Sunraged, Thane of Liverpool

If the information people were provided was wrong, and if that information was the only information allowed at appeal, then it would be logical to say that the conclusions people would draw from incorrect information, would themselves, be incorrect. It’s not rocket science, so yes, it appears everyone was wrong in their decision to convict. Unless you really think some of that shit stands up to scrutiny, in which case you should then be quite happy to show how it was correct. But you won’t. Not in a meaningful way.

@mike64741 @Sunraged @whyyyy94 @hairyairey @brianoflan46772 @UKinjustice2025 @longi1974 @noBWrexit @subster121 @BigTed360 @sergeantdixie So the jury was wrong in the trial? Everyone is wrong but you?

. @noBWrexit is spreading his lies again. I hope people new to looking into the Lucy Letby case are not fooled by his posts. The truth is the Jayaram email proving he lied was not included in the leave to appeal application. #LucyLetby is innocent

What do you think this discussion is about; new information post-verdict that seems to convincingly dispute the “evidence” (guesswork) presented in court during the trial, or just providing a regurgitation of what was presented in the trial as though nobody is aware of of it? You’re just providing a rather dull circular argument. She’s guilty because she was found guilty, and because she was found guilty, then she is guilty. Boring.

@whyyyy94 @Sunraged @hairyairey @mike64741 @brianoflan46772 @UKinjustice2025 @longi1974 @noBWrexit @subster121 @BigTed360 @sergeantdixie You don’t need reasoning. This is not a maths competition. You need a jury and their need to be convicted beyond reasonable doubt. For you I add: you need to admit that other humans have a brain too.

@YvesM22440745 @whyyyy94 @mike64741 @hairyairey @brianoflan46772 @UKinjustice2025 @longi1974 @noBWrexit @subster121 @BigTed360 @sergeantdixie A Matthew said: bollocks.

@whyyyy94 @mike64741 @Sunraged @hairyairey @brianoflan46772 @UKinjustice2025 @longi1974 @noBWrexit @subster121 @BigTed360 @sergeantdixie It is a claim made in court: no other nurse did something remotely similar.

@YvesM22440745 @hairyairey @mike64741 @whyyyy94 @brianoflan46772 @UKinjustice2025 @longi1974 @noBWrexit @subster121 @BigTed360 @sergeantdixie Which were….?

@Sunraged @hairyairey @mike64741 @whyyyy94 @brianoflan46772 @UKinjustice2025 @longi1974 @noBWrexit @subster121 @BigTed360 @sergeantdixie “When police raided Letby’s home, they found a standard pocket diary. Inside, on the exact dates that specific babies suffered catastrophic collapses or died, Letby had neatly written down the initials of those infants (e.g., "Baby O")”

You mean....someone accused of murdering babies, aware of public opinion, having been bullied at work, seeing her whole life disintegrate around her as she is gaslit, pressured, and psychologically traumatised, wanted to kill herself, and had questioned her own reality? Imagine that.

@mike64741 @hairyairey @whyyyy94 @brianoflan46772 @UKinjustice2025 @longi1974 @noBWrexit @subster121 @BigTed360 @sergeantdixie On a separate A4 document found in her bedroom, she had written the words "kill me" in bold next to a crossed-out box containing the phrase: "I don't know if I killed them. Maybe I did. Maybe this is all down to me."

Sounds to me that this was typical of a diligent nurse, who appears to be quite obsessional in nature, to mark untoward events in her diary to ensure that if she were ever to be asked about the incidents, she would have a reminder of that to prompt her recall. That said, LD, ND, RN, SN, DO, E, L, and so on, all refer to shifts and designations/disciplines, though some idiots can't see past their own arseholes.

@hairyairey @mike64741 @whyyyy94 @brianoflan46772 @UKinjustice2025 @longi1974 @noBWrexit @subster121 @BigTed360 @sergeantdixie police recovered her personal diary. It was revealed in court that she had written the initials of some of the babies on the specific dates they were alleged to have been attacked or the dates on which they died. These initials were noted down in a different colored pen. FFS

@ReturnS33433 @mike64741 @DrSusanOliver1 @Bungles71 @Voice4theDead Glad you agree. I guess when someone lies about someone lying, then it's quite reasonable for reasonable people to be a little perplexed.

@Sunraged @mike64741 @DrSusanOliver1 @Bungles71 @Voice4theDead 🤣 I’m sure you don’t, Sunfag.

@Voice4theDead Hi Stephanie, I believe you may have something to say about the claim that the coroner was informed, at least in a way that demonstrates full transparency, for example key procedural details about needle insertion not being passed on at the time of the post-mortem...?

@ReturnS33433 @mike64741 @DrSusanOliver1 @Bungles71 @Voice4theDead I'm not sure I follow you?

@Sunraged @mike64741 @DrSusanOliver1 @Bungles71 @Voice4theDead Lies on lies big dawg

@mervynpervyn @DrSusanOliver1 @Bungles71 @Voice4theDead 60+ hours per week. Up to double her contracted hours.

@DrSusanOliver1 @Bungles71 @Sunraged @Voice4theDead I will admit Letby was on shift for a lot of deaths, more than any other nurse, and that is why she had the finger pointed at her in the first place. But you don't have the information about how many hours overtime she worked, not enough for murder charge for me.

@ReturnS33433 @mike64741 @DrSusanOliver1 @Bungles71 @Voice4theDead Fond memories of seeing Milan playing Liverpool in Athens, not Madrid.

@Sunraged @mike64741 @DrSusanOliver1 @Bungles71 @Voice4theDead Champions league final coming up, that must bring back fond memories of when you played Madrid in Athens 🤣🤣🤣🤣

@gill1109 Congratulations, Richard. That's a fantastic achievement!!!

I’ve been admitted to the British Academy of Forensic Sciences! bafs.org.uk I hope to contribute to the science of forensic statistics in the UK.

@ReturnS33433 @mike64741 @DrSusanOliver1 @Bungles71 @Voice4theDead Quelle fucking surprise...

@mike64741 @DrSusanOliver1 @Bungles71 @Sunraged @Voice4theDead Lee has deliberately mislead you all re air embolism, his work supports the convictions, he fucking knows it too

Bit of card stacking there again... Any thoughts on the full contextual factors around Stephanie Davies’ 2023 disciplinary? Y’know… her ignored 170-page whistleblower reports on possible miscarriages of justice, the senior officer with an undeclared conflict of interest who ordered the probe, the leak to the Sunday Times that wasn’t even from her, and the tribunal that said her concerns were genuine but her method “unreasonable”? Or is that bit just a tad inconvenient for the “irrevocably damaged reputation” line? 😉 Curious to hear your unbiased take!

@ContrarianJolly I think you'll find that Davies had already irrevocably damaged her reputation way before she decided to latch on to the Letby innocence fraud campaign.

A feature of pitchforker discourse—even from those purporting to “stick to the science”—is how its credibility and coherence depends on multiple unconnected professionals lying through their teeth to their own reputational cost, for the benefit of a convicted murderer.

@DrSusanOliver1 @ContrarianJolly

@KarlSinclair10 @DrSusanOliver1 @Sunnanbyrg @Voice4theDead I think she's overestimating the impact of the word "lie". I doubt anyone with any sense is seeing that as anything other than barking at the moon.

@DrSusanOliver1 @Sunraged @Sunnanbyrg @Voice4theDead Still clinging to your own views when clearly shown how wrong you are. Susan Trolliver.. you are embarrassing yourself..but..for what?

@UKPatriots2geva @DrEllenStorm I'm amazed that this seemed to get buried some time ago. It was hugely significant in my view, but then it faded into the background.

@DrEllenStorm Charity refused to engage with Letby whistleblowers over 'red flags' in testimony: (2/3) archive.ph/20250201122801…

Dr Ellen Storm (Consultant Paediatrician) (@DrEllenStorm): (See thread).

@medoliyy Nobody. I'd stand up and let one of them decide.

Psikolojik test. Yerinizi kime verirdiniz?

@TobeHon29809726 @Voice4theDead @robert_vanes @DrSusanOliver1 @Bungles71 Nice swan. I'll have a read of that a bit later 😊

@Sunraged @Voice4theDead @robert_vanes @DrSusanOliver1 @Bungles71 Here’s an example of Bill Gates funded multi centre research involving Susan Oliver. share.google/rHN0DFwgLGgccZ…

@AugustusRose750 @DrSusanOliver1 @Bungles71 @Voice4theDead ALL HAIL THE HIGH SPARROW!!

@DrSusanOliver1 @Bungles71 @Sunraged @Voice4theDead According to you shills and trolls, everyone lies but you lot. Funny that.

No, I didn't miss a major part of the Sun interview at all. The supposed contradiction you highlight between Dr Shoo Lee's Sun comments and his PubPeer reply simply doesn't exist once you look at the actual papers and what he said. Here's why your claim falls apart. In the Sun interview, Lee was specifically discussing his 1989 review paper with Tanswell, which focused exclusively on pulmonary vascular air embolism (air entering via the lungs from ventilator barotrauma and air leaks). That paper deliberately excluded the Willis 1981 case report because Willis described peripheral venous air embolism via an IV line, not the pulmonary mechanism under review. Lee said exactly that: the paper had been deliberately excluded from his review because he wasn't convinced that it was a case of air embolism (for the narrow purpose of that 1989 pulmonary focused review). In contrast, his PubPeer response addressed the separate 2024/2025 broader literature review on all vascular air embolism (including venous/IV cases). There, he evaluated the Willis skin finding: a uniform dark blue discolouration covering the entire back of a prone baby. He explained it was more likely dependent cyanosis (not patchy or flitting) and categorised it accordingly. That is standard practice in literature reviews (which I'm sure you know or at least should know) and has zero conflict with the 1989 exclusion decision. The two papers have completely different scopes and purposes. The 1989 one was narrow. The latter is an update covering every type of neonatal vascular air embolism. Conflating them to create a "gotcha lie" ignores the titles, dates, and explicit inclusion criteria. Willis itself reinforces Lee's consistent point: its uniform back discolouration does not match the specific patchy/flitting skin pattern he has always said is required for the air embolism sign discussed in the Letby evidence. It is you who appears to have misunderstood, treating "his review" as a single unchanging document over 35 years rather than two distinct publications answering different questions. Nothing in the Sun interview undermines Lee's position or creates any material inconsistency. The core critique of how the 1989 paper was applied to venous air injection plus patchy skin in the trial remains untouched.

@Sunraged @Bungles71 @Voice4theDead I suggest you listen again to Dr Lee's interview with the Sun. You obviously missed a major part of it.