Is Lucy Letby Innocent?



Welcome to episode eight of the Sceptic! On the show this week, host Laurie Wastell speaks to the following Daily Sceptic contributors:

Dr David Livermore, microbiologist and Daily Sceptic regular, on the growing concerns about the Lucy Letby verdict, and how the Daily Sceptic led the world in raising them;

Dr Angus Dalgleish, emeritus professor of oncology at the University of London and co-signatory of the Great Barrington Declaration, on how the first report of the Covid Inquiry has blown up the establishment’s pro-lockdown consensus;

And for our premium subscribers, Laurie speaks to Steven Tucker, author and regular Daily Sceptic contributor, on French politics, immigration and the West’s “post-human” elites through the eyes of the celebrated French novelist, Michel Houellebecq.

Donate to the Daily Sceptic to access our premium content: www.dailysceptic.org/donate/

Follow Laurie on X: https://x.com/L_Wastell

Read David’s article on the Daily Sceptic here: https://dailysceptic.org/2023/09/11/lucy-letby-must-be-allowed-an-appeal/

Read Angus’s article here: https://dailysceptic.org/2024/07/18/the-covid-inquiry-is-right-to-name-and-shame-matt-hancock/

And read Steven’s articles here: https://dailysceptic.org/2024/07/11/alienation-in-an-alien-nation-michel-houellebecq-explains-the-true-horror-of-french-politics/

https://dailysceptic.org/2024/07/12/president-macron-and-our-post-human-future-according-to-michel-houellebecq/

Produced by Richard Eldred.
Filmed at the Westminster Podcast Studio.

00:00 Intro
01:41 Dr David Livermore on the growing concerns about the Lucy Letby verdict
24:18 Dr Angus Dalgleish on the Covid Inquiry’s bombshell first report

source

6 thoughts on “Is Lucy Letby Innocent?”

  1. Surely if she was innocent her defence would have challenged the most damning evidence e.g. babies were deliberately poisoned that were under her care. Why didn't the defence say it was just sewage leaks not insulin poisoning? Either the defence was incompetent or they didn't think presenting her story about how insulin poisoning happened would help her defence, i.e. it was a bullshit story or partial confession, rather than a simple 'I have no idea, should not have been possible' , which might have prompted them to challenge the evidence of poisoning.

    Reply
  2. Most people forget that Ferguson has no medial, statistical or computing qualifications. We all saw (from the DS reporting) that his C code was amateurish. Yet the Tories chose to accept his fantastical predictions.
    I have to wonder why Johnson didn't consider Ferguson's lack of expertise and record of inaccurate predictions. Perhaps he did, but pressure was brought to bear.

    Reply
  3. When it comes to the NHS and NHS management they will cherry pick their so-called evidence to pin it on whoever they decide to pin it on “FACT”, NHS management would rather spend millions of TAX payers money on blaming anyone but themselves and have families believe that their innocent babies had been deliberately murdered rather than actually own up to the FACT these poor innocent babies actual died because of Management failings. NHS Management refuse to ever take any kind of responsibility on anything and especially deaths of babies due to poor management, Managers look after Managers and will lie cheat and false accuse anyone has long as it’s not them and their high paid salary isn’t at risk they really don’t care, They will hide and block evidence that ever contradicts them and use terms like on the odds of Probability you could of done It, They threaten anyone who would try to speak up for the innocent party with their Jobs, Lives and Mental Health. Lucy Letby is innocent no question and all the Managers from that hospital 100% know the truth.

    Reply
  4. This is a complex case and it's often in complex cases where juries can get it wrong. They can often fall for incorrect presentation of statistical analysis. Statistics are very complex. For instance in the O.J. trial the jury was told that of women who's partners were convicted of abusing them the chances of them being murdered by such partners is very low one in a million etc. which is true because most abused women are not murdered. However if you look at abused women who are murdered as nicole was and have been abused it's often the case that the abuser was the muderer. This was overlooked in the case.

    Reply

Leave a Comment