Ron Winter

[Old-Newspaper125 @OldNewspaper125]

A potentially innocent nurse, who if innocent had dedicated her career to saving lives, is watching her own waste away (2,040 days)

Some of the most respected experts say there was no crimes

How long does it take UK justice to review?
https://t.co/pX37vrBMkx

[Allison Pearson @AllisonPearson]

Huge credit to Peter Hitchens who was a lone voice championing the very unfashionable cause of Lucy Letby.
Experts are pretty clear that a very poor maternity unit was responsible for the deaths of babies LL is supposed to have killed.
The case must be urgently reopened.
@ClarkeMicah

[WilliamHallett @William26139338]

@guyrowlanduk A killer nurse cluster is astronomically unlikely. Neighbouring police forces consult each other, and passed on what Richard Dawkins called a ‘meme’. Unforensic hospital tests and bodged statistical analyses together misled. There is no medical evidence of foul play by Lucy Letby

[Ron Winter @RonWinter6]

.@MattRodda. Did you speak up about Andy Malkinson? No? It is time to do to the right thing and speak up about #Lucyletby. Don't leave it too late.

[maggiemay @maggiem67582865]

@guyrowlanduk Will lessons be learned at the CCRC ? We await the Lucy Letby decision to find out.

[Peter Hayes @peternhayes]

Richard Horrocks is right: Lucy Letby's case is about human rights not race. Please MPs, speak up for justice! Your silence only encourages this stuff to take hold. Experts like Prof Shoo Lee, Neena Modi, and Jane Hutton have played their part, play yours!

[Dr Svilena Dimitrova @NeoDoc11]

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

[Ron Winter @RonWinter6]

From what we've been told about Jesus it seems likely that he would have taken the time to dig into the Letby case and would hv concluded that a disastrous MoJ had occurred. I think he would have spoken out to put right this obvious wrong. Archbishop Sarah should do the same.

[Thameside @Sunnanbyrg]

It's a funny one isn't it

She had every right, given her role as a bishop, to publicly lament the crimes that she believed had been committed

But that was easy

Politicians were falling over themselves to do the same

Now that she is aware that crimes probably weren't committed, any moral leadership she wishes to demonstrate is equally important

But so very much harder....!

She won't want to upset people in authority

That's the problem with leadership
=> You only know someone has it when they take a stand that's uncomfortable...

[Ron Winter @RonWinter6]

. @MattRodda @Keir_Starmer . Come on guys. Your party is supposed to ensure that the weak are not unfairly exploited by the strong. It's time you made the effort to dig into the #Lucyletby case.

[Mary @marydsmyth]

No one is in a better position than YOU @Keir_Starmer to fully understand what has gone wrong in Lucy Letby case and to DO something about it.
You've done NOTHING.
You are weak and ineffective regarding this shambolic UK miscarriage of justice, totally deaf to expert opinion.

[Ron Winter @RonWinter6]

@hairyairey Sorry John my comment was just a lazy cut and paste from yr post! Thank you very much for your thoughts and insights into this matter.

[Ron Winter @RonWinter6]

Could Professor Hindmarsh's ideas about insulin adsorption and how it might behave in this situation cd be confirmed or refuted experimentally?

[Jabe @JabesAllowed]

In the case of Baby L, Lucy Letby went off shift at 8pm on 9th April and was off duty for several days.

Yet Baby L's hypoglycaemic episode continued all through the next day, until the afternoon of the day after that! Lucy Letby did not return to work during this period.

The prosecution alleged that on 9th April Lucy Letby poisoned his dextrose bags with insulin, yet within hours of her going off duty his dextrose bag was replaced with a new one, and a second one 24 hours after that.

Here is how Professor Hindmarsh explained what might have happened:
Hindmarsh: "The giving sets are plastic and insulin is a protein and it sticks very nicely to plastic. So in your giving set as well you would have insulin stuck potentially on to the walls of the tubing from which it could fall off over a period of time as well."

(The giving set is the tubing set that connects an infusion bag with the catheter or long line. With dextrose, it doesn't have to be changed with every bag change.)

In cross-examination, Hindmarsh admitted that he didn't actually know how sticky insulin might operate:
Myers: "Is it the case that sticky insulin could be operative over a certain period potentially?"
Hindmarsh: "I don't think anybody's actually done those kind of studies, to be honest, and I think the answer is we simply don't know."

It's also worth pointing out that it wasn't known whether the giving set was actually changed when the new dextrose bags were put up. There was contradictory testimony about it.
Hindmarsh: And do we also take it as a given that when they're doing that procedure, the whole giving system is changed as well?
NJ: No.
Hindmarsh: We don't know?
NJ: No.
Hindmarsh: Right.

Nevertheless Nick Johnson settled on this theory as being the explanation for the continuing hypoglycaemia. From his closing speech:
"We had some evidence about whether giving sets are changed and whether they're not changed; but as Professor Hindmarsh explained to us, an explanation, and a reasonable explanation for these results, is that there was insulin that had stuck to the plastic of the giving set. That even though the bag was changed for bags that didn't have insulin in, the insulin was still coming off the giving set, and therefore in ever-diminishing quantities; but it was still affecting the blood sugar results. So the fact that Lucy Letby wasn't there after about 8pm, we suggest, doesn't exculpate her at all."

I find it unbelievable that Lucy Letby was convicted based on this highly speculative, unresearched expert evidence from Professor Hindmarsh. He clearly doesn't know anything about insulin adsorption and how it might behave in this situation - it's not within his field of expertise. Yet his expert testimony on this was accepted by the court.

I've been looking into this and can say that he (and Nick Johnson) got this completely wrong!

I will post more about it later this week.

[Ron Winter @RonWinter6]

@mervynpervyn Yes. A novel, submitted for publication, which included this story as a sub-plot, would be rejected as implausible.

[Mervyn @mervynpervyn]

If you believe Lucy Letby is guilty, you literally need to believe this story.

[Ron Winter @RonWinter6]

@peternhayes @katenldn Sarrita is still active and still fighting against injustice.

[Ron Winter @RonWinter6]

.@MattRodda. I voted for you to become my MP and I voted Labour in the recent local elections. I vote Labour because I believed they put basic decency and fairness above self interest. Please read Peter's letter below. Please do the decent thing for Lucy and for British justice.

[Peter Hayes @peternhayes]

Hi @justinmadders, @RachaelMaskell, @Alison_McGovern, Dame @DianaJohnsonMP, and Sir @MarkTamiMP
I wrote two weeks ago to ask to you to speak up for justice for Lucy Letby, I haven’t yet got a reply, so am trying again on Twitter.
Best Wishes
Peter Hayes

[Robert Goudie @rob_goudie]

The only reason Johnson KC spent so much time rubbishing Letby's character is that he knew he had no direct forensic evidence to put before the jury.

Even then, his explanation as to how Letby allegedly administered the non-forensically tested insulin that was central to her convictions contained an innate contradiction:

In one instance Johnson claimed Letby must have been the administrator because tampering would have left visible damage to the TPN overwrap; in the other, he had Letby pre-spiking dextrose bags to explain poisoning that occurred when she wasn't even present. But in terms of his own explanation, nursing staff who hung spiked bags when Letby was off duty should have spotted damage to multiple overwraps - so not only discarded those bags but likely also escalated multiple overwrap damage as a specific concern.

That didn't happen because no overwrap bags were damaged!

[David Kurten @davidkurten]

It is now overwhelmingly clear that Lucy Letby was maliciously set up and evidence that would have proven she is completely innocent was withheld from the jury.
This gross injustice should be overturned immediately.
#FreeLucy

[Ron Winter @RonWinter6]

@gill1109 @markjurgenmayes Well done sir!

[Ron Winter @RonWinter6]

@RichardHor54460 @Emilyjbronte @LucyLetbyTrials @Thirlwall_Inq Very good!

[Miscarriages Of Justice @UKinjustice2025]

@noBWrexit @mellycatslave @longi1974 @BigTed360 @sergeantdixie She is factually innocent and that is the truth. Legally guilty means nothing when the trial was flawed and the conviction swere wrong.

So I will repeat it.

#LucyLetby is innocent

[Ron Winter @RonWinter6]

@RichardHor54460 @LucyLetbyTrials Yes it's obvious that one day she will be released and that the cruelty of the state is compounded by every additional day she remains behind bars. Our sons and daughters will look back on this as a dark episode in our history.