top of page
Search

Why were we edited out of Channel 5’s Lucy Letby documentary? Were we cancelled due to our political views?

Updated: Aug 8

Tonight Channel 5 screened a documentary which looked critically at the evidence in the case of nurse Lucy Letby, who was convicted of seven murders and seven attempted murders of babies at the Countess of Chester Hospital intensive care unit during 2015-16.


While many have raised concerns about the evidence following her most recent conviction on 2 July 2024, my colleague Scott McLachlan (along with statistician Richard Gill) was raising legitimate concerns about the case well before Lucy’s first trial ended in August 2023. At that time nobody else was raising such concerns. An interview I did with Scott shortly after the first conviction was watched by over a million people on twitter, youtube and rumble. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k12f_VFCbtI


Scott is a Lecturer in Digital Technologies for Health at Kings College London in the Division of Digital Health and Applied Technology Assessment within the Faculty of Nursing, Midwifery & Palliative Care. In addition to his PhD in computer science he has extensive training in law and nursing and has a forensic knowledge of the case. Qualifications that speak for themselves.


My own interest in the case focuses on the ‘probability of coincidences and clusters’; it was the ‘too many deaths occurring when Lucy was on duty for it to be a coincidence’ narrative that was a major driver of the case against her. Using Bayesian probability analysis, I had previously written about how such clusters of deaths are likely to occur without any malpractice and had provided such evidence to support the case for appeal in a similar case (Ben Geen).


When the company making the documentary for Channel 5 approached Scott and me to be interviewed for it we were happy to oblige. It was agreed filming would take place in my house. A crew came and filming lasted all day. Here Scott is being prepared for his interview.



At that point the documentary producers were very happy with our interviews.


However, on 2 August Scott and I got phone calls informing us that, because of some of our views expressed on X (twitter), they were cutting our interviews from the documentary. Views which had nothing to do with the Lucy Letby case and our investigation of it. No specific examples were given.


What is more important in a documentary whose strapline was “Unpacking and questioning the evidence used to convict neonatal nurse Lucy Letby”? That our investigation, prescient and hitherto considered crucial enough to include, is heard, or omitted due to what can only be described as the chilling vagaries of cancel culture? One of our chief concerns surrounding Lucy’s trial is that evidence that should have been heard, was not, potentially leading to a miscarriage of justice. It is ironic therefore, that the makers of this documentary have sought to do the same. It illustrates just how pernicious cancel culture has become.


In my phone call, I said I hoped they would reinstate our interviews, as it is vital that all the concerns about Lucy’s trial be heard. If they did not, I was prepared to write about it publicly and so I am. It goes without saying, Scott and I would be happy to help in any way we can to see that justice is eventually done.


For anybody who wants an idea of the material Scott provided, and which was edited out of the documentary, here is an interview I did with him while the crew were setting up their equipment:

 








12,407 views18 comments

18 commenti


Ospite
08 ago

I'm not involved - I don't particularly care in the sense that I'm disinterested, and I haven't read the trial papers. Nevertheless, inost basic respects the ACTUAL EVIDENCE against Ms Letby isn't just circumstantial ( aka without foundation) but relies on correlating her presence with a determination to prove her guilt at the expense of any potential "other" possibilities for cause of death.

Mi piace

Ospite
07 ago

Fortunately I follow you on Youtube so saw your interview there. The problem with the evidence is exactly the same in nature as the problem with Covid tests (and it might be your Covid work that's caused the issue). People think heuristically and not in terms of probability. If it 'sounds' convincing then it will convince but if you actually calculate it and get to understand the base rates which, in terms of the probability of there being a serial killer of babies on the ward v the probability of there being billions of bacteria harmful to very premature babies on the ward are so one-sided in favour of the bacteria, then what seems likely suddenly becomes not nearly so…

Mi piace

Ospite
07 ago

I wonder if there are some interesting statistics for miscarriages of justice that occurred when there was no crime committed by anyone...

I'm not maths man so my investigation is crude, but I went through https://evidencebasedjustice.exeter.ac.uk/ to identify Miscarriages of Justice in the UK since 1996 where, upon appeal, no crime was found to have been committed.

I skipped a few sexual abuse cases as maybe contentious, and I might be SharpShooting, but out of the 16 cases I reviewed where there had actually been no crime committed, ALL BUT ONE crimes were 'invented' by bad medical testimony.

Fifteen cases went to court and an innocent was jailed when there wasn't even any crime committed, by anyone. All thanks to medical…


Mi piace
Ospite
07 ago
Risposta a

Certainly in one case no crime was proved to have been committed, but it was done. There is a difference between justice and truth.

Mi piace

Ospite
06 ago

I totally agree. I never thought the evidence Lucy stood up. Just one big cover up to shield those in high places. And why conceal defence evidence. Well you don’t have to think too hard. A disgrace from hospital Legal Defence to So Called unbiased Judge!

Mi piace

Ospite
06 ago

TheLetby case has all the hallmarks of a cover-up at pretty high level. Half-witted health ministers will always, like Caiaphas, prefer to let "one [wo]man die for the people" rather than admit that they cannot get a grip of a sprawling organisation. All we can do is hope to live long enough to see the deep state, WEF, WHO exposed and hope that the sheeple wake up. However with Starmer intent on wrecking what is left of the country, and now talking in terms of 6,000 specially trained riot police and suppression of "far right" social media that's starting to look like a 33/1 shot.

If Tommy Robinson had the political brains of a rabbit he would see that the…

Mi piace
bottom of page