Simon Davies

The legal doctrine is that noone must ever bring the administration of justice into disrepute. By jailing an innocent person, where a conviction has been obtained by relying on false or misleading evidence including by ommission, and fabricated evidence this results in bringing the justice system into disrepute. If nothing else this is the reason why the conviction must be overturned to restore the justice system.

@dannybster @InclusiveBuild @richard_jm So true, 5 balconies on my previous estate fell off within 4 years of construction. Nobody has been arrested, lost their job, or been banned from building more. No consequence at all.

@dannybster Also pushing back against compromised solicitors, i.e. recommended by estate agents, but found decades later to have had close connections with the vendor developer (in our case our local council, which failed to disclose omission of detailed planning for its own project).

This is a real issue with politicians and politician-adjacent people. “Oh but the solicitors said so” Those affected by dangerous and/or defective homes have spent years understanding and pushing back against misapplied or inadequate legal protections It’s not good enough!

@dannybster Not related to Greenwich, but preparation for my court case (2011-14) was hampered (a) by officials refusing to allow me to copy the public record evidence, and (b) by local valuers refusing the work, explaining that their income mostly depended on the council I was suing.

Again too much reliance on “experts” When it comes to dangerously defective homes the real experts are the ones with the lived experience. Everyday is a battle against a flawed system that doesn’t want to fix its mistakes and politics that doesn’t want to force it.

"Over the past decade, a string of reviews have issued 748 recommendations for improving NHS maternity services across 59 official reports, yet death rates have soared." thetimes.com/uk/healthcare/…

@sergeantdixie @brianoflan46772 @mellycatslave @MartynPitman @DebRoberts22249 @whyyyy94 @NeilRos55889793 @RealJudgeBredd @noBWrexit @HarryZiman @gill1109 @DavidDavisMP Yes, and Peter Hayes explains very well why their logic is flawed, and reasoning manipulated to fit.

@simon170528 @brianoflan46772 @mellycatslave @MartynPitman @DebRoberts22249 @whyyyy94 @NeilRos55889793 @RealJudgeBredd @noBWrexit @HarryZiman @gill1109 @DavidDavisMP The CoA explained in detail why Dr Lees evidence was excluded. You just need to read the judgement. judiciary.uk/wp-content/upl…

In his closing speech at Lucy Letby's trial Ben Myers alleged Dr B (V at TI) caused Child P's collapse that led to the baby's death by negligence with Dr Brearey and Dr B covering it up by blaming Lucy Letby. See attached.

@brianoflan46772 @sergeantdixie @mellycatslave @MartynPitman @DebRoberts22249 @whyyyy94 @NeilRos55889793 @RealJudgeBredd @noBWrexit @HarryZiman @gill1109 @DavidDavisMP Great explanation by Peter Hayes of the bodged logic and reasoning by the Appeal court judges here - youtu.be/S8e-xfuqW20?si…

@sergeantdixie @mellycatslave @MartynPitman @DebRoberts22249 @whyyyy94 @NeilRos55889793 @RealJudgeBredd @noBWrexit @HarryZiman @gill1109 @simon170528 @DavidDavisMP What are you referring to? His testimony correctly stating they misused his paper or the panel results where they all agreed the deaths were all a mix of sloppy care and ill-health in the babies, based on the detailed medical evidence?

@MartynPitman @oh_biscuits_ @sergeantdixie @OldLodskins @RealJudgeBredd @DebRoberts22249 @noBWrexit @HarryZiman @gill1109 @NeilRos55889793 @DavidDavisMP Yet another (ex) police person who thinks they know complex medical matters and wants to argue with those who do. The criminal justice system and Cheshire Police understanding and logic is woeful.

@oh_biscuits_ @sergeantdixie @OldLodskins @RealJudgeBredd @DebRoberts22249 @noBWrexit @HarryZiman @gill1109 @simon170528 @NeilRos55889793 @DavidDavisMP I can tell you with 100% absolute rock- solid certainty that there will be details in the Obstetric and Maternity records, that no-one as yet has been given access to (as Evans felt it unecessary) that will torpedo Evans's 'well and stable' claims right out of the water.

@MartynPitman @sergeantdixie @whyyyy94 @NeilRos55889793 @brianoflan46772 @DebRoberts22249 @RealJudgeBredd @noBWrexit @HarryZiman @gill1109 @DavidDavisMP The medical evidence presented by the prosecution was very poor, even non medical people who do some research can see that. Medical evidence was the foundation of the whole case but only 19% of the time in court ( over 10 months) spent on it, 90% of that time was Dr Evans.

@sergeantdixie @whyyyy94 @NeilRos55889793 @brianoflan46772 @DebRoberts22249 @RealJudgeBredd @noBWrexit @HarryZiman @gill1109 @simon170528 @DavidDavisMP You clearly have a worryingly low threshold of what constitutes 'medical evidence.' It was precisely due the total lack of definitive medical evidence that the trial took such an unprecedentedly long time.

At its strongest, your post addresses the robustness of the process. You emphasise that the case has undergone extensive judicial scrutiny—trial, retrial, and unsuccessful appeals—and involved multiple expert witnesses whose evidence was tested through cross-examination. But this rather misses the point. No-one disputes that. The “Letbyist” concern is not that there has not been extensive judicial scrutiny, but that it profoundly failed. Since you are not prepared to acknowledge the possibility that this could be a miscarriage of justice, your post is not likely to persuade anyone who has that concern. But I don’t think this post is designed to convince anyone but yourself, in any case/ So where you do make points — and you do make one or two — they are formal, and not particularly compelling even on their own terms. They don’t land. They support the proposition that the investigation and trial were conducted seriously and within established legal frameworks. You are fully uncurious as to how that process can have arrived at such an apparently absurd result. You are less compelling on the central question of guilt. You frequently present contested clinical interpretations as settled fact. You draw unjustified causal conclusions from correlation (for example, linking mortality changes directly to Ms. Letby’s presence). You make weak inferential leaps, such as suggesting that unused defence evidence must have been unfavourable. You make unsupported assertions that arguments you disagree with are “disproven”. Much of your post is speculation. You attribute motives and intentions to figures — hello “innocence fraud” — without evidence or even explanation as to why anyone would embark on such a conspiracy. What is there to gain from defending convicted serial murderers pro bono? Your tone is also highly adversarial. You rely for rhetorical punch on humdrum playground insults, dismissive language, ad hominem criticisms and lazy rhetorical framing. This undermines the credibility of the better points you make. Fundamentally, your post does little substantive work. It does not engage with the detailed medical or statistical evidence, nor with the strongest counterarguments to the prosecution case. You seem to be in total denial about these. You rely heavily on procedural arguments—effectively: the system was robust, ergo the outcome must be sound. Someone recently mentioned that “the trial is your citadel” (can’t think who). This post entirely validates that. The trial is all you have. If you are not prepared to look with a critical eye at your citadel, you have little chance of persuading anyone who sees holes in it.

In a letter to Mark Roberts, Cheshire Police's chief constable, Sir David wrote: 'If you or your constabulary believe that you now have any specific rebuttals to any of the points I raised, I would like to receive them in full.' #LucyLetby dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1…

In today’s Mail on Sunday

The first of the ground rent investors to be arrested on suspicion of blackmail and fraud. The leaseholders in Sheffield and Bolton will be happy. Congratulations to the Sheffield leaseholders for helping gather the evidence. @LKPleasehold @NLC_2019

How can Cheshire Police possibly refute this damning evidence on the Lucy Letby shift chart? Statistician Peter Elston’s explosive video proves exactly how the “roster chart” was allegedly manipulated with Dr Evans changing opinions to fit the narrative. This changes everything. Watch 👇 youtu.be/QnKc3No3reA #LetbyCase

@ContrarianJolly @fake_medical @MartynPitman The correlation between deaths and Lucy Letby’s presence is big and real. It was caused by hospital management who needed her to do many extra shifts when the unit was full of very high risk babies. The deaths did not follow Lucy - she followed the deaths, unwittingly.

As a seasoned court reporter, this police/journalist orchestration really does trouble me. But, helpfully, it does mostly explain the characterisation of #LucyLetby in the Coffey/Moritz book, 'Unmasked'.

@simon170528 @Seagreen2707 @MartynPitman @DebRoberts22249 @NeilRos55889793 Yes indeed: ordinary witnesses aren’t allowed to give their opinions. Only “expert” witnesses. It is quite complicated, but I have had a bash at explaining it. jollycontrarian.com/index.php/Expe…

@ContrarianJolly @Seagreen2707 @MartynPitman @DebRoberts22249 @NeilRos55889793 Is there a difference in definitions of evidence, for example someone seen on CCTV stealing from a shop (a fact ?), as opposed to a retired doctor from Wales giving a medical opinion in court (an opinion perhaps, not a fact ?).

Actually I’m doing a post on it. Evidence is facts presented by witnesses. Submissions are arguments presented by lawyers. They are fundamentally different. Lawyers do not and cannot give evidence. Their submissions aren’t evidence. However when lawyers want to make an argument that contradicts a witness’ evidence, where there is no evidence to support the argument, they must “put it to the witness”. Mr Johnson did with, for example, the allegations that Ms. Letby falsified attendance records. There was no evidence — no witnesses, no documentary suggestion that the record had been tampered with — that Ms Letby falsified the records, so Mr Johnson had to “put it to her that this is what she did”, and she denied it. (IIRC she conceded that she had corrected the odd error) Somehow it has entered the pantheon of Debs’ mysterious “facts” and “evidence”, even though it is nothing of the sort.