RT @UKPatriots2geva: @MargotDA33 I think Dr. Shoo Lee couldn't have put it plainer. The accusations are false against Lucy because they sai…

RT @sheelanagiggles: @ProudlerRichard @MargotDA33 This would be a conspiracy involving a peer review publication, corruption amongst a grea…

An interesting analysis in Private Eye's The Lucy Letby Case - Part 13. To read it, go to

RT @AGK666726: @RachelHale9920 @ProudlerRichard @MargotDA33 The prosecution claimed the skin discolouration took place prior to collapse an…

RT @osheaf01: @MargotDA33 The word you're looking for is judgesplaining.

RT @__Noel_Skum__: @WilliamHayesWo1 @MargotDA33 Quite right, not to mention the unimaginable cost to the Treasury in legal fees, massive co…

RT @Philbean12344: @ProudlerRichard @RachelHale9920 @MargotDA33 He didn't 'alter' his 1989 paper. He added to it. This is a common practise…

RT @journolj: @ProudlerRichard @MargotDA33 Nope he’s not ALTERED it. He’s written a new paper which CLARIFIES the difference between venous…

Has a wind of change blown in Labour's policy on immigration? #bbcwato

I am not a scientist or a medic and I am not going to engage in a discussion about pulmonary vascular embolism v. venous air embolism, or about the different forms of discolouration. There is one point I will however make. And that is that if the eminent co-author of a research paper considers that his work has been misinterpreted in a criminal case, but permission to appeal has been rejected by a court of law on the grounds that THEY consider the interpretation of the trial's experts 'entirely consistent' with HIS research, and that anyhow the information isn't new, he would, in my view, be duty bound to seek to set the record straight, in the interests of truth and justice. All the more when Lucy Letby may well be the only woman in British history to have been sentenced to life imprisonment for serial murders in the absence of any direct evidence that she has committed any murder at all.

RT @LucyLetbyTrials: "No medical evidence for Letby murders" This week's BMJ:

Some of us may also remember something else. The way the prosecution barrister addressed the jury in summing up, telling them - ' When you put Baby C's case alongside the others, it is plain as the nose on your face that Lucy Letby must have injected air down the nasogastric tube into Baby C's stomach. It was, after all, one of her favourite ways of killing.' Plain as the nose on your face is as may be - given that it seems that Dr Evans had changed his mind on that point later in the trial, and NOT after it. That opens up all sorts of other questions. Was this the prosecution barrister's very own theory and did it become a formal part of the record of the circumstantial evidence presented to the jury that was to result in Lucy Letby being sentenced to fifteen whole-life orders?

On the subject of PMs and air embolus - and with thanks to Private Eye's Part 12 from which I have derived the following info. The latest view of Dr Evans appears to be that Letby murdered all seven babies by injecting enough air into a venous line to cause death. All other harms were non fatal. However, Private Eye quoted an email of 14 February 2017 by Ian Harvey, CoC Medical Director, which has been released as part of the Thirlwall Inquiry. It said- " The pathologists at Alder Hey have assured me that a significant air embolus would be detected at PM."

The jury were told during the trial that insulin poisoning in the case of two babies was the closest thing to a 'smoking gun' in the evidence against Lucy Letby. What they weren't told was that the immunoassay method used to measure the insulin samples was not sufficient in itself and should have been sent to a specialist laboratory for forensic analysis. That wasn't done. And it shouldn't be surprising that the results are at best inconclusive, and are held by many if not most specialists to be unreliable. What is left of the rest of the constellation of circumstantial evidence, leaving aside that none of the six post-mortems carried out at the Alder Hey centre of excellence detected any significant air embolus, let alone unnatural causes of death? Is there any conclusive evidence left in the constellation of circumstantial evidence beyond hypothesis and speculation, beyond guesswork, gut feeling and the cherry picking of data and words? Hasn't the time come to acknowledge that Lucy Letby hasn't been proved guilty beyond reasonable doubt, and that the issue now is not to re-write the script to prove her innocent beyond reasonable doubt, but to move on to the next step and consider how justice can finally be done in this case. Openly and conclusively.