@charleswhyte.bsky.social
Please look at miscarriages of justice that have been overturned. Every case needed a media campaign.
February 18, 2025 at 12:58 PM
Please look at miscarriages of justice that have been overturned. Every case needed a media campaign.
All, and I mean absolutely every, miscarriages of justice are rectified through campaigns. Do you honestly believe the post office scandal would have been uncovered without a media campaign?
February 17, 2025 at 11:26 PM
All, and I mean absolutely every, miscarriages of justice are rectified through campaigns. Do you honestly believe the post office scandal would have been uncovered without a media campaign?
And then she blocked me. She is one crazy conspiracist.
February 13, 2025 at 5:51 PM
And then she blocked me. She is one crazy conspiracist.
Always looking for conspiracies, isn't it ironic that you are now the one behaving like a conspiracist.
February 12, 2025 at 9:38 PM
Always looking for conspiracies, isn't it ironic that you are now the one behaving like a conspiracist.
Gosh, it takes some chutzpah to comment in a public forum about something of which you don’t know the basic facts. I think there’s a name for people who do that ;)
February 6, 2025 at 6:06 PM
Gosh, it takes some chutzpah to comment in a public forum about something of which you don’t know the basic facts. I think there’s a name for people who do that ;)
Missed those questions, but I heard the lead neonatologist explain the methodology in his introduction. It was a 2 hour briefing plus questions and a 40 page handout in advance of the full report due at the end of the month. The team's CVs speak volumes, this report is being taken seriously.
February 6, 2025 at 4:27 PM
Missed those questions, but I heard the lead neonatologist explain the methodology in his introduction. It was a 2 hour briefing plus questions and a 40 page handout in advance of the full report due at the end of the month. The team's CVs speak volumes, this report is being taken seriously.
They need to convince the medical experts who will be used by the CCRC to analyse this new evidence, not you. I doubt any credible clinician will question the substance of the conclusions. The case will be referred back to the CoA where the convictions will be quashed and a re-trial ordered
February 6, 2025 at 11:04 AM
They need to convince the medical experts who will be used by the CCRC to analyse this new evidence, not you. I doubt any credible clinician will question the substance of the conclusions. The case will be referred back to the CoA where the convictions will be quashed and a re-trial ordered
This must be very difficult for you given your previous reporting on the case. I feel for you; it's difficult to convince someone of the truth if they have already invested so heavily in a falsehood.
February 5, 2025 at 12:15 AM
This must be very difficult for you given your previous reporting on the case. I feel for you; it's difficult to convince someone of the truth if they have already invested so heavily in a falsehood.
"cobbled together by her defence team" you need to follow my advice and pay more attention to detail; otherwise you'll be considered a fool, and you wouldn't want that ;)
February 5, 2025 at 12:07 AM
"cobbled together by her defence team" you need to follow my advice and pay more attention to detail; otherwise you'll be considered a fool, and you wouldn't want that ;)
It wasn’t in Parliament, it was in Westminster but at a private venue, the ICE perhaps? I suggest you pay a bit more attention to detail before sharing your wisdom with us.
February 4, 2025 at 4:12 PM
It wasn’t in Parliament, it was in Westminster but at a private venue, the ICE perhaps? I suggest you pay a bit more attention to detail before sharing your wisdom with us.
Fascinating article, thank you. I look forward to the press conference. More and more expert analysis coming to light; such a pity that none of it was unearthed by the police prior to the trial.
February 3, 2025 at 7:35 PM
Fascinating article, thank you. I look forward to the press conference. More and more expert analysis coming to light; such a pity that none of it was unearthed by the police prior to the trial.
Fascinating. I wonder why real experts: tier 3 neonatologists, ex-presidents of RCPCH and Royal Statistical Society - who are better qualified than any of the prosecution witnesses - don't accept your point of view, and are prepared to make public statements questioning the safety of the verdict?
January 15, 2025 at 10:18 PM
Fascinating. I wonder why real experts: tier 3 neonatologists, ex-presidents of RCPCH and Royal Statistical Society - who are better qualified than any of the prosecution witnesses - don't accept your point of view, and are prepared to make public statements questioning the safety of the verdict?
Fascinating, thanks for sharing. An interesting counter point to all of the expert evidence questioning the safety of the convictions. Do you think they have heard this?
January 15, 2025 at 8:39 PM
Fascinating, thanks for sharing. An interesting counter point to all of the expert evidence questioning the safety of the convictions. Do you think they have heard this?
Prof Spiegelhalter's point was that statistics SHOULD have been part of the case. Not an expert but understand the argument is: the deaths in themselves don't imply foul play, there's no evidence to indicate Letby murdered anyone, and there are more likely hypotheses for the deaths.
January 15, 2025 at 6:13 PM
Prof Spiegelhalter's point was that statistics SHOULD have been part of the case. Not an expert but understand the argument is: the deaths in themselves don't imply foul play, there's no evidence to indicate Letby murdered anyone, and there are more likely hypotheses for the deaths.
His key message was that we should expect the "spike" seen at CoCH to occur at a UK Unit by chance 1-3 times at year.
January 15, 2025 at 4:29 PM
His key message was that we should expect the "spike" seen at CoCH to occur at a UK Unit by chance 1-3 times at year.
That surprises me. I can't imagine any scientist without bias asserting in a public forum that there was certainty in the safety of the verdict. Can you name any of them please?
January 13, 2025 at 7:30 AM
That surprises me. I can't imagine any scientist without bias asserting in a public forum that there was certainty in the safety of the verdict. Can you name any of them please?
Given the expert commentary expressing doubt, I can't imagine any scientist worthy of the title and without bias would assert in a public forum that there was certainty in the safety of the verdict.
January 12, 2025 at 11:16 PM
Given the expert commentary expressing doubt, I can't imagine any scientist worthy of the title and without bias would assert in a public forum that there was certainty in the safety of the verdict.
That’s fascinating. Who are the experts who are currently saying that she is guilty?
January 12, 2025 at 9:47 PM
That’s fascinating. Who are the experts who are currently saying that she is guilty?
One of the reasons this case is getting so much attention is that the questioning is from the mainstream, not contrarians. People are listening to real experts: tier 3 neonatologists, Ex-Pres of RCPCH and Royal Stats Soc, and making comparisons with the lead expert witness for the prosecution.
January 11, 2025 at 3:52 PM
One of the reasons this case is getting so much attention is that the questioning is from the mainstream, not contrarians. People are listening to real experts: tier 3 neonatologists, Ex-Pres of RCPCH and Royal Stats Soc, and making comparisons with the lead expert witness for the prosecution.
The irony is she deploys the same tactics as the conspiracists she decries: pick an element of truth and inflate it, whilst ignoring the myriad of factual evidence.
January 9, 2025 at 10:37 PM
The irony is she deploys the same tactics as the conspiracists she decries: pick an element of truth and inflate it, whilst ignoring the myriad of factual evidence.