In this video, I begin my examination of the grievance section of the final report of the Thirlwall Inquiry. Lucy Letby: Was Her Grievance REALLY 'Deplorable'?: youtube.com/watch?v=AX5xJk3A… #LucyLetby #LucyLetbyInnocent

It has been pointed out to me that someone who I won't name has made claims that I have stated “multiple times” that the mother of Child E has lied. This is untrue. In fact, on 11 September 2016, I outlined my views, not for the first time, in a section of a video entitled: “Mother is not lying”. I would have thought that title made my position fairly clear. Nonetheless, allow me to quote that section: “I just want to mention briefly at this point that certain persons...have stated that I have claimed that one or more of the parents in the court case have lied. That is, at best, a complete misrepresentation of my position, and I think it's at worst defamatory. It's absolutely not true that I'm saying any of the parents have lied. I've never once stated this. And I'm not saying that the mother of Child E is lying. So I'm just going to break this down briefly. Firstly, I haven't accused anyone in this court case of lying or anyone associated with the prosecution. I've said numerous times that I think the consultants on the unit probably had genuine concerns...I've never accused the consultants of deliberately lying. I believe that the police acted in good faith and that they just did a lousy investigation. But I'm sure they believed that Lucy Letby was guilty. I certainly don't believe that any of the parents lied. And I've never expressed this and I never would express this and there are multiple reasons for this. I'm just going to go over a few of them at this point. Literally exactly my view on this was offered explicitly in court. As I've just explained in this video, Ben Myers questioned the account of the mother. He didn't say the mother was lying. He said that the mother's account was inaccurate and mistaken. Thirdly, as inferred previously, there is a difference between being mistaken about something and lying. So you can see in this Reddit post here, a psychiatrist explains the difference between falsehoods and lies. Someone who deliberately misrepresents what he or she knows to be true is lying. In contrast, someone who voices a mistaken claim without any intent to deceive is not lying. They are stating a falsehood. And fourthly, any suggestion that any of the parents are lying would be completely lacking in logic and make absolutely no sense. And the reason for that is quite simple - there's no reason for them to lie. It doesn't benefit them in any way. It's a traumatic experience that they're going through. It's a traumatic experience in court. No-one seriously suggests or suspects that they were lying. What people believe is that the account of the mother of Child E is incorrect. I absolutely believe that. I think it's very likely as Ben Myers demonstrated that this was blood-stained aspirate that is stained with blood or contains a certain amount of blood, and that this wasn't fresh. It wasn't caused at the time of this supposed incident.” Since that was published, I was interviewed by Prof. David Wilson and Martin Frizzell. This interview was published on YouTube on 16 September 2026. Approximately 46 minutes into this interview, Prof. Wilson asked me about Child E and his mother. Literally the first thing that I said in response was the following: “Well, the first thing is I want to emphasise that I'm sure [the mother] believes what she's saying.” Let me repeat that for you, in case you're suffering with comprehension difficulties: “I'm sure [the mother] believes what she's saying.” Prof. Wilson then asked me if I was “taking Lucy Letby's word, not Child E's mother's word.” In response to that I said the following: “Let me be clear on this. I'm looking at the likely medical picture surrounding this infant, including what the mother has said in court. And on that basis, it is highly unlikely that there was fresh blood. And the reason that the prosecution focused on this so much is because they have to explain away the fact that this infant lost approximately 30-35% of blood according to neonatologists, conceded at over 25% in the court case. Prosecution concedes that. So they have to give an explanation for how Lucy Letby is responsible for this infant that has suffered a massive gastrointestinal haemorrhage. And to be honest, I can absolutely understand why you've picked that case out. It's completely fair and I think your comments are absolutely fair. But actually when you speak to medical people with regard to that case, they are unanimous that this is a naturally occurring gastrointestinal haemorrhage.” With regard to this, Dr Michael Hall, who was standing by to give evidence at the trial, told me it was “likely” that Child E died due to gastrointestinal bleeding, and stated that there was “no good evidence” that Letby somehow caused damage with an indeterminate tool. Professor Colin Morley informed me that “gastric bleeding is not uncommon in sick premature infants. There is no reason whatsoever to draw an extremely unlikely conclusion of inflicted trauma.” On 3 April 2025, the summary report compiled by the panel of international experts concluded that Child E died from a massive gastrointestinal haemorrhage, due to either intrauterine hypoxia causing stomach or intestinal ulceration, or a congenital vascular lesion. The panel found no evidence of air embolism, and asserted that a post-mortem should have been requested. As mentioned above, everything that I have stated was discussed in court on 14 November 2022 and was further summarised by Ben Myers on 27 June 2023. Much of my opinion on this is, in fact, derived from cross-examination of the mother of Child E, who conceded in cross-examination that there was no fresh blood around the mouth of the infant, and that Lucy Letby was not near the child when she entered the room. She maintained her view that the infant was bleeding from the mouth. This is extremely likely to be mistaken, but that does not mean she wasn't telling what she believed to be the truth from her perspective. In an interview that I have recorded this week that has yet to be released, I discussed the extremely traumatic attempts to resuscitate this infant, which were horrible to read and must have been far worse to witness. The international panel also concluded that the parents of Child E were failed by a delay in offering a critical blood transfusion, and also in dissuading them from requesting a post-mortem. I have no reason to disagree with this, not least because there has been unanimity among every medically qualified person that I've spoken with that Child E died due to a naturally occurring GI bleed. I do not follow the 'discussion' on this platform, so I'm not aware of many things that are claimed and stated, nor do I particularly care what anyone says about me. However, I do object to my position being fundamentally misrepresented with regard to something of this importance, particularly when I have outlined my position explicitly. In case it's not clear, I have never stated that any of the parents from the court case have lied. As I have also stated, there is no reason for them to lie because it makes absolutely no sense. Claiming that they had lied would therefore have zero logical credibility. There is no prospect I would state that any of the parents lied because I do not believe this. Why would I believe this - I repeat, it doesn't even make any sense. I'm sure that the person in question will now withdraw their claim about me, apologise and never make it again.