![LucyLetbyTrials's tweet photo. At Lucy Letby's trial, the prosecution repeatedly called her a liar and a gaslighter – on one occasion, for speculating that a baby had died of sepsis.
You know who agreed with Letby? Dr Stephen Brearey, one of her accusers. You know who didn't get to hear about this?
The jury.
In June 2015, over the span of two weeks, three babies died on the neonatal unit where Letby worked.
It was a great shock to everyone, with nurses and doctors alike exchanging thoughts on how this could have happened.
In text messages shown in court, Letby and a fellow nurse discussed the babies' possible causes of death.
Baby D, Letby speculated, had died of sepsis.
This, according to the prosecutor, was a prime example of Letby "gaslighting" her colleagues.
"Well, we know [Baby D] wasn't septic," prosecutor Nick Johnson said.
This was nonsense. Johnson did not "know" that Baby D "wasn't septic." The baby's own post-mortem, which found that she'd died of "pneumonia with acute lung injury" (the doctors had no idea she had pneumonia!) took pains to explain why sepsis couldn't be ruled out.
And Letby's opinion – that Baby D died of sepsis – was shared by none other than the head of the neonatal unit, Dr Stephen Brearey.
Dr Brearey was the man ultimately responsible for the medical care of these babies.
Dr Brearey was the man who first accused Letby of murder. (His suspicions, he would later tell reporters, began when he noticed that Letby was on duty for all three babies' deaths – never mind that he turned out to be wrong about her being the only nurse on duty for all three deaths.)
Dr Brearey was the man found guilty – alongside his colleague, Dr Ravi Jayaram – of bullying and harassing Letby. (The jury likewise never got to hear about this.)
And Dr Brearey was the man who, on the day Baby D died, emailed Dr Jayaram to say, "it appears that neonatal GBS sepsis following prolonged rupture of membranes is the most likely cause for death" for Baby D.
"She was symptomatic from 12 min of age," he wrote, in a follow up email to the rest of the medical team, referring to how Baby D had gone pale and floppy in her father's arms.
Did prosecutor Nick Johnson call Dr Brearey a gaslighter?
Of course not.
The jury never saw these emails.
They only emerged a year after the trial, as part of the public inquiry into the Letby case.
By then, Letby had already been convicted of murdering Baby D.](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/HIFUUBDW4AAbfBo.jpg)
![LucyLetbyTrials's tweet photo. At Lucy Letby's trial, the prosecution repeatedly called her a liar and a gaslighter – on one occasion, for speculating that a baby had died of sepsis.
You know who agreed with Letby? Dr Stephen Brearey, one of her accusers. You know who didn't get to hear about this?
The jury.
In June 2015, over the span of two weeks, three babies died on the neonatal unit where Letby worked.
It was a great shock to everyone, with nurses and doctors alike exchanging thoughts on how this could have happened.
In text messages shown in court, Letby and a fellow nurse discussed the babies' possible causes of death.
Baby D, Letby speculated, had died of sepsis.
This, according to the prosecutor, was a prime example of Letby "gaslighting" her colleagues.
"Well, we know [Baby D] wasn't septic," prosecutor Nick Johnson said.
This was nonsense. Johnson did not "know" that Baby D "wasn't septic." The baby's own post-mortem, which found that she'd died of "pneumonia with acute lung injury" (the doctors had no idea she had pneumonia!) took pains to explain why sepsis couldn't be ruled out.
And Letby's opinion – that Baby D died of sepsis – was shared by none other than the head of the neonatal unit, Dr Stephen Brearey.
Dr Brearey was the man ultimately responsible for the medical care of these babies.
Dr Brearey was the man who first accused Letby of murder. (His suspicions, he would later tell reporters, began when he noticed that Letby was on duty for all three babies' deaths – never mind that he turned out to be wrong about her being the only nurse on duty for all three deaths.)
Dr Brearey was the man found guilty – alongside his colleague, Dr Ravi Jayaram – of bullying and harassing Letby. (The jury likewise never got to hear about this.)
And Dr Brearey was the man who, on the day Baby D died, emailed Dr Jayaram to say, "it appears that neonatal GBS sepsis following prolonged rupture of membranes is the most likely cause for death" for Baby D.
"She was symptomatic from 12 min of age," he wrote, in a follow up email to the rest of the medical team, referring to how Baby D had gone pale and floppy in her father's arms.
Did prosecutor Nick Johnson call Dr Brearey a gaslighter?
Of course not.
The jury never saw these emails.
They only emerged a year after the trial, as part of the public inquiry into the Letby case.
By then, Letby had already been convicted of murdering Baby D.](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/HIFUUBDWsAAiXIi.jpg)
![LucyLetbyTrials's tweet photo. At Lucy Letby's trial, the prosecution repeatedly called her a liar and a gaslighter – on one occasion, for speculating that a baby had died of sepsis.
You know who agreed with Letby? Dr Stephen Brearey, one of her accusers. You know who didn't get to hear about this?
The jury.
In June 2015, over the span of two weeks, three babies died on the neonatal unit where Letby worked.
It was a great shock to everyone, with nurses and doctors alike exchanging thoughts on how this could have happened.
In text messages shown in court, Letby and a fellow nurse discussed the babies' possible causes of death.
Baby D, Letby speculated, had died of sepsis.
This, according to the prosecutor, was a prime example of Letby "gaslighting" her colleagues.
"Well, we know [Baby D] wasn't septic," prosecutor Nick Johnson said.
This was nonsense. Johnson did not "know" that Baby D "wasn't septic." The baby's own post-mortem, which found that she'd died of "pneumonia with acute lung injury" (the doctors had no idea she had pneumonia!) took pains to explain why sepsis couldn't be ruled out.
And Letby's opinion – that Baby D died of sepsis – was shared by none other than the head of the neonatal unit, Dr Stephen Brearey.
Dr Brearey was the man ultimately responsible for the medical care of these babies.
Dr Brearey was the man who first accused Letby of murder. (His suspicions, he would later tell reporters, began when he noticed that Letby was on duty for all three babies' deaths – never mind that he turned out to be wrong about her being the only nurse on duty for all three deaths.)
Dr Brearey was the man found guilty – alongside his colleague, Dr Ravi Jayaram – of bullying and harassing Letby. (The jury likewise never got to hear about this.)
And Dr Brearey was the man who, on the day Baby D died, emailed Dr Jayaram to say, "it appears that neonatal GBS sepsis following prolonged rupture of membranes is the most likely cause for death" for Baby D.
"She was symptomatic from 12 min of age," he wrote, in a follow up email to the rest of the medical team, referring to how Baby D had gone pale and floppy in her father's arms.
Did prosecutor Nick Johnson call Dr Brearey a gaslighter?
Of course not.
The jury never saw these emails.
They only emerged a year after the trial, as part of the public inquiry into the Letby case.
By then, Letby had already been convicted of murdering Baby D.](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/HIFUUBBWMAAtJzV.png)
Olivia
Online
Rob
@RobGavi
Is the solution a better understanding of narcissism and the removal and prevention of such people from positions of power?
UK
Joined March 2026
148 Following
59 Followers
760 Posts
@Graeme_McGarry The manager was a negative shitebag and subsequently so were the team. Absolute embarrassment.
@PolitlcsUK @Telegraph Quelle surpris. Mandelson's a long standing mate of Putin's chum Oleg Deripaska. (Remember the scandalous yacht trip)
Via Deripaska, Mandelson tried to pull favours to secure a visa for Epstein to travel to Moscow
Scratching the surface with Mandelson and his dodgyness
The sitting president of the United States had to pay $5 million to a woman he raped and defamed, and not one person in his entire cult of a party is calling for his resignation.
Not one.
REVENGE IS SWEET: 👌👏✊🤭🤣
Wigan farmer dumps 400 tyres back on fly-tipper’s doorstep, Stuart Baldwin had been hit by fly-tippers 25 times in a year on his Wigan farm.
The latest scumbag dumped 400 tyres.
Stuart set up CCTV, caught him red-handed, then loaded every tyre up and dumped the whole pile straight on the culprit’s own doorstep.
Absolute legend.
Who else is cheering this on? ✊🇬🇧
At Lucy Letby's trial, the prosecution repeatedly called her a liar and a gaslighter – on one occasion, for speculating that a baby had died of sepsis.
You know who agreed with Letby? Dr Stephen Brearey, one of her accusers. You know who didn't get to hear about this?
The jury.
In June 2015, over the span of two weeks, three babies died on the neonatal unit where Letby worked.
It was a great shock to everyone, with nurses and doctors alike exchanging thoughts on how this could have happened.
In text messages shown in court, Letby and a fellow nurse discussed the babies' possible causes of death.
Baby D, Letby speculated, had died of sepsis.
This, according to the prosecutor, was a prime example of Letby "gaslighting" her colleagues.
"Well, we know [Baby D] wasn't septic," prosecutor Nick Johnson said.
This was nonsense. Johnson did not "know" that Baby D "wasn't septic." The baby's own post-mortem, which found that she'd died of "pneumonia with acute lung injury" (the doctors had no idea she had pneumonia!) took pains to explain why sepsis couldn't be ruled out.
And Letby's opinion – that Baby D died of sepsis – was shared by none other than the head of the neonatal unit, Dr Stephen Brearey.
Dr Brearey was the man ultimately responsible for the medical care of these babies.
Dr Brearey was the man who first accused Letby of murder. (His suspicions, he would later tell reporters, began when he noticed that Letby was on duty for all three babies' deaths – never mind that he turned out to be wrong about her being the only nurse on duty for all three deaths.)
Dr Brearey was the man found guilty – alongside his colleague, Dr Ravi Jayaram – of bullying and harassing Letby. (The jury likewise never got to hear about this.)
And Dr Brearey was the man who, on the day Baby D died, emailed Dr Jayaram to say, "it appears that neonatal GBS sepsis following prolonged rupture of membranes is the most likely cause for death" for Baby D.
"She was symptomatic from 12 min of age," he wrote, in a follow up email to the rest of the medical team, referring to how Baby D had gone pale and floppy in her father's arms.
Did prosecutor Nick Johnson call Dr Brearey a gaslighter?
Of course not.
The jury never saw these emails.
They only emerged a year after the trial, as part of the public inquiry into the Letby case.
By then, Letby had already been convicted of murdering Baby D.
![LucyLetbyTrials's tweet photo. At Lucy Letby's trial, the prosecution repeatedly called her a liar and a gaslighter – on one occasion, for speculating that a baby had died of sepsis.
You know who agreed with Letby? Dr Stephen Brearey, one of her accusers. You know who didn't get to hear about this?
The jury.
In June 2015, over the span of two weeks, three babies died on the neonatal unit where Letby worked.
It was a great shock to everyone, with nurses and doctors alike exchanging thoughts on how this could have happened.
In text messages shown in court, Letby and a fellow nurse discussed the babies' possible causes of death.
Baby D, Letby speculated, had died of sepsis.
This, according to the prosecutor, was a prime example of Letby "gaslighting" her colleagues.
"Well, we know [Baby D] wasn't septic," prosecutor Nick Johnson said.
This was nonsense. Johnson did not "know" that Baby D "wasn't septic." The baby's own post-mortem, which found that she'd died of "pneumonia with acute lung injury" (the doctors had no idea she had pneumonia!) took pains to explain why sepsis couldn't be ruled out.
And Letby's opinion – that Baby D died of sepsis – was shared by none other than the head of the neonatal unit, Dr Stephen Brearey.
Dr Brearey was the man ultimately responsible for the medical care of these babies.
Dr Brearey was the man who first accused Letby of murder. (His suspicions, he would later tell reporters, began when he noticed that Letby was on duty for all three babies' deaths – never mind that he turned out to be wrong about her being the only nurse on duty for all three deaths.)
Dr Brearey was the man found guilty – alongside his colleague, Dr Ravi Jayaram – of bullying and harassing Letby. (The jury likewise never got to hear about this.)
And Dr Brearey was the man who, on the day Baby D died, emailed Dr Jayaram to say, "it appears that neonatal GBS sepsis following prolonged rupture of membranes is the most likely cause for death" for Baby D.
"She was symptomatic from 12 min of age," he wrote, in a follow up email to the rest of the medical team, referring to how Baby D had gone pale and floppy in her father's arms.
Did prosecutor Nick Johnson call Dr Brearey a gaslighter?
Of course not.
The jury never saw these emails.
They only emerged a year after the trial, as part of the public inquiry into the Letby case.
By then, Letby had already been convicted of murdering Baby D.](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/HIFUUBEXQAANo1B.png)
I can't with these videos of Russians standing in fuel lines whining, "But why are they bombing us? What did we doooooo?"
You invaded a sovereign state. You destroyed the peaceful lives of 40 million people. You leveled our towns and cities. Your scorched-earth bombings turned a once-blooming land into a wasteland visible from space. Most importantly, you are actively killing us right now, and you dare to ask that question?
Life is a boomerang, babe. What karma fails to deliver, our armed forces will. Unless you all pack up and go home.
Why did Cheshire Police use public funds to pay a media-management and influencer firm during the Lucy Letby trial?
£23,850 sent to a company owned by Caroline Broster, co-host of the Daily Mail's "The Trial of Lucy Letby" podcast...
I wonder why.
https://t.co/uOpvdJNMZ0
I think many people disengage when it is suggested that what happened to Lucy Letby was, in fact, a witch hunt. They often find the term emotionally charged and fail to recognise that, historically, witch hunts were not merely the actions of angry mobs. In Britain, many were conducted through official judicial processes and carried out under the authority of the state. As a result, people frequently mistake collective persecution for a legitimate pursuit of accountability. Yet there is a fundamental difference between holding someone accountable for crimes they have demonstrably committed and subjecting them to a witch hunt.
Witch hunts have several defining characteristics that distinguish them from genuine accountability processes. One of the most important is the treatment of evidence. Accountability requires careful examination of clear, contemporaneous evidence. Witch hunts, by contrast, often rely on feelings, assumptions, suggestions, speculation, and retrospective reinterpretations of events designed to support a predetermined narrative. The distinction is clearly identifiable through historical analysis. Looking back at documented cases allows us to see the difference between evidence-led investigations and campaigns driven by social, institutional, or political pressures.
In the Letby case, as in many instances involving genuine whistleblowers (while recognising that not everyone who claims whistleblower status genuinely is one), the documented records, to which I have had access within my capacity as instructed expert by Letby’s new legal team, clearly shows that the Letby prosecution was a clear cut example of a witch hunt.
Witch hunts never disappeared - they have just been re-branded. They are rooted in patterns of human behaviour that are as old as biblical times. Religious texts, including accounts surrounding the trial and execution of Jesus, contain stories of examples of identical dynamics. Such phenomena have likely existed for as long as human societies have existed.
What has changed is their form. Modern witch hunts are rarely labelled as such. They are often rebranded as moral crusades, safeguarding exercises, or accountability campaigns. Yet the underlying dynamics remain the same. While they no longer typically end with public executions, they can and do result in the destruction of reputations, careers, livelihoods, and sometimes even personal liberty. In many cases, the process itself becomes the punishment, regardless of whether the accusations are ultimately proven.
@MartynPitman @drphilhammond @PrivateEyeNews @drcmday @NadimHCr @NadineDorries @ArturNadol7566 @peter__duffy @ClarkeMicah @LucyGoBag @JusticeGap @LucyLetbyTrials @ClarkeMicah @PeterElston1 @Seagreen2707 @RexvsLucyLetby @hannahsbee @Michelehal7344 @MichelleWelshMP @DavidRoseUK
This is Tony Blair’s house.
The architect of ‘rubbing our noses in diversity’, and consequential rape/murder of our so many women and children.
He is presently working on our digital ID with Larry Ellison.
Nice house, for a politician, isn’t it.
“Cruelty, negligence, and a profound lack of accountability” is the best way I can describe what the experience of many I have spoken to - including myself - working in the NHS has become in recent years.
For those of us who have spent more than a quarter of a century studying, training, and working within the NHS, coming to terms with its current state brings a complex form of grief. It is not simply disappointment or frustration - mourning is the correct term to describe it. The NHS has always had flaws, but it genuinely was never this bad before.
My involvement in the Letby case has accelerated my gradually worsening loss of faith. I did not choose to speak up about the Letby case naively. Over many years, I have supported people raising concerns about patient safety and have witnessed first-hand the familiar patterns of whistleblower retaliation, scapegoating, and institutional self-preservation. I thought I knew what both individuals and institutions were capable of.
As an instructed expert, I examined the full medical records for all of the babies involved. I subsequently reviewed the medical expert reports and all communications that preceded what can only be described as the persecution of Letby prior to her prosecution. That direct exposure - both to the clinical material and to the institutional correspondence - fundamentally shifted my perspective from a belief that “we can still make this better” to the more unsettling fact that “it is over, isn’t it”.
I have never before seen an example in which not only multiple individuals but also multiple institutions - those meant to safeguard truth, justice, and patient safety - converged in a way that actively enabled a profound miscarriage of justice. What makes it even more disturbing is that some individuals within those systems appeared to recognise that something was deeply wrong, yet the institutions themselves proved unable - or unwilling - to intervene.
Being involved as an instructed medical expert in the Letby case has profoundly altered me, both as a doctor and as a human being. It has shattered the faith I once held in the capacity of most individuals and systems to self-correct when faced with obvious evidence they have made mistakes.
For the first time in my professional life, I no longer believe the NHS is capable of meaningful reform from within. I now find myself instead observing its gradual implosion - which now is I think inevitable - with deep sorrow, hoping that enough wise and compassionate people survive whatever follows, so that they may help rebuild something from the wreckage.
https://t.co/p5MJYbAv2k
@drphilhammond @PrivateEyeNews @NadineDorries @ClarkeMicah @sarahknapton @ShaunLintern @DOckendenLtd @hannahsbee @LucyLetbyTrials @Michelehal7344 @PeterElston1 @Voice4theDead @DavidDavisMP @DavidRoseUK @FelicityLa76731 @guardian @SkyNews @C4Faye @Channel4News @channel5_tv @BBCNews @alisonleary1 @theJeremyVine @Jeremy_Hunt @wesstreeting
@JamesMelville And even with Daglish they were shit. Same negativity, same Scotland, same shit results, decades later.
@joebloggsuk1 Clarke is a typical defeatist cunt and managed to instil this into his players who subsequently played like the terrified donkeys he insisted they play like, as is the Scottish football tradition. From a team who recently showed they were capable of defeating Spain…🤦🏻♂️🤦🏻♂️
@BeakerWink60774 @JamesMelville He’s a traditionalist. He is a negative, defeatist cunt who’s greatest success was to encourage negative and defeastist fear into his players and to get them playing like terrified donkeys as is the Scottish tradition in tournaments.
@JamesMelville They deserve what they deserve. They played like terrified donkeys and potentially qualifying under a new and weird FIFA rule tweak to play like terrified donkeys once again is something I’d much prefer didn’t happen.
@thomsonchris Sadly too many people in Scotland were too scared to vote for their own independence, a little bit like the national football team, too scared to play football at the World Cup.
At least the English commentary isn’t as defeatist as the Scottish commentary from ex-players 🤦🏻♂️
@JamesMelville I’m hoping they don’t go through to the next round because they just don’t deserve to and will only humiliate the nation once again by playing like terrified donkeys if they do.
@celtic_jaime They don’t deserve to progress, their mentality has been abysmal and to be honest I’d rather not see them progress to just get battered senseless again. Complete waste of time.
@JamesMelville It’s the mentality that’s the fundamental problem. It’s been the same mentality at every single tournament. It’s also the same mentality that makes many afraid of independence. Scotland the brave? More like Scotland the complete shitebags. Embarrassing!
Last Seen Users on Sotwe
ali yılmaz
Seen from Turkey
Deniz
Seen from Turkey
土豆炖豆角
Seen from Vietnam
ชายเดี่ยว32หาประสบการณ์ครับ พร้อม support คู่
Seen from Thailand
İbo
Seen from Egypt
Valerie🦋May
Seen from United States
hunghunks4u
Seen from United Kingdom
Weans
Seen from Thailand
سيمو الرايق
Seen from Turkey
Juragan Kambing
Seen from Singapore
Most Popular Users
Elon Musk 
@elonmusk
240.7M followers
Barack Obama
@barackobama
119.2M followers
Donald J. Trump
@realdonaldtrump
111.7M followers
Cristiano Ronaldo
@cristiano
110.8M followers
Narendra Modi
@narendramodi
107M followers
Rihanna
@rihanna
97.7M followers
NASA
@nasa
92.2M followers
Justin Bieber
@justinbieber
90.9M followers
KATY PERRY
@katyperry
87.8M followers
Taylor Swift
@taylorswift13
81.6M followers
Lady Gaga
@ladygaga
73.1M followers
Virat Kohli
@imvkohli
70.1M followers
Kim Kardashian
@kimkardashian
69.8M followers
YouTube
@youtube
68.7M followers
Bill Gates
@billgates
64M followers
Neymar Jr
@neymarjr
62.8M followers
The Ellen Show
@theellenshow
62.4M followers
CNN
@cnn
61.9M followers
Selena Gomez
@selenagomez
60.9M followers
X
@x
60.8M followers