Completely agree it is time for some positive action to be taken.Lucy has already had 8 years of her life taken away from her, 4 of them in prison.This case is a complete travesty.
@@francishooper9548 she weaponised social services referral against a parent who wanted a second medical opinion. She had been doing this before but she picked the wrong parents to mess with. 😅 As mark mayes pointed out she was just a nodder in the case. She just agreed with everything dr Evans said.
The Private Eye 5 part series is very good, recommended by Peter Hitchens. Especially Part 5 is absolutely damning. He shows how the trial was completely one sided.
Thanks Carl, I completely agree with everything you are saying. I would be more than happy to contribute to any crowd funding for Lucy. I hope she is aware people like you and Mark Mayes are fighting her corner. ❤️
There is the crime of defamation by Brearey and Jayaram. When LL won her grievance procedure, she was in a position to take legal action against them for defamation. Instead she just wrote them a reasonable letter pointing out what the damage was to her reputation. See yesterday's Case for Innocence video. But the letter shows that she could well have sued them and that's probably the main reason they went to the police. That defamation action still needs to be taken.
@@cperkins4114 Okay, that's a shame, but it remains the case that at the time they went to the police, they were liable to legal action being taken against them, giving them a motive.
@@cperkins4114 Do they have tolling statutes in the British system of law? If so, an argument could be made that it began when she was put into prison because of their slander/libel.
@@LegallyBlondeCriticI don’t know what that is but for sure slander libel laws don’t have any place in this case at this stage, as regards things said about Lucy Letby
I hear everything you say here Carl, as somebody who has doubted her guilt from the start, I would say this. It would seem when a mistake in the Justice system occurs it can take an age for it to be corrected. I think we are asking the justice system to acknowledge far worse here. I feel there are too many people involved in this miscarriage of justice for it to easily, quickly be resolved. I’d very much like to be wrong. I think at this stage, the most important factor is influencing the larger population who still believe she is guilty. If she were to be released right now, with the larger public opinion standing as it does, she is as good as dead! The good work you and others are doing, every video, every new person you reach, we reach as a cohort, all adds to the opportunity for her release and justice to eventually been done. She has to be safe to be released from prison and that time will come with patience.
Thing is the police didn’t deal with this properly in the first place. They could have thrown this all out if they had investigated properly instead of set Lucy up. I suppose reporting it and complaining will illustrate they did not investigate the deaths in the right way in the first place. They just wanted a murderer at all costs. Those notes were obvious distressed ramblings to anyone with any knowledge of that kind of mental anguish which she must have been under. They aren’t interested in the truth. If a conviction is possible the truth does not matter to the police the CPS or many judges.
yes, let the police investigate those matters concerning perjury, witness intimidation and perhaps other offences associated with corrupting the legal process. perhaps they are already doing this. they should let the public know because theres a strong collective voice which is growing in volume regarding all the information which is now being aired in public and coming to light.
I am completely blind to the Lucy Letby case. I only know her name. Why I am commenting is: whilst taking a first aid course as a youth worker, years ago. The instructor was also a lawyer. (I’ll never forget this) in a situation IF Joe Public, gets involved in ANY incident, trained or not, just by being named can make them liable… Clearly Lucy COULD NOT have been liable if she was NOT present? I hope that makes sense. Thank you for taking the time to question MEDICAL FAILURES…the NHS system is as corrupt as Parliament!
I think they were probably speaking about if a person collapses, Doctors don't immediately say they are a Doctor *they obviously try to save the person*. This is about liability, but would be a Civil case in relation to being sued. I would check because I don't think they are referring to a criminal case. Plus, she was there for all the other cases and the hospital notes would say exactly what the x-ray showed in the case of Baby C. I'm unsure without reading exactly what the notes said in relation to stomach distention and the treatment given after the x-ray
Are you acquainted with "Justice by numbers" podcast, the 1 in 2 trillion stats, he also deals with the limited stats presented. Fascinating, insightful and scary....
We must get the message out there about the concept of "JURY NULLIFICATION", whereby a juror may find the defendant NOT guilty, even if the judge directs the jury to find the defendent guilty. You do not have to follow the directives of the judge, but the judge will not tell you about this, because they do not want you to know about it.
The trial is over. This will only be relevant if there is a retrial. I doubt that will happen because any appeal is likely to lead to exoneration and no evidence to support a retrial. The judge was totally in error and shouldn’t have allowed the case to go ahead without any evidence. All the evidence used thus far has proved to be tainted in some way
When did Goss direct the Jury to find her guilty and if that's correct, you're forgetting they found her NG and some cases couldn't reach a verdict. Does that sound it would qualify for Jury Nullification...I'll wait
Contrary to section 1(1) of the Criminal Attempts Act 1981 ? (Fabricating or disposing of Evidence / Intimidating or Threatening a Witness or Juror...etc.etc.) How can we help, Carl?
I think we need to list all the sources where it is said or stated that nurses were intimidated by the hospital into not giving evidence in Lucy’s defence
@@lesley9989not necessarily. If a crime has been committed and you know where the victims work (all neonatal nurses) then all you need for a crime report (to get the ball rolling) is the fact that somebody or some people within that ward have been intimidated into not giving evidence by the senior staff at the CoC. This is only the first stage
@@andrewemery4272 thanks for explaining. Have they said they are willing to speak though, because if they were stopped from trying to be added to the witness list, how do you protect them? My point it's a bit different someone saying something on social media or a reporter and a completely different thing giving a statement or testimony
Carl, your proposal to tackle the issue of Witness Intimidation has great merit. Are you in contact with Mark McDonald, LL's new barrister? I believe he is acting pro-bono, so he may appreciate help. Putting together a team of ladies prepared to talk to excluded nurses (less intimidating than big hairy gits like me or you), may be a start??
Thanks Carl Perkins. Google says that Countess of Chester hospital had an adult ICU but not a (neonatal)) NICU. Google says preterm babies from other hospitals' (neonatal) NICU's started being sent to Countess of Chester Hospital in 2015 because the other hospitals could not cope, and that this was stopped in 2016. The number of babies has not been revealed publically. As far as I know Countess of Chester hospital did not have an NICU. The death rates of babies from NICU's would be expected to be very much higher than for the general population of babies. (One survey said 29% of babies in NICU die within 28 days. ANother survey said 10% of babies in NICU die). I'm not sure why anyone is suggesting that Letby needs a retrial. She needs the case to be thrown out. It is all lies. It's only my opinion but I saw a video of Dr Gibbs, and In my opinion you can tell he is lying because you see his lips move. (That's a joke about lawyers). I would say the same about Jayaram and Breary.
@@cperkins4114 it does give us the option of which Police Force to contact. I’m in Merseyside and had to contact Stockport for a relative and I remember having to say ‘Greater Manchester’
Wow, this is deep rabbit hole stuff. The poor guy was already reported last year. He's done nothing wrong, just leave him alone. You could find yourselves ending up in court if you keep up this kind of harassment.
I heard that dr Dewi Evans has "God Sons" ????.... would one be Rhodri from the Swansea area ??? . I had a very bad experience with him a few years ago !!!!
@@cperkins4114 have you heard the transcripts? Have you listened to the totality of the evidence materials included in the trial? Do you understand that the evidence is ALL the 10 months worth of statements by ALL the people involved. It's definitely NOT a case of "one direct" piece of evidence. It's much, much more complicated than that.
@@cperkins4114it's collective in circumstancial cases and you know it. It's exceptionally rare to get direct evidence in a medical case. No CCTV, DNA and fingerprints worthless. I don't remember people fighting for Norris like this.
@@octopuszoo2027So complicated because it's based on a false assumption. Whenever you try to twist reality, a tangled web needs to be woven to keep it together, and keep the deception going. Complexity is a common excuse for covering up a lie. 'it's too complicated, you wouldn't understand.' Very common cover for a deception. The reality is actually very simple: she's innocent. Making her guilty requires a huge architecture of fabrications.
@@octopuszoo2027 In short, it's 100 layers of lies, based on a single false assumption. That's why it took 10 months , the longest trial in British history.
I’m very happy to help backing a retrial for Lucy. She deserves a fair trial with all the proper facts being presented.
Great work Carl, this is gathering the momentum needed!!!
Completely agree it is time for some positive action to be taken.Lucy has already had 8 years of her life taken away from her, 4 of them in prison.This case is a complete travesty.
Thanks Carl, we need to push them harder , thanks ,great video.
Thank you Carl. Spot on!
Keep up the great work Carl .
Agreed. Thank you Carl.
Thank you for speaking up
Yes he gave his opinion in court and now he changes his mind after the case
Sorry I joined video too late. Just wondering who you're referring to. Thanks In Advance 🙏
@@jonathancoe4529Dr Evans
Dr Sandie Bohin should also face charges as she just agreed Evans' nonsense, she didn't properly peer review it.
I agree.
I believe that she was under investigation for child abuse in relation to a patient -what has happened with that?
@@francishooper9548 she weaponised social services referral against a parent who wanted a second medical opinion. She had been doing this before but she picked the wrong parents to mess with. 😅 As mark mayes pointed out she was just a nodder in the case. She just agreed with everything dr Evans said.
The Private Eye 5 part series is very good, recommended by Peter Hitchens. Especially Part 5 is absolutely damning. He shows how the trial was completely one sided.
It is absolutely scathing!
Carl you are a force for good. Fantastic work
Thanks Carl, I completely agree with everything you are saying. I would be more than happy to contribute to any crowd funding for Lucy. I hope she is aware people like you and Mark Mayes are fighting her corner. ❤️
I hope she knows and it gives her hope because she will be exonerated if she didn’t do it
YES!! 👏🏼 ❤
Thank you Carl.
God bless you Carl you are a gem. Lucy is innocent.
There is the crime of defamation by Brearey and Jayaram. When LL won her grievance procedure, she was in a position to take legal action against them for defamation. Instead she just wrote them a reasonable letter pointing out what the damage was to her reputation. See yesterday's Case for Innocence video. But the letter shows that she could well have sued them and that's probably the main reason they went to the police. That defamation action still needs to be taken.
As far as I’m aware there is a time limit on defamation cases. It might be 12 months within the alleged offence
@@cperkins4114 Okay, that's a shame, but it remains the case that at the time they went to the police, they were liable to legal action being taken against them, giving them a motive.
@@SuperBoomslangvery true
@@cperkins4114 Do they have tolling statutes in the British system of law? If so, an argument could be made that it began when she was put into prison because of their slander/libel.
@@LegallyBlondeCriticI don’t know what that is but for sure slander libel laws don’t have any place in this case at this stage, as regards things said about Lucy Letby
Justice Seen to be done 👀 walls 😪
I hear everything you say here Carl, as somebody who has doubted her guilt from the start, I would say this. It would seem when a mistake in the Justice system occurs it can take an age for it to be corrected. I think we are asking the justice system to acknowledge far worse here.
I feel there are too many people involved in this miscarriage of justice for it to easily, quickly be resolved. I’d very much like to be wrong. I think at this stage, the most important factor is influencing the larger population who still believe she is guilty. If she were to be released right now, with the larger public opinion standing as it does, she is as good as dead!
The good work you and others are doing, every video, every new person you reach, we reach as a cohort, all adds to the opportunity for her release and justice to eventually been done. She has to be safe to be released from prison and that time will come with patience.
True there is a balance but we also need to push. It will take years for her to be released.
Thing is the police didn’t deal with this properly in the first place. They could have thrown this all out if they had investigated properly instead of set Lucy up. I suppose reporting it and complaining will illustrate they did not investigate the deaths in the right way in the first place. They just wanted a murderer at all costs. Those notes were obvious distressed ramblings to anyone with any knowledge of that kind of mental anguish which she must have been under. They aren’t interested in the truth. If a conviction is possible the truth does not matter to the police the CPS or many judges.
yes, let the police investigate those matters concerning perjury, witness intimidation and perhaps other offences associated with corrupting the legal process. perhaps they are already doing this. they should let the public know because theres a strong collective voice which is growing in volume regarding all the information which is now being aired in public and coming to light.
I am completely blind to the Lucy Letby case. I only know her name.
Why I am commenting is: whilst taking a first aid course as a youth worker, years ago. The instructor was also a lawyer. (I’ll never forget this) in a situation IF Joe Public, gets involved in ANY incident, trained or not, just by being named can make them liable…
Clearly Lucy COULD NOT have been liable if she was NOT present?
I hope that makes sense.
Thank you for taking the time to question MEDICAL FAILURES…the NHS system is as corrupt as Parliament!
I think they were probably speaking about if a person collapses, Doctors don't immediately say they are a Doctor *they obviously try to save the person*. This is about liability, but would be a Civil case in relation to being sued. I would check because I don't think they are referring to a criminal case. Plus, she was there for all the other cases and the hospital notes would say exactly what the x-ray showed in the case of Baby C. I'm unsure without reading exactly what the notes said in relation to stomach distention and the treatment given after the x-ray
100%.....
So if lucy had not put a grievance in and just accepted she had been found out, would the Dr's have still phoned the police ???
Are you acquainted with "Justice by numbers" podcast, the 1 in 2 trillion stats, he also deals with the limited stats presented. Fascinating, insightful and scary....
I do like them too
We must get the message out there about the concept of "JURY NULLIFICATION", whereby a juror may find the defendant NOT guilty, even if the judge directs the jury to find the defendent guilty. You do not have to follow the directives of the judge, but the judge will not tell you about this, because they do not want you to know about it.
The trial is over. This will only be relevant if there is a retrial. I doubt that will happen because any appeal is likely to lead to exoneration and no evidence to support a retrial. The judge was totally in error and shouldn’t have allowed the case to go ahead without any evidence. All the evidence used thus far has proved to be tainted in some way
When did Goss direct the Jury to find her guilty and if that's correct, you're forgetting they found her NG and some cases couldn't reach a verdict. Does that sound it would qualify for Jury Nullification...I'll wait
Contrary to section 1(1) of the Criminal Attempts Act 1981 ? (Fabricating or disposing of Evidence / Intimidating or Threatening a Witness or Juror...etc.etc.)
How can we help, Carl?
I think we need to list all the sources where it is said or stated that nurses were intimidated by the hospital into not giving evidence in Lucy’s defence
Wouldn't you need to know the people's names?
@@lesley9989 They are starting to come forward one by one on UA-cam. Once you speak to one, they will introduce you to others.
@@lesley9989not necessarily. If a crime has been committed and you know where the victims work (all neonatal nurses) then all you need for a crime report (to get the ball rolling) is the fact that somebody or some people within that ward have been intimidated into not giving evidence by the senior staff at the CoC. This is only the first stage
@@andrewemery4272 thanks for explaining. Have they said they are willing to speak though, because if they were stopped from trying to be added to the witness list, how do you protect them? My point it's a bit different someone saying something on social media or a reporter and a completely different thing giving a statement or testimony
I see that all the transcripts of the Thirlwall Enquiry are being posted on the yt channel XMarksTheSpat.
Carl, your proposal to tackle the issue of Witness Intimidation has great merit. Are you in contact with Mark McDonald, LL's new barrister? I believe he is acting pro-bono, so he may appreciate help. Putting together a team of ladies prepared to talk to excluded nurses (less intimidating than big hairy gits like me or you), may be a start??
P. S. I've emailed McDonald about donating towards LL's costs. Am hoping for a reply.
@@andrewemery4272I’ve contacted Mark
You're doing great work, mate! @@cperkins4114
Thanks Carl Perkins. Google says that Countess of Chester hospital had an adult ICU but not a (neonatal)) NICU. Google says preterm babies from other hospitals' (neonatal) NICU's started being sent to Countess of Chester Hospital in 2015 because the other hospitals could not cope, and that this was stopped in 2016. The number of babies has not been revealed publically. As far as I know Countess of Chester hospital did not have an NICU. The death rates of babies from NICU's would be expected to be very much higher than for the general population of babies. (One survey said 29% of babies in NICU die within 28 days. ANother survey said 10% of babies in NICU die). I'm not sure why anyone is suggesting that Letby needs a retrial. She needs the case to be thrown out. It is all lies. It's only my opinion but I saw a video of Dr Gibbs, and In my opinion you can tell he is lying because you see his lips move. (That's a joke about lawyers). I would say the same about Jayaram and Breary.
Totally agree, it’s all lies which is why I believe the only way forward is a private prosecution of Dr Evans and the senior staff at the hospital
A court of law found her guilty. I've listened to a good chunk of the transcripts and i fully believe the ruling.
Good for you. Thanks for expressing your opinion. It’s nice to have balance
@@cperkins4114 have you heard any of the transcripts? She had zero defense and only called two witnesses that did nothing for her case.
Dial 101! They HAVE TO RECORD AND REFERENCE.
That only gets you your local police, but it beats dialing 999
@@cperkins4114 it does give us the option of which Police Force to contact.
I’m in Merseyside and had to contact Stockport for a relative and I remember having to say ‘Greater Manchester’
I do not believe Lucy is guilty for 3 of the murders and believe the other 4 with attempted murder needing to be retried.
Wow, this is deep rabbit hole stuff. The poor guy was already reported last year. He's done nothing wrong, just leave him alone. You could find yourselves ending up in court if you keep up this kind of harassment.
I heard that dr Dewi Evans has "God Sons" ????.... would one be Rhodri from the Swansea area ???
.
I had a very bad experience with him a few years ago !!!!
Very possible. He did work in Singleton and Morriston and the area is full of Rhodris and Evanses!
Why would anyone phone 999! Are people that daft?
Lucy Letby has so much evidence against her. You should read the transcripts.
Please point me to one piece of direct evidence 🤷🏽♀️
@@cperkins4114 have you heard the transcripts? Have you listened to the totality of the evidence materials included in the trial? Do you understand that the evidence is ALL the 10 months worth of statements by ALL the people involved. It's definitely NOT a case of "one direct" piece of evidence. It's much, much more complicated than that.
@@cperkins4114it's collective in circumstancial cases and you know it. It's exceptionally rare to get direct evidence in a medical case. No CCTV, DNA and fingerprints worthless. I don't remember people fighting for Norris like this.
@@octopuszoo2027So complicated because it's based on a false assumption.
Whenever you try to twist reality, a tangled web needs to be woven to keep it together, and keep the deception going.
Complexity is a common excuse for covering up a lie.
'it's too complicated, you wouldn't understand.'
Very common cover for a deception.
The reality is actually very simple: she's innocent.
Making her guilty requires a huge architecture of fabrications.
@@octopuszoo2027 In short, it's 100 layers of lies, based on a single false assumption.
That's why it took 10 months , the longest trial in British history.