Tom Hayes

We won! Thanks to everyone.

Childhood targets & achievements 👊👊👊 When life was much simpler💙 #memories

@DebRoberts22249 @Spike16642810 You’ve shown nothing. I’ve read your screed above and nothing in there is hard evidence he wasn’t instructed. It’s possible to have many barristers and legal teams instructed simultaneously, he’s part of the third legal team. I’ve been there.

@robilypj @Spike16642810 I've shown it - prove that he was.

Just as David Davis did yesterday, people keep trying to compare the Sally Clark campaign - and her eventual exoneration - to what’s being run around Lucy Letby. But the two cases are not remotely similar. The Clark campaign was evidence‑driven. It focused on specific, identifiable failures: withheld microbiology, flawed statistical testimony, and expert reassessment that exposed concrete errors. It didn’t rely on rumour. It didn’t target individuals. It didn’t need parliamentary privilege to make its case. And it succeeded because the evidence collapsed. What’s happening around Letby is the opposite. It’s narrative‑led. It leans on online speculation. It centres on insinuation rather than disclosure. It involves naming or implying wrongdoing by people and organisations with no findings against them. And it uses parliamentary privilege to repeat those claims. What never gets addressed is the actual clinical evidence. Thirteen victims. Multiple, unrelated cases. Different methods. Different timings. Different physiological findings. A pattern that doesn’t disappear because they want to generate doubt for public consumption. If the convictions were ever to be overturned, it would require dismantling the clinical evidence method by method, case by case - not defaming individuals, not attacking institutions, and not importing conspiracy theories into Parliament. The current campaign isn’t about evidential collapse. It’s about manufacturing empathy for Letby by presenting her as the next tragic miscarriage of justice. Using the tragedy of Sally Clark for this purpose is despicable. And the cases aren’t comparable in any meaningful way. One was grounded in facts. The other is built on a fairy story. #innocencefraud

@DebRoberts22249 @Spike16642810 Your hard evidence that he was not formally instructed at that time is?

@robilypj @Spike16642810 Yes, I honestly think McDonald had no access to the medical records. How could he have had access when he was not formally instructed? He wasn't instucted through Thirlwall. x.com/DebRoberts2224…

@DebRoberts22249 @Spike16642810 Your hard evidence they haven’t seen them is? More superstition and conjecture you are not presenting any evidence of that. Do you honestly think the defence doesn’t have the medical records?

@Spike16642810 They haven't seen the babies' medical records. How could they have? Who sent them to them? Their theories remain just that - and untested against the actual medical records.

The Gaga fans came after me for this one.

I did think about it….

@mellycatslave @true_crims @skymartinbrunt I have met lots and lots of killers. Most feel extremely guilty and unable to atone for what they did. I have met very few psychopaths, they are typically pathological liars and narcissists who feel no guilt or remorse at all and largely blame their victim

@true_crims C’mon @skymartinbrunt. You KNOW that a “psychopath” would not be distressed over their crimes. Quite the opposite. I would guess you know that Lucy is innocent. You should put that sensible suggestion out there. Xxx

PART 2 OUT NOW - patreon.com/posts/is-lucy-… Was it a miscarriage of justice? We dive into the evidence the jury didn't see. #LucyLetby #TrueCrime

@LucyLetbyTrials @SpringFord14 You definitely think life will be just like it ever was when you are released. Getting to grips with the fact that release doesn’t mean that is really hard and learning to live your new reality takes time. Great video.

"I absolutely believe that the conviction is unsafe. My concern here is that the narrative around Lucy [Letby], the sort of insistence that the only respectful way of approaching this story is through silence…is at the expense of truth and justice." youtube.com/watch?v=kgjliI…

@DebRoberts22249 @triedbystats I guess you’ve indirectly answered the question I posed previously in relation to whether you had read them in respect of the jury directions.

@robilypj @triedbystats Oh dear, Tom.

This requirement came up during the trial in relation to Dr Evans when he was confronted by the prosecution about the harsh criticism he received from Justice Jackson. Essentially accusing him of perjury. Evans was reminded he had a duty to disclose this. He very typically doubled down and flat out said he wouldn’t have disclosed it even if he had known about it.

@DebRoberts22249 @triedbystats But you’ve read them so surely you have them? Or did you destroy them after you read them or just borrow them in hard copy?

Have you been altering transcripts again? I'll see if I can get hold of the transcripts for that day. I have screenshotted your post. This is the report from that day and "Dr Evans replied: “I didn’t know about it. If I had known about it, I would’ve informed the court." @cheshirepolice chesterstandard.co.uk/news/23312472.…

@DebRoberts22249 @DrJPGannon Your selective memory is par for the course for someone who knows they are wrong. Why not prove me wrong by contradiction, show something somewhere that says juries are not bound to follow the directions of the judge.

@robilypj @DrJPGannon No worries, par for the course with Letbyists.

Surely this cannot be right. Phil Hammond should never have been sent the original defence reports if they contain protected medical information about the babies Letby was convicted of murdering and harming. Those reports are built on clinical records, and those records belong to the babies and their families - not to the defendant, not to her lawyers, and certainly not to journalists. Letby waiving privilege cannot magically give her or her lawyer the power to authorise disclosure of other people’s medical records. Privilege only covers her communications with her legal team. It does not override the babies’ confidentiality rights or the parents’ rights. The idea that these babies’ medical records are being passed around like a box of chocolates is appalling. These are some of the most sensitive records the NHS holds, and the families have every right to expect they are handled with the highest level of protection - not casually circulated to journalists. I hope the families are being kept informed and are getting strong advice from their legal teams, because this situation is deeply troubling and deserves serious scrutiny. #innocencefraud #TheCultOfLetby

Sharing this by Tom Hayes @robilypj again because his case is a warning of what can go wrong when a single person determines someone's guilt thetimes.com/article/e730c9…

@DAVID_F_LOCKE @JayneArkle22617 @hairyairey @DrSusanOliver1 @StefaniaOkolie Even after I eventually won I didn’t get a defence cost order for the money spent as the CCRC was not considered to be a normal part of proceedings by the statute governing them.

@DAVID_F_LOCKE @JayneArkle22617 @hairyairey @DrSusanOliver1 @StefaniaOkolie You don’t get legal aid to go to the CCRC. I should know they had my case for 6.5 years and but for kindness of strangers I wouldn’t have been able to fund my applications and numerous addenda.

Sorry I know I don’t say much on here… but can we talk about UK accused baby killer Lucey Letby…. I umm… feel awful for this woman.

@DebRoberts22249 @DrJPGannon From you

@robilypj @DrJPGannon Avoidance, Tom? Surely not?

@DebRoberts22249 @DrJPGannon I’ve already done this for you. I’m not doing it again

@robilypj @DrJPGannon x.com/DebRoberts2224…

@DebRoberts22249 @DrJPGannon The jury directions are clear and the jury is bound to follow them. You know this but continue to put your blind eye to the telescope.

@robilypj @DrJPGannon Can you evidence your claim please, Tom?

@DebRoberts22249 @DrJPGannon None of that is hard evidence Deb. Pure speculation.

IF Bark and Co were instructed, that was VERY recent. But then they removed the comment about representing her but left up that McDonald was instructed. But they didn't say by whom. If not them, then how did they know he was? If by them it was pointless to remove if it was them that instructed him. A PR company acting 'pro bono' for the most prolific serial killer of modern times? Jeez - I've got a bridge to sell you.

@DebRoberts22249 @DrJPGannon That first guilty finding nonetheless went on to form part of the evidential matrix to be considered for every subsequent count. You can’t escape that.

The judge allowed one proved deliberate act to be used as supporting evidence for others - only if the jury were sure of it and found sufficient similarity; it’s conditional, not a blanket propensity direction. "Any decision you do make must be based on evidence and not speculation.” Turning to the subject of “circumstantial evidence and the unlikelihood of coincidence”, he said this was a case in which the prosecution “substantially, but not wholly” rely upon circumstantial evidence. Mr Justice Goss went on: “The defendant was the only member of the nursing and clinical staff who was on duty each time that the collapses of all the babies occurred and had associations with them at material times, either being the designated nurse or working in the unit. “If you are satisfied so that you are sure in the case of any baby that they were deliberately harmed by the defendant then you are entitled to consider how likely it is that other babies in the case who suffered unexpected collapses did so as a result of some unexplained or natural cause rather than as a consequence of some deliberate harmful act by someone. “If you conclude that this is unlikely then you could, if you think it right, treat the evidence of that event and any others, if any, which you find were a consequence of a deliberate harmful act, as supporting evidence in the cases of other babies and that the defendant was the person responsible. “When deciding how far, if at all, the evidence in relation to any of the cases supports the case against the defendant on any other or others, you should take into account how similar or dissimilar, in your opinion, the allegations and the circumstances of and surrounding their collapses are. “The defence say that there are possible causes for many of the collapses other than an intentional harmful act, that the prosecution expert evidence cannot be relied on in terms of providing explanations for many of the collapses and that there is insufficient evidence to lead you to the conclusion that these events were related and were a consequence of any harmful act by the defendant rather than a series of unrelated collapses that, in some cases, ended in death.” When considering the seven counts of murder, Mr Justice Goss told jurors they must be sure Letby deliberately did something to the child that was “more than a minimal cause” of the death.

@DebRoberts22249 @DrJPGannon Such as LL has not instructed bark and co as just a single example , what hard evidence do you have for that particular claim? Ditto Maltin PR are not acting pro bono , your posts are not backed up by hard evidence they are speculation at best and lies at worst.

@robilypj @DrJPGannon Of course you have. The difference between what I post and those you will read is that mine are backed up with evidence, you just don't like what they say.