Neil_Wilby_Media
1.1K posts
@NeilWilbyMedia
Corporate account of journalist Neil Wilby
The slides in the video explicitly describe Watts’ work as “An assessment of the Cheshire Police investigation based on publicly available material” regarding Operation Hummingbird (the police investigation into Lucy Letby). Roberts’ text claims: • Watts “confirms that he has no inside knowledge” behind his criticisms of the investigation and Cheshire Police. • These are therefore “unfounded claims.” • MP David Davis raised similar points in Parliament. • This is “completely unacceptable for a serving MP” and shows “yet another irrelevant person being elevated for their cause, but with no real story.” She tags it with #innocencefraud #lucyletby, framing any questioning of the official narrative or police work as fraudulent promotion of innocence. The core argument here is logically weak and relies on a deliberate misdirection. Watts openly states (on the slide and in his presentation) that his analysis uses only publicly available material, trial transcripts, police statements, videos, medical reports, etc. Roberts spins this transparency as a disqualifying flaw (“no inside knowledge” = “unfounded”). This is backwards. Independent, external review based on the public record is exactly how proper scrutiny of any major police investigation should work. “Inside knowledge” would often mean leaks or conflicts of interest; relying on what’s already in the open record makes the critique verifiable and open to counter-analysis. Watts’ credentials are directly relevant here: he is the author of the national police guidelines on investigating deaths in healthcare settings. That expertise qualifies him to assess whether Operation Hummingbird followed best practice, regardless of whether he was inside the investigation. David Davis MP cited Watts’ work (alongside that of another experienced ex-officer, Stuart Clifton, who led the Beverley Allitt investigation) in a March 2026 parliamentary debate. Davis argued the police made serious procedural failures, showed confirmation bias, and relied too heavily on a single expert witness. Both Watts and Clifton reportedly started assuming guilt but revised their view after examining the evidence. Raising these expert critiques in Parliament is a standard and legitimate use of an MP’s role, especially on a case involving multiple whole-life sentences and ongoing public doubt. Parliamentary privilege exists precisely to allow such scrutiny without fear of legal repercussions. Calling this “unacceptable” or evidence of “no real story” is not a rebuttal, it’s an attempt to shut down debate by attacking the source’s lack of insider status rather than addressing the specific points (e.g., investigation structure, expert selection, review processes). It’s classic source dismissal instead of engaging the substance. The broader framing with #innocencefraud is also telling. It paints any questioning of the convictions, the police work, or the medical evidence as some coordinated fraud campaign, rather than legitimate debate over a complex and contested case. The Letby convictions stand, but serious concerns have been raised by statisticians, neonatologists, and now experienced police investigators about aspects of the evidence and the investigation. Dismissing all of it as “irrelevant people” with “no real story” avoids those issues entirely. In short, the post weaponises the fact that Watts was transparent about using public information to imply his (and Davis’s) concerns lack merit. That’s not a serious critique, it’s rhetorical deflection dressed up as authority. Substantive responses to Watts or Davis would need to actually rebut their analysis of police procedure and evidence handling, not pivot to “he wasn’t in the room.” This style of response is more about protecting the official narrative than advancing understanding of what actually happened. The Gaslighter in plain sight #LucyLetby
The ringleader of a notorious Rochdale grooming gang is due to be released from jail this week and his victims have been told he can’t be deported I spoke to one of his victims ‘Ruby’ in 2024 - and she told me she was raped 100 times from the age of 12 Here’s Ruby’s interview bbc.co.uk/news/uk-englan…
Does the CCRC prioritise high-profile cases over others? @KenMacdonaldKC and @TimOwenKC discuss this and other UK Law and Politics issues on this week’s episode of Double Jeopardy. Listen here: link.podtrac.com/ydatd31r
Scoop: I’m told Andy Burnham used his first call with Donald Trump to invite the president to Manchester Trump indicated he’d like to take the new PM up on the offer, according to one official with knowledge of their call
Re: Reach and its pivot to 'original' content: a generation of young journalists were asked to write slop, responding to Reddit and social media, and then persuaded they were doing a good job because of the 'hits', when it was a disaster for them personally and for the brand.
@Sunraged @ContrarianJolly Shoo Lee's professors did have access to the medical records whereas "Professor" Marnerides admitted in court that he had relied on Dewi Evans' reports and hadn't read the medical records! lucyletbyinnocence.com/transcripts/pr…
Full story: Reach moves away from ‘volume’ as traffic, revenue and share price plunge pressgazette.co.uk/news/reach-mov…
