Liz Lucy Robillard

'Conviction unsafe' says the expert program, again. This is hotly debated online, and I agree the number of searches sounds quite odd- so as per- I consulted a professional judges legal gpt - the prosecution argument obviously doesn't need more coverage and is left to the professionals involved - and so it should be - meantime- " CCRC submission combining the unsafe conviction argument and comparative evidence. ccrc submission – record search evidence introduction this submission concerns the reliance at trial on evidence that Lucy Letby accessed records of approximately 200 families of deceased infants under her care.  it is submitted that the way this evidence was presented to the jury was misleading and prejudicial, creating a real possibility that the convictions are unsafe. issue whether the record search evidence was wrongly or unfairly used to suggest criminal intent, and whether its presentation without proper comparative context deprived the jury of a fair and...

 14 August 2025 Why Private, Random Thoughts Should Never Be Used to Convict Someone The human mind produces thousands of thoughts a day — neuroscientists estimate anywhere between 6,000 and 60,000, most of which are fleeting, contradictory, and involuntary. Many are never acted upon, and many are not even consciously endorsed. Yet in some criminal cases, prosecutors have presented diary entries, private journal notes, or scraps of written thought as “proof” of intent or guilt. This practice is scientifically flawed, psychologically dangerous, and legally unsound. 1. Thoughts Are Not Actions From a neuroscience perspective, there is a clear distinction between thought generation and behavioural execution. Thoughts arise in networks such as the default mode network (DMN), which is active during mind-wandering. These spontaneous mental events are often exploratory or emotional “drafts” — not plans. Turning a thought into action requires activation of goal-directed executive circuits ...

 Today's Telegraph reported that there was dangerous, deadly bacteria at the Countess of Chester Hospital at the time Lucy Letby worked there. It made me question the likelihood of the bacterium being found by the coroner- as well as the obvious questions. I asked an ai to explain: 'Should the deadly bacteria in the Letby case have been found during post-mortems? Yes. Under UK medical law and standard hospital practice, if a baby dies unexpectedly, a coroner’s post-mortem is usually required. These post-mortems include infection screening through blood cultures, tissue samples, and swabs from areas like the lungs or brain. If a dangerous bacterium (like Serratia or something similar) caused or contributed to the death, it should have been detected. Who is responsible for identifying it? The hospital’s pathology and microbiology team are responsible for running these tests and reporting results. If the case is under the coroner, they also review the findings. If multiple babies ...

Facts we know about neonatal tube dislodgement and deaths in neonatal care- this is from deep prompts in chatgpt and google- please check this all out for youself.   More nuanced search and science is what the police and ccrc must be researching. "About that ‘40% tube dislodgement’ claim at Liverpool Women’s (2012–15): Neonatal care is extremely high-risk, especially for very premature babies. Peer-reviewed studies show: Nearly 50% of neonatal intubations fail on the first try. Adverse events (like tubes moving, oxygen drops, heart issues) happen in up to 40% of neonatal intubations, versus 20% in older kids. Most of these issues are linked to baby fragility, staff experience, and unit policies — not foul play. Sources anyone can read: 1. https://www.mdpi.com/2227-9032/13/11/1242 2. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8529572/ 3. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41390-025-04168-w Neonatal tube events and death rates in context (UK 2012–2016) Nearly 50 percent of neonatal ...

Lots of very forensic type prompting later: I'm unsure. (Details shared on request) 'That’s probably the most realistic position to hold right now — because based on the UK evidence currently public, there are three big truths sitting side by side: 1. There is something suspicious The clustering of collapses on her shifts is still unusual, even factoring in her full-time ICU role. Her notes (“I am evil, I did this”) are odd — maybe a breakdown, maybe something darker. (See previous post) Several senior doctors genuinely believed she was linked to the incidents, even at risk to their careers. 2. The case built around her is unstable The independent expert panel has ripped apart the prosecution’s medical evidence in multiple deaths, showing alternative, natural explanations. The door-swipe logs were faulty, and the “always there” narrative ignored unlogged back-stairs and her job allocation. The hospital itself was chaotic — sepsis missed, antibiotics delayed, toxic management — ...

 The Notes and Reasonable Doubt UPDATE: 17/07/25 Thirwall Inquiry has been contacted to request verification as to whether or not the 'CRIME' model 2020 of profiling was used or not and to suggest correlations with Prof.Andy Bilsons recent publications 2025 of FII- for info on the model see (live linking on Blogger not functioning) https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9103349/ Notes:  The notes and further reasons why there is reasonable doubt Lucy Letby’s Notes: Who Told Her to Write Them, What They Really Meant, and Why the Public Got It Wrong Lucy Letby wrote a series of disturbing and emotional notes during the police investigation into infant deaths at the Countess of Chester Hospital.  These notes have been repeatedly quoted in the media—especially the phrase “I am evil I did this”—but the full story behind them is often left out. Who told her to write the notes? Two professionals advised her to journal: • Kathryn de Beger, the hospital’s occupational health and...

*Please note:  This post has taken approx 3 hours with ai assistance.  I was involved in setting a legal precedent once. We overturned a tribunals' decision to get a new hearing where we won- making legal history- details on request.  Judges at the CCRC must certainly be considering such a precedent with a view to releasing Lucy Letby based on new evidence. If not is the CCRC doing a disservice?   If they're not positive about Letby right now at this date- 14th July 2025- that's reasonable doubt and evidence of unreasonable, unjust detention that is garnering global attention.  New charges may be brought by police.  Have they considered all the points we've made?   Or will they be more ad hominem and not facts? (Even soft toy collections have been used to condemn Lucy. I don't think numerous toy collectors in the UK- including  British Royals (Queen Mary was obsessive according to reports) would approve of that) Suspicion Becomes Narrati...

 Is it? The independent experts that have no financial interests questioned it all, ai explains: Prompt: Why the c-peptide evidence in the Lucy Letby case is questionable and how subsequent experts have refuted it? Why the C-peptide evidence in the Lucy Letby case is questionable and how experts have refuted it: • Test Reliability: The prosecution used immunoassay tests to detect insulin and C-peptide levels. These tests showed high insulin and low C-peptide, suggesting someone had injected insulin. However, immunoassay tests are known to be unreliable for detecting synthetic (exogenous) insulin. • Expert Criticism: Dr. Adel Ismail, a clinical biochemist, noted these tests can produce errors. He pointed out that in cases like Baby F’s, with extremely high insulin levels, retesting should have been done because of the risk of false results. • Manufacturer’s Warning: The lab that did the tests had stated that their insulin assay is not suitable for detecting injected insulin. ...