My understanding is that there would need to be formal instruction of an expert - they can't just be shown to anyone who turns up at his office.Mark Mcdonald will have access now he's taken over the case, wheter he is now free to show them to any potential expert witnesses?
https://hfaf.org/#:~:text=Welcome%20to%20the%20website%20of%20HFAF%20Freemasonry%20for%20Women&text=It%20was%20founded%20in%201913,world's%20oldest%20secular%20fraternal%20societies.Do we think Sarah Knapton is a freemason?
She states that Dr Gibb and Harkness were at a lot of the incidents but fails to mention the doctors appeared after the collapses. Dr Breary did a good job of explaining why Eirian's theories didn't make sense.
Even a beige sweaterMeanwhile on FB
Brilliant article. Thanks for sharing.Interesting read that will annoy all the rightcuntspeople.
![]()
Lucy Letby and the killer nurse I worked with
Most of those commenting on the guilt or innocence of Lucy Letby don't know what it's like to work alongside a killer nurse. I dowww.spectator.co.uk
I don’t think women can be, otherwise I’d say yesDo we think Sarah Knapton is a freemason?![]()
No, in that case the judge examined a series of incidents that Amber claimed. He concluded (under the civil standard of proof) that the majority of incidents had actually occurred, not just that it was reasonable for the newspaper to have believed Amber. The ruling is here: https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/depp-v-news-group-newspapers-ltd/Am thinking of Depp v Heard and the previous UK case, which was Depp v The Press. The reason Depp lost the UK case is because (my understanding so could be wrong) what the judge was considering (because you don't get a jury for libel), was, was the newspaper entitled to believe that what they had been told by Amber was true and print it because that is a defence I think - if you really believe it and the court judges that a reasonable person would also believe it based on being told the same things.
Who's the one in the woolly hat is it Gill? Looks a bit like that knobheadSomeone on here or it could have been twitter pointed out that the guy holding the banner with Pat looks similar to Richard Hall the conspiracy theorist who was sued for harassing survivor's of the MEN Arena attack.
Redirect Notice
www.google.com
View attachment 3296004
Clueless Jane Hutton maybe? Or has she already been? I can’t keep up 🫣Wonder who the expert statistician is. Obviously not Gill as he's no expert. I bet Gill goes off on one that day!
There's plenty of pictures of her out on nights out and also mentions of prosecco on a wall slogan at her property if I remember rightly. She also mentioned drinking in her text messages.I wonder if she was ever a drinker. Her post-it notes look like when I'd been drunk and thought I was writing something deep and meaningful, then woke up to find something barely legible.
I wouldn’t describe her as pretty either. ‘Plain Jane’ maybe.Why are Daily Fail so invested in Lucy Letby's "innocence"... they are at it every day.
Is it because she is "pretty" (I never really thought so, personally) and middle-class? There's always an agenda with them, am curious as to what it is here.
I'm listening to Alex Davies-Jones, Justice Minister on BBC Parliament and David Davies is there.Looks like I've turned over just in time.
---
DD has just started.
Are you able to screenshot or get round the paywall please?Interesting article from a former Commissioner of the Criminal Cases Review Commission
![]()
Letby faces herculean task to win her appeal – despite new evidence
A alleged email appears to contradict evidence given at Lucy Letby’s trial. But as the convicted nurse prepares to appeal her whole-life sentences, David James Smith examines the hurdles her new barrister must now overcomewww.independent.co.uk
Sure I read Lucy's car was in for some repair work or something but don't quote me on that.I thought she had a suzuki splash, although I suppose it could have been her dad's car.
---
Apparently the silver suzuki had an NHS permit so probably was Lucy's. She may well have a lying to Dr Noname about not having a car.
I don’t think he could sue random people or the press purely based on it having been genuinely said as part of all the court proceedings and legal back and forth. Otherwise whenever there is a court case and the press report and then people comment on what is said as part of it they’d be liable to be sued. I suspect Letby’s lawyers and legal team are also protected to some extent otherwise anyone who ever had to defend anyone by using an argument blaming someone else would also be liable to be sued for it.Could there be any scope that they could be trying to goad him to do that? It would be a civil case for libel because it is recorded media I assume. If there is some legal technicality whereby Dr B didn't win, they would then crow that it proves something, which it wouldn't.
Am thinking of Depp v Heard and the previous UK case, which was Depp v The Press. The reason Depp lost the UK case is because (my understanding so could be wrong) what the judge was considering (because you don't get a jury for libel), was, was the newspaper entitled to believe that what they had been told by Amber was true and print it because that is a defence I think - if you really believe it and the court judges that a reasonable person would also believe it based on being told the same things.
I suppose I am crediting them with scheming intelligence that they may not possess.
I hope the police charge her for more soon.