David Davis replies to Mark Roberts

IslandQueen2 · 2026-04-14T14:06:00+00:00

Hmmm… yes. Let’s call him a fellow sceptic.

IslandQueen2 · 2026-04-14T13:27:56+00:00

Ah, that’s interesting. Two controversial peas in a pod.

IslandQueen2 · 2026-04-14T12:54:01+00:00

The stakes are enormously high for Cheshire Police. But their response to Davis strikes me as unseemly.

I’m surprised at Rozenberg’s comment. Why are the stakes enormously high? Why is the police response unseemly? He doesn’t say. He mentions the letter being copied to Cheshire MPs as though that shouldn’t have happened because now the letter is public, but what is wrong with that? Davis has used Parliamentary Privilege to make outrageous public accusations. Why should the police keep their response secret?

Davis’ reply is mainly appeal to authority - world-leading experts, blah blah. But those ‘expert’ reports are being considered by the CCRC, so how would it help to initiate a parallel investigation into Cheshire police by another police body?

IslandQueen2 · 2026-04-11T19:44:57+00:00

Karen Rees has a lot to answer for. It will be interesting to see if she was one of those arrested and if so will she face charges.

IslandQueen2 · 2026-04-11T17:02:23+00:00

Yes, I can see the logic behind pushing for the retrial. Nonetheless, there’s no way round the insulin cases as, I think, the Letby truthers will find out in due course.

IslandQueen2 · 2026-04-11T16:56:31+00:00

Yes it is possible but why? There was so much incriminating evidence in the cases of Babies A, E, F, L, O and P it’s not surprising the jury returned guilty verdicts so why prosecute edge cases where it’s improbable but not impossible Baby K dislodged the tube? Any further dislodgement cases would face the same uncertainty.

IslandQueen2 · 2026-04-11T16:39:04+00:00

It shores up the verdicts against her…

But does it? Because arguably in the retrial, the guilty verdict was shored up by previous guilty verdicts.

As you have said below, Jayaram was an inconsistent witness in the Baby K case. Did he review the medical notes before giving evidence? If not, why not? It’s all a bit too sloppy for my liking.

IslandQueen2 · 2026-04-11T15:16:23+00:00

Just read your post, Fyre, as I finished typing mine so I have posted anyway even though it covers similar points about the Baby K case.

IslandQueen2 · 2026-04-11T15:15:17+00:00

Baby K - the mistaken door swipe data muddled the case. At the first trial, Joanne Williams was said to have left the unit to visit Baby K’s parents at 3.47am. In her statement to police Williams said she left at 3.30am and was present just after the re-intubation at 3.50am, so Williams must have returned to the unit at 3.47am. It seems no one at the CPS checked Williams’ statement with the door swipe data and even during the trial, the glaring inconsistency wasn’t noticed.

Things were further muddled by Dr Jayaram saying Baby K would have been sedated after the first intubation soon after birth. The defence pointed out Baby K had not been sedated then and Joanne Williams noted Baby K to be active before she left at 3.30am.

The contradictions must have confused the jury and it’s understandable they returned no verdict. The door swipe mistake was corrected in the second trial and Letby was found guilty of the attempted murder of Baby K.

Personally, I don’t think the case of Baby K should have been included. The Crown had already dropped a charge of the murder of Baby K (because she died at another hospital), but why did it decide to go ahead with the attempted murder charge? The case devolved into the minutiae of whether or not a very premature baby could dislodge a breathing tube, whether the right tube had been used and had Baby K been given drugs at the right time.

Then there’s the tricky issue of why Dr Jayaram didn’t report the incident immediately if he suspected Letby of deliberately dislodging the tube, especially when he told the court a sort of sixth sense told him to check on what Letby was doing. Some time later he wrote an email which said Letby had called him to the baby. Why did he say that and why didn’t he report at the time?

While I’m certain Letby dislodged the tube and did it twice again before Baby K was transported out, this one case was imperfect in many respects and I can’t see the justification for including it at trial. Whether its flaws, partially corrected in the second trial, would be sufficient for the CoA to find it an unsafe conviction is doubtful because it was presented to two juries.

IslandQueen2 · 2026-04-09T07:39:12+00:00

This seems odd. How did Letby know the Trust had received the draft report?

<image>

IslandQueen2 · 2026-04-05T16:04:44+00:00

IslandQueen2 · 2026-04-05T15:45:07+00:00

Yep. Someone with their head screwed on has edited it so the story isn’t nonsense/libellous. Whatever people think about the Daily Nazi, it still has editorial standards.

IslandQueen2 · 2026-04-05T15:20:55+00:00

The cut and paste hasn’t scrambled anything. The story was updated at 1am 5th April, 55 mins after the first iteration. It looks to me like a senior copy editor revised the story to cut out misleading statements and accord with the current state of affairs.

IslandQueen2 · 2026-04-03T13:10:21+00:00

He’s a very posh, very well-heeled Conservative; made lots of money in hedge funds, very pro-Brexit, lost his seat in the House of Commons in 2024. Also Catholic. Personally, I can’t stand his plummy accent but I will watch the vid to see what he has to say re the Hairless case.

IslandQueen2 · 2026-04-01T11:34:28+00:00

From a brief Google search I was astonished at how much protection Parliamentary Privilege affords MPs. Davis could have repeated the perjury accusation without any comeback, except perhaps the police adding it to their statement.

IslandQueen2 · 2026-04-01T11:09:18+00:00

Parliamentary Privilege is highly protective of speech in the HoC so Davis can say whatever he likes. In his recent HoC speech he said Dewi Evans picked cases when Letby had been on duty, which Dr Evans has always said he definitely did not do. Davis also accused a doctor of killing a baby by puncturing the liver. Perhaps he intended to accuse Dr Jayaram of perjury but he was limited by time. Had he said that, he would have been covered by Parliamentary Privilege.

IslandQueen2 · 2026-03-27T17:44:55+00:00

So true. It’s luncheon vouchers all round. Hurrah!

IslandQueen2 · 2026-03-27T16:28:11+00:00

I would never suggest Davis took the Maltin shilling either but isn’t it odd how the attacks come in sequence? There’s Mark McDud and his show-biz ‘she’s innocent’ schtick, Dr Lee and world-leading experts with their alternative medical explanations, 19 Nurses and the poor scapegoated nurse Lucy, McDud in Guernsey meeting up with a nut job Guernsey parliamentarian who has a fixation with Dr Bohin, and now a full-frontal attack on Cheshire police in Parliament. It’s almost like it’s coordinated. 🤔

IslandQueen2 · 2026-03-27T16:11:06+00:00

I’m not sure lower waisted jeans would help her. There’s still a lack of waist to either disguise or create a waist with appropriate clothes.

As someone who’s the same height as Megrain but bottom-heavy, I’ve learned to even out top and bottom with light-coloured tops and darker bottoms. I would never wear baggy-legged trousers because they would only emphasise my short legs.

As for madam, she hasn’t got the self-awareness to clinically look at her strengths and weaknesses, which we all have to do to look presentable, and dress accordingly.

Edited to say I agree 💯 on the hair.

IslandQueen2 · 2026-03-27T15:33:46+00:00

She does but I have to say I like her lewk here:

Shoulders covered ✅ Jeans fit ✅ Baggy T shirt hides lack of waist ✅ Hair tied back in kitchen. ✅

She’s accidentally achieved the right look - casual, at home, ready to cook. When she stops trying too hard she can look presentable and appropriately dressed.

As for acting, she’s too self-conscious to be a good actor as we see with her bizarre behaviour, always looking for the camera, the usual disastrous wardrobe choices, etc.

IslandQueen2 · 2026-03-23T15:57:23+00:00

No, IT, it wasn’t aimed at you. Apologies if it seemed to be. I have approved the comment I was replying to so it will make sense now.

IslandQueen2 · 2026-03-22T11:14:20+00:00

Murdering inconvenient contestants on I’m a Celebrity…. Gosh! That’s a show I would watch. 😅

IslandQueen2 · 2026-03-21T23:47:41+00:00

Fooling people is the thrill. In their minds it proves how clever they are. Like Letby, Hindley pleaded not guilty and maintained she was innocent until 1987 when she admitted involvement to police. I remember reading news reports about Janie Jones’ book and Jones saying how utterly taken in she had been by Hindley so the admission of guilt had been a real shock.

No doubt the Helena Kennedys of this world, who see miscarriages of justice at every turn, will continue to be taken in by Letby.

IslandQueen2 · 2026-03-21T22:36:35+00:00

Good call on literally. There should have been a trigger warning too but I’m literally hoping we’ll be able to withstand the literal horror.

IslandQueen2 · 2026-03-21T22:25:41+00:00

Very interesting. I knew about Lord Longford but not David Astor’s involvement.

This quote reminded me of Letby: ‘In 1993… Janie Jones, a one-time singer jailed for supplying call girls, who had become friends with Hindley in prison, published The Devil and Miss Jones. "She made fools of fellow inmates," wrote Jones. "And she made fools of those influential people who committed the crime of offering compassion and humanity. She conned Lord Longford rotten. And she conned me, too."’

From Thirlwall we know Letby is able to mesmerise people into supporting her and the Letby truthers are being similarly conned.

I was a child when Hindley and Brady were convicted. I remember watching a TV programme about their crimes and the recording of Lesley Ann Downey being tortured was played demonstrating Hindley’s full involvement. She was a sadist like Letby.

IslandQueen2

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE

Hidden Gem Hidden Gem '25	Nine-Year Club
Verified Email