angela Rayner left school at 16 and you still worship her, despite her lack of education, despite her never achieving anything, despite her being responsible for growlergate, and despite her being nothing more than a token working class northerner and DEI hire. You are such a low information punter you can't be in profit, believing obviously bogus information all the time as you do. Trump has just won a defamation case against ABC because they called him a rapist and they backed down, agreed to settle for 16m, and the presenter had to make an apology. Kinda makes a mockery of E Jean Carroll's case, and all of your fallacious claims about Trump since ABC is one of your most trusted information sources.

Are out of court settlements generally a strong indication of the paying party being guilty and wrong as heck, Ronald?

15m is not exactly chump change, and they have agreed to apologize too. Are you implying their apology won't be sincere?

Lol clown.

Ask the “low knowledge “ YouTube researcher for any evidence which clears this serial killer of murder and we get waffle about…
The deputy PM
An out of court settlement in another country.
A foreign politician being a sex offender


You really seem to have a chip on your shoulder about your lack of education and knowledge Ron. I’m sure you have other skills. Just a bit difficult to know what they are. Obviously studying law a university wasn’t for you.

You probably watch youtube more than I do. And what's wrong with youtube? All your favourite fake news channels are on there. Who is your trusted source of news? BBC? Makes sense someone like you would trust the people who spent 40 years covering up Savile.

Don’t be ashamed of your “low knowledge “ clown.

Not everybody is intelligent enough to study law , work for years in the profession & have such a high standing that they can represent a serial killer without worrying about being cancelled.

I notice you have wasted another opportunity to provide one shred of evidence to back up your devotion to a convicted serial killer but witter on about various news organisations.

To think your teachers thought you wouldn’t amount to anything, well you can show them your university of Life qualifications. Good work Ron, best barrister on YouTube. You must be proud.

You must lose fortunes on the exchange with you being such a low information punter.

Oh bless

The clown is becoming a shining example of an uneducated flat Earth dropout.

Discussion about the legal merits of a serial killer’s experienced defence team & the “low information “ forum dropout witters on about imaginary bets.


Guess too much to ask clown to provide any evidence as to why Letby is innocent. To think your teachers thought you wouldn’t amount to anything.

I don't need to show evidence that there's no evidence of Letby being a murderer because it's self evident. The burden of proof is on the accuser.

Oh bless
Your university of life law degree didn’t explain what a trial was.

How sweet. Just keep believing that you are “high information “ & be carful not to fall off the edge of the Earth.


Keep loving the convicted serial killer.
May God have mercy on your soul.

The only test of whether we have high or low information that matters is whether our information is predictive. Yours is not, which is why you lose fortunes on the exchange.

Clown

Your wittering about what you perceive my P&L to be on a gambling website has absolutely nothing to do with your love for a convicted serial killer or the process in which “high information “ people decided her fate. You seem obsessed with my success, seems I’m living rent free in your head. Seek help and get a life.

Keep believing that dropping out of school and “learning “ at the university of life makes you a “high information “ person if you wish.
Keep up your “research “ on youtube if it makes you feel useful.

To think your teachers thought you wouldn’t achieve anything worthwhile, yet you believe you are an expert barrister.

Your P&L has everything to do with you being on this forum offering your opinions. The honest punters need to know you are a low information punter before they decide whether to take your opinions seriously.

You have no idea where I have done my learning. Actually I have much higher than degree level qualifications obtained at the prestigious Hamburger University.

I guess in the “low knowledge “ world of dropouts the P&L of a stranger is what determines why a serial killer was sentenced to life imprisonment after being found guilty by people who actually bothered to listen to the evidence.

A genuine “graduate “ of Hamburger university would realise they have absolutely no connection.


Disturbed people worship serial killers, been happening for years. Not exactly new. Just need professional help.

The only thing that counts is whether you information is predictive and yours isn't hence your regular phone calls to ocean finance.

Seek help clown. You are obviously disturbed.

I can assure you the reason Lucy Letby is in prison has nothing to do with your unhealthy obsession of me & nothing to do with ocean finance.

She is in jail because a jury of “high knowledge “ individuals who actually bothered to attend court & listened to the evidence decided she was guilty. The judge who also bothered to attend court then sentenced her.


Really simple stuff. Even an uneducated flat-Earth school dropout should understand.

The ludicrous assumptions you make about me are a product of being low information and being low information is very bad for punting hence all your incessant pleadings with ocean finance.

Simple guide clown with regard to court cases.
This court case has nothing to do with P&L on betting sites.


Those who bother to turn up to the case or study the case have a high amount of information regarding the case.

Those who haven’t bothered to turn up or read the notes don’t have much information regarding the case.


There is a very small group of people who are as thick as pg s*it , drop out of school , haven’t studied the law , haven’t attended the case , haven’t read the notes yet believe they know more than the “high information “ group because they once won a bet on an unrelated matter.

There won’t  be many in this group. Likely to require medical attention and be assigned an appropriate adult, perhaps a nice warm padded bedroom.

I have never said there is any link between a court case and P&L. The link is between your low information understanding of the Letby case and your low information understanding of punting. If you don't realise that you will see it as a baffling mystery why you lose so much on the exchange.

Clown

It is your “low information “ and lack of intelligence which is the problem.

Those who actually attended the court have knowledge of the case. You clearly don’t.


You are yet to provide one shred of evidence to present to the new defence team. Her conviction won’t be overturned by a low knowledge flat Earth loon wittering on about betting.

Perhaps you just hate babies and love the serial killer because you are disturbed? Worth checking it out with a medical expert? What have you got to lose?

Why would I need to produce evidence? It's a forum not a law court. There are many many many high information experts who all agree that the evidence to justify her conviction is not there, and crucial evidence was withheld from the jury. If that crucial evidence had not been withheld it would have been a very different outcome.

Jesus wept. How do you function without a brain?


“There are many many many high information experts who all agree …”

You haven’t provided any links to this “high information “ experts. You just witter on about betting & why your lack of education, intelligence, knowledge makes you an expert.

This story has recently surfaced with the new defence team claiming an expert witness has changed his opinion. That expert witness says the new defence team are spouting BS.


Here is a statement from the “high information “ witness in question…
Dr Evans added: "Mark McDonald's observations regarding my evidence is unsubstantiated, unfounded, inaccurate.
"His method of presenting his information reflects clear prejudice and bias.
"I find his style most unedifying, most unprofessional. It's highly disrespectful to the families of babies murdered and harmed by Lucy Letby."


Seek help .

That's right trust the experts, but only the ones who are saying what you want to hear. I seem to remember you did the same with the pollsters. That's why you are always on the phone to ocean finance and fully vaccinated and boosted.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GoiCWRdJBiE
/

Shocking stuff on there if true. A baby's liver skewered by a specialist and Letby gets the blame?

the doctor who claimed this said he hadn't reviewed the medical records

Keep defending them child killers saddo

Good job da judges look at evidence not yootoob.

He can only look at what's been made available. Dewey demonstrated he is unreliable as he refused to do his duty to consider other causes of death.

What do you think of the liver skewering donny?

I thought she was rightly convicted on the evidence presented.

Quite why her defence team is apparently inventing quotes is
an odd one, but these Internet grifts have a life of their own
and so many gullible folk out there.

Manchester Crown Court has previously heard how Child O was in good condition and stable up until the afternoon of 23 June when he suffered a "remarkable deterioration" and died.

The boy was one of triplets and his brother, referred to as Child P, died just over 24 hours later after also being allegedly attacked by Ms Letby.

Medical expert Dr Dewi Evans told the court Child O's death was a result of an intravenous air injection and trauma to his liver, which caused an internal bleed.

First referencing the blood found in Child O's liver, Dr Evans said: "I felt that the blood found in the liver was responsible for his collapse.

"And at the time I thought that this was the result of trauma. In other words there was some trauma to the liver which had led to the collapse.

"Any bleeding to the liver would destabilise the baby and would comprise the baby's wellbeing."


Had she not done it then it would have been an easy start point
for a defence, at trial, rather than introducing a new defence years later

Quite odd.

Ah, you haven't listened to another expert about the liver evidence, you should have said so.

What a mess. It all needs to be sorted out for the sake of the grieving parents. I am sure they don't want the wrong person blamed, plus they are missing out on a fortune in compo from the NHS.

The other witness, but how does he explain the damamage to baby 0's sibling baby P's liver

I've not read his explanation for that

Is that forgotten on you tube?

What do you think of the liver skewering

this was considered at the trial. the doctor at the press conference didn't seem to know this - as well as not having reviewed the baby's medical records.

Do you think there might be something in the baby's records that makes the liver skewering sound like the right course of action?

what liver skewering?

That's what we need to find out for the sake of the grieving parents. How would you like to be a grieving parent and not know if the right person had been blamed?

The court heard all about this theory and decided letby killed the baby not the doctor

Clown

Which of the parents who have actually been involved in the court case and actually turned up at court have told you that they “don’t know if the right person has been blamed”

Is this just something you have made up or have many parents informed you of problems?

the-doctor-killed-the-baby nonsense is not even going to form part of an appeal (it was fully considered at the trial). it was just put into the press conference to produce clickbait headlines for people like ron to fall for.

It doesn't need to be a nurse or a doctor, a lot of those babies would have died regardless of the doctor's negligence. They were supposed to do their rounds every day and they were only doing them twice a week. The compensation for the parents is going to be off the scale.

How can anyone know if the right person was blamed when there's an appeal and an inquiry going on? We are not going to know that until we have heard all the arguments and evidence.

What have the parents told you clown?

They actually turned up at the trial, they actually heard the evidence.

What have they said to to you (school dropout who didn’t attend a single day of the trial ) which suggests they are concerned that the jury reached the wrong conclusion many many times?

The compensation for the parents is going to be off the scale.

it may well be for parents where a court finds that the hospital did not do enough to protect their babies from letby

I don't see how it's even possible to be sure they blamed the right person with certainty. It's obviously just a trolling position. No one can be that certain of any court case.

It's just like Rumsfeld said there are known knowns, known unknowns, and unknown unknowns. The trick is knowing what you don't know.

There's certainty and there's certainty. It's the same kind of certainty they had that Kamala was going to win and that's why Ocean Finance won't take their calls anymore.

Ron

You seem to be a sick individual who gets their kicks from disaster po rn.

You are comparing the murder of many babies with a politician in a different country who has absolutely nothing to do with the conviction of Letby.

There are people who actually bothered to attend the trial. One certainly is that the jury and parents have far more knowledge regarding this case than you do.

Being in the “special class “ at school isn’t an excuse for poor behaviour.

I didn't go to the Birmingham 6 trial either but it was obvious they were innocent. You would have made the same arguments about the Birmingham 6 before they were overturned. If they hadn't been in such a rush to convict the first spotty herberts they found with an Irish accent, they might have found the real killers.

Oh the logic of an idiot, you really are special. Well done clown 1.01 landed

This case has f all to do with a totally different case with totally different evidence half a century ago.

Using your insane “logic” because Joan of Arc was convicted it proves that Letby should be freed.


Meanwhile which parents have spoke to you about how they are worried that an innocent person is in jail? Is it zero parents?

If you want an example of a more similar miscarriage there's the Lucia de Berk case.

Wow what a legal idiot you are.

There have been cases overturned in the history of British courts therefore without bothering to turn up at court, read any court papers, interview any witnesses, study law, pass any exams, you believe the court was wrong.
Again the logic of a flat Earth school dropout.

Which parents have contacted you expressing their belief that you actually have any knowledge regarding this case. Is it no parents?

How did turning up at court, reading court papers, interviewing witnesses, studying law and passing exams help them to reach the right conclusions about de Berk and the Birmingham 6?

You really are special


No wonder not a single parent has been in touch with you because they are worried.


Present new evidence & the case could be reviewed.. crying like a 5 year old are wittering on about Joan of Arc being convicted won’t help get your lover out of prison.

She needs actual evidence not the ramblings of an insane loser.

The grounds for appeal were explained in the press conference.

Hopefully for Letby the new barrister does a better job when actually working on the appeal than the disaster of a press conference…

Speaking at a press conference at the Royal Society of Medicine in central London, Mr McDonald said that “remarkably”, Dr Dewi Evans had “changed his mind” over the mechanism of death involving three of Letby’s murder victims.


Dr Evans added: "Mark McDonald's observations regarding my evidence is unsubstantiated, unfounded, inaccurate.
"His method of presenting his information reflects clear prejudice and bias.
"I find his style most unedifying, most unprofessional. It's highly disrespectful to the families of babies murdered and harmed by Lucy Letby."


Perhaps there is new evidence which will be presented to the court, it isn’t looking very promising .

You might try a more credible source than Evans if you want to try to debunk anything.

Lol loon

It was a press conference where your lovers new lawyer referred to Evans.


Evans is obviously the most important witness. Did he change his mind? Do the new lawyers have new evidence? There is a process regarding reopening a case, the lawyers are aware of that process.


I find his style most unedifying, most unprofessional. It's highly disrespectful to the families of babies murdered and harmed by Lucy Letby."

I imagine he would be most disconcerted, and possibly even highly alarmed to hear you find him unedifying.

Lucy Letby
The thing that I always ask when it comes to people like this is why, what possesses us to do things like this? and the reason I say us is because she is a human just like the rest of us and we are all capable of actions like this, even though the vast majority will be disgusted by her actions and will never ever contemplate doing such things, however we are capable of her crime3s and worse.

The explanation is simple, it's not what you think. It's not a Beverley Allitt situation, it's more of a Lucia de Berk situation.

Clown

Just provide some evidence to your lovers new legal team & they can investigate.
Obviously you will have to accept that an experienced barrister may not want to seen a flat earth dropout who hasn’t got a clue about what constitutes evidence.

Just naming random legal cases isn’t evidence.

ive never known or heard of a person getting such a sentance without amy real proof, its ridicilous, should be freed straight away so much reasonablle doubt is gigantic

Eli’s

Just explain to the judge how you have studied the case , read all the court documents and outline the legal arguments why the sentence was incorrect.

Your Oxford law degree and 25 years experience must count for something. What have you got to lose?

The people who argued for jailing de Berk and the Birmingham six had law degrees and read all the court documents.

Another year and the clown is still using the logic of a 5 year old.


Yawn….. there has one e been a verdict overturned when new evidence came to light….. therefore every conviction in history “might” be wrong. Best release every convicted murderer.

Yawn


Just present some evidence to her new legal team. They have a lot more knowledge of the case than you & a lot more experience than you.

It's your logic that is faulty and immature. I have not said because one case was overturned they all might be wrong, or that we should release every convicted murderer. I am just pointing out how pathetic your appeal to authority arguments are because previous cases that were tried by qualified people turned out to be wrong. That doesn't mean I think they are wrong every time, the vast majority of the time they are right. You can only argue with what I am saying by making childish straw man arguments.

Oh you really are a “special “ child clown.

Your childish argument is exactly that we should release this murderer because other people in history have had a sentence overturned.

You haven’t provided any evidence to support your claim that the court made a mistake. Just provide some evidence to the authorities.

Wittering on about completely unrelated cases won’t get your hero out of jail, it just highlights your “low knowledge “ .. it will take new evidence to reopen the case. It might happen but none has been presented yet. You clearly don’t have a clue about this case , which probably explains why you witter on about a bombing half a century ago.

You've got more straw than a thatched roof convention.

https://x.com/LucyLetbyTrials/status/1880355574149488726
/

https://unherd.com/2025/02/why-the-letby-case-isnt-closed/
/