Nick Barber

@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.

@NickBarberX I regret that very much. And I know how it feels. It’s deeply distressing. How about contacting me to have a friendly discussion about statistics? There was a lot of good stuff in your video.

@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.

Your YouTube channel is your literal name. Your only video is a poor statistical analysis on Lucy Letby. Your Mush is all over said video. Your company number is publicly available on your website, The Grade. What exactly has Richard disclosed here that's not in the public domain? Nothing. If people want to find you they'll find you. What a silly post from you.

@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).

@ItsJamesPowers There were 15 deaths during Letby’s 163 shifts, compared to two deaths during the 635 shifts when she was not on duty.

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.

Ah well, "pobody's nerfect". I genuinely don't think there is a single company more scarily complacent company than Boeing. qz.com/boeing-dave-ca…

@JoWilliamsUK @adam1985n @BarristerSecret I think the point is that is distinction without difference. Huge abuse delivered knowingly to someone you have a duty of care to amounts to intent. Most disturbing I would suggest is the lack of moving the goalposts for future convictions (even over a decade later).

A short but very important thread 👇

This. And thank you for watching.

@StaceyWatts17 @SlaterGordonUK Same issue here! Something really going wrong in the conveyancing team @SlaterGordonUK - haven't been able to speak to anyone in a month. Just a brick wall. I'm making an official complaint then taking the the legal ombudsman.

@SlaterGordonUK has got to be THE WORST solicitors to ever use!! Only been trying to complete the purchase of a chain free house (that is empty) for 4 months! Absolutely zero communication from them! And im doing most of their job for them 😡🙄 would not recommend!!

@PennyGarnett1 Alex trebek maybe?

Anyone out there watching University Challenge - who is on Brandon's tee shirt - its driving me nuts!!!I feel I should know.