BoSquiddley

@GuerrillaCarl @RachelMaddiso15 @TobeHon29809726 @RichardHor54460 @gigi7943170752 I really don't know why they are so vehemently Neonate Paul Clarke is the person who spoke up on a podcast to disagree with Dr Shoo Lee and try to cast doubt on the panel. Ended up looking a fool. Was arrogant on X then made to look a fool and blocked us all. All very odd.

You know... i have no idea who some of these folks are. The beauty of X i guess. But there really isnt any need to hide. If anyone involved with our case, or THE case is on here talking to us but hiding who they are, well instantly they are cowards and liars and snakes. Why hide? Unless like us, they're people that want answers but fear the response we got. Those people we pity and want to help. Everyone knows where we are, they could call, they could write. Anyone that wants to talk to us is welcome, but anyone doing it in a shady way will be judged as above. We are honest, we are on the level and we don't hide. Folks that do are who they are, but brave they are not.

@GuerrillaCarl @RachelMaddiso15 @TobeHon29809726 @RichardHor54460 @gigi7943170752 The fact that neo Paul Clarke is one of only 4 followers of debgigiwi and 2 of the other 3 are associated with Debwi tells us a lot.

@RachelMaddiso15 @TobeHon29809726 @RichardHor54460 @gigi7943170752 I must admit I am intrigued as to who's behind the shopping bag 🙂 Always been very polite and very nice towards my family and I. Anonymous or not, ill chat to polite folks all day.

@YourPope2026 @GuerrillaCarl @saintant @MartynPitman @benshep20 @merchant47 @JayneArkle22617 @mellycatslave @DebRoberts22249 @SaraLockwood_x @CPMorris1234 You'd be better off not being a weird cunt. But.. im sure you won't stop.

@GuerrillaCarl @saintant @MartynPitman @benshep20 @merchant47 @JayneArkle22617 @mellycatslave @DebRoberts22249 @SaraLockwood_x @CPMorris1234 On a deeply technical level, you may be correct in your determination of my deficiency in judgement. Why would anyone, of sane mind, want to find you??? Get used to being relegated to oblivion. Question for you: would I be better of making some serous monies or visiting you?

I sat down last week with Christopher Morris @CPMorris1234 to discuss our experience and our opinions. Its a long one! And this is just part 1! Thank you Chris for the thoughtful questions and allowing me to get it all out there in LONG form 🙏 youtu.be/QYB1DAN1eT8?si…

@heyits_bigfoot Pushing past check from right position is much easier than left. As long as you can dunk..imo

Some players seem to think the left path is the only way to go when the right side is right there! As you can see, my teammate saying, "this way!", wanted me to go left. 🤭

@VaughnHebron @BullingdonAlex @Angelat61987814 Ok..another troll to block

@BullingdonAlex @Angelat61987814 You joined in this debate after me. I deliberately left you off the reply to the fucking nobody getting involved to see what would happen. Now I know. You're so pathetic.

"The unit felt chaotic and tense... Lucy was the only person who took the time to explain our baby's care." Carl Bolton, whose daughter was treated by Lucy Letby at the Countess of Chester Hospital, tells us why he and his wife believe the problems on the neonatal unit went beyond one person and why they now believe Letby's conviction is unsafe. His interview comes as a new book re-examines the evidence used to convict the former neonatal nurse. The Countess of Chester Hospital said it had no comment. Cheshire Constabulary also declined to comment, but said it is continuing an investigation into corporate manslaughter and gross negligence manslaughter at the Countess of Chester Hospital. #lucyletby #chester #hospital

@VaughnHebron @BullingdonAlex @Emilyjbronte @GMB The fact the consultants made 2 visits at best per week is well documented.

@BullingdonAlex @Emilyjbronte @GMB Forget the article, half way down the thread... x.com/i/status/20712…

@GuerrillaCarl @petspyjamas1 @Seagreen2707 She was actually very sympathetic at the end. I appreciated seeing her do that for you in response to the lottery of maternity care.

@petspyjamas1 @Seagreen2707 Susanna was absolutely lovely and very kind.

Hoping more folks come forward now 🤞

@GMB As clear a miscarriage of justice fpr Lucy as any in history.

@GuerrillaCarl @LCasley31782 @DebRoberts22249 Deb is a vile, disingenuous, hatred filled, arrogant troll.

@DebRoberts22249 My Wife and Daughter where victims of a woefully inadequate poor standard of care at that hospital. And according to you that happened because of my attitude. Care to explain how you're not victim shaming? Does a child have to die before you consider it bad care?

Panic is over folks! Just been told the NHS is OK. Apparently its our attitudes that result in poor care.

@suvsknowsbest @gill1109 @NickBarberX @ItsJamesPowers Mr gill offers...Not an opinion..a fact. The trials were not subject to statistical scrutiny. Suvs serves another own goal.

An opinion not supported by 2 trials, 2 seperate Judges, 2 juries, 10 months of evidence and many witnesses including doctors, nurses, parents etc.. Excerpt from Barrister MS LANGDALE K.C. in the Thirlwall Inquiry about looking at evidence as a whole and why the Court of Appeal refused Letby’s application. She states: "The purpose of this Inquiry is to reduce the risk of this happening again." And "I make it absolutely clear that it's not for me as a chair of this public enquiry to set about reviewing  the convictions. The Court of Appeal has done that, with a very clear result." And "There is a requirement in every case to take into account all of the evidence and to consider each piece of evidence in the context of all the other evidence.  Medical or scientific evidence in a case should never be compartmentalised or examined in isolation from the wider canvas.  Those who do this will be less likely to see the picture as a whole and in failing to see the picture as a whole, they may reach conclusions that are not only wrong, but are speculative and damaging."

After watching the Netflix documentary on Lucy Letby, I stand even more firmly by my original assessment that she is innocent and that her conviction represents one of the greatest miscarriages of justice this country has ever seen. The case against Lucy Letby is built almost entirely on circumstantial evidence and inference rather than hard proof. There is no direct evidence that she harmed a single child. Instead, once suspicion fell on Letby, the investigation became narrowly focused on her alone. Other potential explanations, systemic failures, and alternative suspects were not meaningfully explored. This tunnel vision created an environment where evidence was interpreted to fit a predetermined conclusion, and in some instances appears to have been effectively constructed to support it. The medical evidence, which formed the backbone of the prosecution’s case, is highly disputed. It relied heavily on the testimony of Dr Dewi Evans, whose conclusions have been challenged by some of the most respected neonatal and forensic experts in the world. Even more concerning is the fact that Dr Evans himself has changed his opinions multiple times over the course of the investigation and trials, raising serious questions about the reliability and objectivity of his assessments. When expert testimony is this unstable and contested, it should never be treated as definitive proof of guilt. The door-swipe evidence was also presented to the jury as factual and incriminating, yet it was misleading. Swipe data was used to imply Lucy Letby’s presence at certain times, despite the system being incapable of confirming whether someone actually entered a room, left it open, followed another staff member through a door, or was elsewhere entirely. Swipe cards show access, not actions, and the way this evidence was framed gave a false impression of certainty that simply did not exist. No matter your opinion on this case — whether you believe Lucy Letby to be innocent or guilty — the fact of the matter remains that there was no actual evidence proving she did anything wrong. What we are left with is a conviction driven by a now-discredited doctor and extremely shaky evidence, amplified by a police investigation that amounted to a witch hunt against Letby alone. That should terrify everyone. The idea that someone in the UK can be found guilty of the most serious crimes imaginable without concrete evidence, based on speculation, flawed expert opinion, and investigative tunnel vision, is a profound threat to justice itself.

@NickBarberX @suvsknowsbest @ItsJamesPowers Suvs nailed nothing. If you did your own research.. even Google it.. you'll see why that's a claim with no evidential basis.

@NickBarberX @gill1109

@NickBarberX @AlexCutter86 @gill1109 Anyone can do this you dolt. As if you have anything to fear. What you fear is debate so youre hiding behind this as an excuse.

@NickBarberX @gill1109 Lets be honest... no ones going to harass you and come to your home. Your a liar. And according to your business you are a 'reviewer". So.. who paid you to revie this case ...because if you weren't paid.. why promote old fallacies now disproved. Absolute tosh.

@NickBarberX @gill1109 I seriously doubt that. Youre playing a victim cardso you can appear to take the higher ground so as not to debate a subject like statistical analysis that you'll lose.

@suvsknowsbest @ItsJamesPowers @suvsknowsbest You nailed it here & this fact alone proves guilt. I'm doing a YT video but having difficulty finding a source for the shifts data. Dr Evans referenced it via email to Peter Elston, but are you taking it from Thirwell? Happy to DM about it (I've followed you).

@AlexCutter86 @gill1109 He’s done the research in finding my middle name, the specific area i live in and the company house record that reveals my address. Then he published it to his large public following. Several hours later this happens.

@NickBarberX @gill1109 Surprise surprise...as expected. Hoding away. You have just set up an x account.. have 54 subscribers on YouTube. You wont debate. Lets be honest here... youre not a legitimate or knowledgeable commentator. As others have said.. whats the motive here then?

@gill1109 You literally just reposted someone saying I should expect “some heat” in relation to my address being online. You have also continued to highlight addresses I might be linked to this morning. For obvious reasons, I do not want to speak to you.