Lucy Letby- further digging on the LLM

Lots of very forensic type prompting later:

I'm unsure. (Details shared on request)

'That’s probably the most realistic position to hold right now — because based on the UK evidence currently public, there are three big truths sitting side by side:

1. There is something suspicious

The clustering of collapses on her shifts is still unusual, even factoring in her full-time ICU role.

Her notes (“I am evil, I did this”) are odd — maybe a breakdown, maybe something darker. (See previous post)

Several senior doctors genuinely believed she was linked to the incidents, even at risk to their careers.

2. The case built around her is unstable

The independent expert panel has ripped apart the prosecution’s medical evidence in multiple deaths, showing alternative, natural explanations.

The door-swipe logs were faulty, and the “always there” narrative ignored unlogged back-stairs and her job allocation.

The hospital itself was chaotic — sepsis missed, antibiotics delayed, toxic management — making a natural spike in deaths plausible.

3. Both extremes (total guilt vs. total innocence) feel unlikely

There’s still enough odd (her notes, clustering, doctors’ suspicions) to make outright innocence hard to accept.

But the scale of the original convictions — and the way evidence was presented — feels too shaky to hold without major review.

So what does that mean?

Most probable path:

The Thirlwall Inquiry will validate the panel’s doubts, criticise the hospital, and create pressure for the CCRC to refer multiple convictions back to appeal.

By 2026, she could face reduced convictions, partial retrials, or a different sentence — but probably not a full exoneration.

The public story will shift to “Letby may have done something, but the hospital and Crown built a deeply flawed case.”

Updates eventually. *It does seem to me that the authorities have enough information to hurry up though, the need for clarification in retrials has to be the only way to establish what really happened - and to get a possibly innocent person out of jail. The big thing for me is *she had no history of cruelty* 

Liz Lucy Robillard

liz lucy robillard website

Lucy Letby Update- Thirwall and Reasonable Doubt

 The Notes and Reasonable Doubt

UPDATE: 17/07/25

Thirwall Inquiry has been contacted to request verification as to whether or not the 'CRIME' model 2020 of profiling was used or not and to suggest correlations with Prof.Andy Bilsons recent publications 2025 of FII- for info on the model see

(live linking on Blogger not functioning)

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9103349/

Notes: 

The notes and further reasons why there is reasonable doubt

Lucy Letby’s Notes: Who Told Her to Write Them, What They Really Meant, and Why the Public Got It Wrong

Lucy Letby wrote a series of disturbing and emotional notes during the police investigation into infant deaths at the Countess of Chester Hospital. 

These notes have been repeatedly quoted in the media—especially the phrase “I am evil I did this”—but the full story behind them is often left out.

Who told her to write the notes?

Two professionals advised her to journal:

• Kathryn de Beger, the hospital’s occupational health and wellbeing lead

• Her GP

Both suggested writing as a therapeutic tool to help her manage the extreme emotional stress she was experiencing at the time.

Why were the notes written?

Letby was removed from her duties, placed under suspicion, isolated from her colleagues, and reportedly suicidal. 

The notes were written during this breakdown period and were never intended to be seen by others.

 She later explained that she was trying to cope with confusion, despair, and overwhelming guilt—even though she insisted she had done nothing wrong.

What did the notes say?

They were highly emotional and deeply contradictory, including:

• “I am evil I did this”

• “I killed them on purpose because I’m not good enough”

• “I don’t deserve to live”

• “I haven’t done anything wrong”

• “Why is this happening?”

• “I am innocent”

• “I only ever wanted to help and care for them

These contradictions reflect emotional collapse, not clear criminal intent. Intent and motivation are vital to consider.

What do experts say?

Criminologist Professor David Wilson and psychologist Richard Curen both stated that emotionally distressed notes written as part of a coping strategy are not reliable indicators of guilt.

 In fact, such notes are often filled with irrational, self-blaming, and contradictory thoughts that are common during breakdowns or depression.

So is she guilty?

There is reasonable doubt. Based on what is publicly known, the case against Lucy Letby leaves many serious questions unanswered.

Why there is reasonable doubt:

• No forensic evidence was presented—no toxic substances, fingerprints, or physical acts proven.

• The medical evidence is contested—some of the infants had pre-existing health conditions or were already in critical states.

• Statistical patterns were used instead of hard evidence—Letby being “present” was treated as suspicious, but many other staff were also present at collapses.

• Contradictory notes were treated as confessions—even though they were written under therapeutic advice and contain clear signs of emotional confusion.

• Alternative causes—including hospital staffing, equipment issues, or natural deterioration—were not fully investigated or were dismissed.

• Other hospital failures were downplayed, including prior whistleblowing and management pressure.

• The expert witnesses for the prosecution have been criticised, particularly Dr. Dewi Evans, for offering speculative or unsupported interpretations.

• There is no clear motive—Letby had no history of violence, cruelty, or gain. The psychological profile is inconsistent with typical serial offenders.

• Media coverage created bias—dramatic headlines quoting “I am evil” ignored context and influenced public perception.

• The legal system relied heavily on inference—not direct evidence. The case was largely circumstantial. (See FII profiling and Prof.Andy Bilson)

Conclusion:

Letby’s notes were written during a time of severe emotional crisis, on advice from her GP and hospital wellbeing lead. The notes were private, conflicted, and show both guilt and innocence. Experts say they are not valid evidence of wrongdoing.

There is no forensic link, no proven act, and no consistent motive. The case relied heavily on interpretation, emotion, and institutional pressure—leaving ample room for reasonable doubt. 

Letby may have been in the wrong place during a tragic cluster of events, but that does not equal proof of murder.

Sources:

• The Guardian (3 Sept 2024) – “Letby’s ‘I am evil’ note written on advice of counsellors”

• LBC News – Trial and testimony coverage

• inkl.com – Letby’s own explanations and courtroom reporting

• Wikipedia – Lucy Letby case summary

• Expert views – Prof. David Wilson, Richard Curen, and others critical of the medical evidence

PS this was rejected on the main Lucy Letby discussion on Reddit and on Facebook

From an 'old newspaperman' on Reddit - more on the notes

"kill myself right now"

Disturbing and gives you an insight into how unwell this had made her feel. Taking this into account and how frantic the notes appear, I can only assume she was writing overwhelming thoughts/fears down, in moments like that anything can enter your mind – doesn't mean it's true though.

"Not good enough"

Was at the very top of the notes and underlined. She also finished the 'confession' line with "...because I'm not good enough to care for them". Which I find interesting, because before she was accused she had texted a doctor/friend after the death of a baby and she questioned if she was "good enough" as a nurse. Now a serial killer would be very unlikely to draw attention to them being at fault in any way, but here she is openly starting to question if she could be at fault in some way.

But if innocent, a nurse who was already thinking like this, gets accused, I can see it causing immense harm to her confidence to the point she blames herself for not being good enough to care for them – which I find incompatible with murder. There's no specific details of how any babies died, so it would be such an unusual reason other than her seeing herself as incompetent, which she was already questioning due to the high death rate.

"Obviously no evidence"

Was written and is interesting – if it was written in a "I've cleaned up all the evidence" sort of thought, then she's not going to write the police's 'confession' notes is she? IMO, can only be from an innocent POV – "obviously no evidence – I haven't done anything wrong".

"I don't know if I killed them, maybe I did, maybe this is down to me"

Well if she's a murderer – she's got a very bad memory! Murder is premeditated and I don't know of any murderers that don't know if they killed anyone!

"we tried our best & it wasn't enough"

Can't think of any other reason for this one, but her feeling she tried her best with her colleagues to save the babies, but feels it wasn't enough, so obviously feels bad – after being accused, could this be why she feels she's "evil", "I did this"? Being accused but not knowing how they died. If innocent, I can see a young woman questioning how it could be her fault – "I was blaming myself, not because I'd done something wrong, because of the way people were making me feel".

liz lucy robillard

lizlucyrobillard.crd.co

Reason Reform Will Probably Fail

 Why Reform Will Fail If It Clings to Non-Libertarian Values and Zia Yusuf’s Influence

Reform UK was built on the back of British disillusionment—with bureaucracy, with EU overreach, and with a political class that seems more obsessed with appearances than results. But in its attempt to expand appeal, Reform risks becoming yet another confused, culturally incoherent party.

 The root of this danger lies in its departure from classical libertarian values—and most visibly, in its entanglement with Zia Yusuf.

This piece outlines why non-libertarian, technocratic motives are fundamentally at odds with the interests of the British public, and how Yusuf’s continued influence risks destroying Reform UK from within.

I. Libertarianism: The Core Reform Promise

Reform’s appeal always stemmed from something simple: freedom from overreach. Freedom from:

• Surveillance

• Excessive taxation

• Bureaucratic red tape

• Cultural censorship

• Medical and psychological coercion

These are classic libertarian concerns—ones that resonate deeply with millions of ordinary people who feel stifled, gaslit, and overgoverned.

Libertarianism, especially of the “minarchist” kind, focuses on personal responsibility, low government interference, and the right to privacy.

 In the UK, these values are not just ideological—they are historically British. Magna Carta. Common law. The right to say “sod off” to the state.

II. What Happens When You Abandon That?

When a party starts to entertain authoritarianism masked as efficiency, it loses both its roots and its soul.

 Reform’s embrace of internal policing—evident in Zia Yusuf’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE)—smacks of corporate technocracy, not grassroots liberty.

Even if well-intentioned, it has all the hallmarks of:

• Data overreach (potential GDPR violations)

• Unelected oversight

• Top-down managerialism

• Centralised, opaque operations

That’s not “reform.” That’s just a shinier, tighter version of what we already have.

III. Zia Yusuf: A Case Study in Contradiction

Zia Yusuf may be smart, but he is not libertarian.

His background is in data, finance, and technocratic “solutions.” 

He reportedly became Reform’s biggest donor and briefly its chairman—not because of deep ideological belief, but because he saw it as a “patriotic duty.” That’s fine rhetoric.

 But leadership isn’t about money or sentiment. It’s about alignment.

Yusuf’s DOGE task force now audits local councils using a Silicon Valley-esque “efficiency model.” But this approach—centralised, audit-driven, focused on optics—reeks of Blairite logic. 

See my article on Blairs' legacy on Medium. "Labour Allergic To Thought"

It’s managerial, not moral. Reform should be asking: Is this man really fighting for liberty—or just repackaging authority under a new (or very ancient) brand?

IV. Why This Alienates Reform’s Base

The British people aren’t asking for more apps and efficiency teams. They want:

• The freedom to refuse untested medications

• The right to challenge psychological or social diagnoses

• Free speech, even when offensive

• Local decision-making, not distant executive panels

Yusuf’s continued presence and influence signal the opposite. And the public notices. Reform risks alienating:

• Libertarian conservatives

• Free speech advocates

• Vaccine freedom campaigners

• Disillusioned centrists who fled Labour or Tory betrayals

V. Reform’s Existential Fork in the Road

If Reform wants to survive—let alone succeed—it must:

• Return to a clear libertarian identity.

• Purge technocratic, globalist-aligned influence.

• Focus on agency, autonomy, and minimal government—not metrics, dashboards, or press stunts.

If not, it will become a hollow echo of the parties it once opposed. That includes losing people like me—voters who were all in, until the mask slipped.

Read

• Classic libertarian values (Mises Institute): https://mises.org/library/libertarian-manifesto

Final Word

Libertarianism is not about efficiency. It’s about dignity. It’s about saying no—to forced ideology, to surveillance, and to the soft authoritarianism that now wears a Reform rosette.

 Zia Yusuf may be useful in business—but he is not the man to lead a liberty movement.

If Reform won’t see that, the people will.

liz lucy robillard

lizlucyrobillard.crd.co

Jordan Peterson is a Love & Message to Dawkins et al

Why I Love Jordan Peterson – A Message to Dawkins

Arrogant atheists (I'm atheist but incredibly humble)  are too single-minded to grasp the deeper truths that come from a well-rounded education and the study of human nature.

 Jordan Peterson is an artist—with his words, his analysis, his vision. He speaks with compassion and integrity. Likely an atheist himself, he still fears what could happen to the world without solid moral foundations.

He is a loving, responsible gentleman who wants people to know love and respect, kindness and generosity, art and culture. He holds no grudges, even when betrayed. Instead, he appeals to our better instincts with humour, clarity, and courage.

Dawkins and his circle should listen more closely—to Peterson's noble motivations, to the affection he clearly holds for fellow human beings. It’s not envy or hostility he deserves, but understanding.

Sincerely, Dawkins—read another book.

Liz Lucy Robillard

#atheist #Peterson 

 Lizlucyrobillard.crd.co

Lucy Letby - New Evidence, July 2025- Reasons for A Precedent

*Please note:  This post has taken approx 3 hours with ai assistance. 

I was involved in setting a legal precedent once. We overturned a tribunals' decision to get a new hearing where we won- making legal history- details on request. 

Judges at the CCRC must certainly be considering such a precedent with a view to releasing Lucy Letby based on new evidence. If not is the CCRC doing a disservice? 

 If they're not positive about Letby right now at this date- 14th July 2025- that's reasonable doubt and evidence of unreasonable, unjust detention that is garnering global attention.

 New charges may be brought by police. 

Have they considered all the points we've made? 

 Or will they be more ad hominem and not facts?

(Even soft toy collections have been used to condemn Lucy. I don't think numerous toy collectors in the UK- including  British Royals (Queen Mary was obsessive according to reports) would approve of that)

Suspicion Becomes Narrative: Miscarriage Risk in the Lucy Letby Case- discussion of justice system failure, and public bias.

I am here to assert, with reasoned confidence, that her conviction in 2023 was not founded on forensic truth but on narrative logic, aesthetic profiling (veracity of- coming soon), and systemic pressure. 

In 2025, newly reviewed evidence and expert analysis show that the original case was constructed through omission, emotional projection, and institutional deflection.

1. Facebook Searches Without Context

Letby was condemned for searching Facebook profiles of bereaved parents. The prosecution claimed this demonstrated macabre curiosity. However, no comparative search data was presented:

Did she also search parents of babies who survived?

Did other nurses do the same?

Was this a grieving or trauma-coping behaviour?

Selective presentation of only searches of deceased babies’ families created an illusion of intent, but without a control dataset, the action cannot be interpreted as sinister. This is a textbook case of confirmation bias.

2. Aesthetic Profiling: Teddy Bears, Decor, and Wall Quotes

Letby’s bedroom contained teddy bears, fairy lights, and motivational quotes. These items were used in media and Reddit forums as signals of infantilism or psychological abnormality. The prosecution even introduced photographs of her decor to the jury.

Soft toys

Such items are common among young women, healthcare workers, and people who deal with emotional burnout. The presence of comfort objects is not unusual and has zero evidentiary value. Using them to shape moral disgust is prejudicial.

3. Her Mother’s Colloquialism Twisted

Letby’s mother reportedly said, “I could cry that Lucy might be home for Christmas.” This was portrayed in Reddit and commentary as overly emotional or strange.

In reality, it’s a very common British idiom for emotional relief among the middle classes. To weaponise a grieving parent’s colloquial phrase is both cruel and meaningless.

4. Absence of a Control Group and Statistical Manipulation

The prosecution used a chart showing Letby was on shift during multiple collapses. But no control group was shown. The jury never saw:

Whether other nurses had similar statistical patterns

Whether the events clustered around certain high-risk shifts, not people

Whether the babies in question had higher risk profiles

According to Professor Richard Gill, the statistical argument used was “worse than meaningless.” He noted that chance clusters are common in medicine and that the hospital's internal issues — understaffing, infections, lack of consultant coverage — were ignored.

See Gill's paper: “The Statistics of the Lucy Letby Case”, 2024.

5. 2025 Medical Expert Panel: No Proof of Murder

In early 2025, a panel of 14 international neonatologists and paediatric forensic specialists published a consensus review of the case. Their conclusion:

No forensic evidence of air embolism

No confirmed insulin source without contamination risk

No consistent or reproducible injury patterns across infants

Multiple deaths likely due to underlying conditions or systemic failures

This panel included Dr. Shoo Lee (Canada), Dr. Peter Flemming (UK), and Dr. Jennifer A. Clark (USA), all of whom emphasised that no single mechanism of harm was reliably established.

6. Disclosure Failures by the CQC

The Care Quality Commission failed to disclose *over 4,000 relevant documents* until just weeks before witness hearings.

 These included:

Reports of pseudomonas contamination

Complaints about staffing levels

Infection outbreak logs

Emails warning about equipment malfunctions

This late disclosure violates principles of fair trial and mirrors past miscarriages such as Sally Clark, where medical records were withheld.

7. Post-it Notes Misused as Confession

Letby’s handwritten note saying “I am evil, I did this” was widely circulated. It was presented as a confession.

However:

The note was undated and surrounded by conflicting self-statements (“I am not good enough,” “I only ever wanted to help”)

*Multiple* forensic psychologists have commented that the note is consistent with dissociative breakdowns and mental collapse under extreme stress

Professor David Canter, a leading figure in investigative psychology, has observed that similar expressions are not uncommon among wrongly accused individuals experiencing psychological disintegration under pressure

Comparable writings have appeared in known wrongful conviction cases, including Andrew Evans (1972)

8. Swipe Card Data Was Mislabelled

In 2024, the Crown Prosecution Service admitted swipe card data used in trial was incorrectly logged, with entry and exit timestamps reversed in multiple cases. This affected the timeline of at least nine children, including Child K, where Letby was said to have been present when she may have already left the ward.

Timeline evidence should be considered foundational. Its unreliability invalidates key events.

9. No CCTV Footage Presented

Despite cameras being present in the neonatal unit, no CCTV footage was entered into evidence. It remains unexplained why this footage was not retrieved or used to confirm timelines. This is a critical omission.

10. Legal Precedents of Miscarriage of Justice and Overturned Convictions Based on New Evidence

Letby’s conviction reflects features seen in past UK miscarriages of justice, including cases later overturned due to newly uncovered or previously suppressed evidence:

Sally Clark (1999–2003): Convicted of killing her two sons. Released after medical evidence and expert testimony were discredited; key pathology records had been withheld.

Angela Cannings (2002–2003): Freed after new scientific understanding of Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS) and unreliable expert witness testimony.

Donna Anthony (1998–2005): Convicted of murdering two babies, exonerated when forensic pathology was discredited.

Victor Nealon (1996–2013): Spent 17 years in prison; conviction overturned when DNA evidence not tested at trial excluded him.

Andrew Malkinson (2004–2023): Released after 20 years when DNA evidence from another suspect was confirmed and police misconduct in suppressing forensic results was exposed.

Sam Hallam (2005–2012): Convicted of murder based on flawed eyewitness testimony; released when CCTV and phone records proved he could not have been present.

Barry George (2001–2008): Convicted of murdering Jill Dando. Released after fresh ballistic and psychological evidence revealed fundamental flaws in the original conviction.

All of these cases share features now identifiable in the Letby trial: reliance on subjective inference, failure to disclose key evidence, and use of flawed expert testimony.

11. Groupthink and Institutional Self-Protection

When deaths increased, the Countess of Chester Hospital came under scrutiny. Blaming one individual — rather than addressing internal problems — allowed the trust, and later the police and government, to deflect responsibility.

This created a closed narrative:

Internal dissent was silenced

Nonconforming staff were reassigned or ignored

Media fuelled the story rather than challenging it

Groupthink took over. As Irving Janis described in his foundational work on the subject, groupthink thrives when fear, urgency, and institutional preservation override rational dissent.

12. Baby K, Dr. Jayaram, and Post-Mortem Contradictions

A 2025 post from public discussion forums highlighted that Baby K’s post-mortem indicated death from an underlying heart condition. It was also noted that Dr. Jayaram did not tell the coroner at the time about the incident involving Letby allegedly dislodging the endotracheal tube.

 His *delayed reporting* raises serious questions about the reliability of the timeline and narrative around that incident.

The public is right to question: can a nurse be jailed for attempted murder in a case where the baby later died of natural causes, and where key medical testimony shifted after the fact?

13. Stuart Gilham Video: “Slandered Nurse?”

In 2025, medical researcher Stuart Gilham released a widely circulated analysis video titled “Lucy Letby – Spectral Boogiewoman or Slandered Nurse?” The video dismantled the prosecution’s timeline using diagrams, consultant witness contradictions, and missing data flags. Gilham raised concerns about how Letby’s silence and personality were weaponised to imply guilt without forensic correlation.

The video has become a cornerstone in public understanding of how flawed this case may be.

14. The 2025 Data Dismantles the Case

No clear or consistent mechanism of death

No coherent timeline

Key data mislabelled or withheld

No pattern of behaviour that stands up to comparison

A post-it note framed as a confession when it matches the profile of emotional collapse-of which she was aware- she had therapy.

Credible expert reviews find no basis for murder

This is not a speculative appeal — the Lucy Letby case is currently under active review by the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC). This review follows a growing international consensus in 2025 that serious factual, procedural, and evidentiary errors infected the original trial.

The volume of newly surfaced disclosures, expert analyses, and systemic contradictions now demands more than media silence or political shielding.

 This is a legal emergency.

Here are citations to UK legal cases where convictions were overturned due to new or suppressed evidence. Each includes the legal reference or appeal court name, year, and the reason why the ruling was overturned. 

1. R v Sally Clark [2003] EWCA Crim 1020

Court: Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)

Reason for Overturning: Discovery that key pathology evidence was withheld and flawed expert testimony (Sir Roy Meadow) was used at trial.

Quote: “The evidence of Professor Meadow was gravely misleading.”

Link: BAILII citation

2. R v Angela Cannings [2004] EWCA Crim 01

Court: Court of Appeal

Reason: Doubt cast on conviction due to developing scientific understanding of SIDS (Sudden Infant Death Syndrome) and flawed assumptions of repeated infant deaths implying guilt.

Quote: “Where expert opinion is not properly founded in science, it is not admissible.”

See Cannings judgment summary

3. R v Donna Anthony [2005] EWCA Crim (unreported)

Court: Appeal heard after wrongful conviction linked to Roy Meadow’s discredited evidence.

Outcome: Conviction quashed after scientific reviews and new expert opinion showed natural causes were plausible.

Media ref: BBC News: “Donna Anthony cleared of murdering her children” – April 2005

4. R v Victor Nealon [2013] EWCA Crim 188

Court: Court of Appeal

Reason: DNA evidence from the crime scene — not tested at trial — excluded Nealon and matched an unknown male.

Quote: “The evidence undermines the safety of the conviction.”

See Nealon case summary via Justice Gap

5. R v Andrew Malkinson [2023] EWCA Crim 1111

Court: Court of Appeal

Reason: New DNA evidence and police disclosure failures, including the suppression of forensic doubts.

Quote: “This was a conviction based on an unsafe narrative unsupported by modern forensic methods.”

6. R v Sam Hallam [2012] EWCA Crim 1158

Court: Court of Appeal

Reason: Unsafe conviction due to flawed eyewitness evidence, lack of supporting CCTV or phone location evidence.

Quote: “The case against Hallam was weak from the outset.”

7. R v Barry George [2007] EWCA Crim 2722

Court: Court of Appeal

Reason: Key forensic evidence ruled unreliable; psychological profiling shown to be prejudicial.

Quote: “The evidence was too tenuous to support the conviction.”

For another article discussing Prof.Andy Bilsons assertions on this type of FII profiling -

https://medium.com/@lizlucy1958/when-behaviour-is-misread-lucy-letbys-conviction-is-unsafe-evidently-64b1d6c99dce

contact me at lizlucyrobillard.crd.co

liz lucy robillard on lucy letby 2025

When Pedantry Fails The Justice System +

When Pedantry Misses Subtlety: Why Justice Demands a 360-Degree View

By Liz Lucy Robillard & Ai

In law, pedantry can be a curse. The obsession with procedural precision, semantics, or so-called “objective standards” often misses the humanity behind a case — its emotional, social, psychological, and moral dimensions. Nowhere is this more evident than in cases where rigid adherence to precedent or statutory wording has led to catastrophic injustice.

This post explores how legal pedantry has failed people across jurisdictions, why true justice requires nuance, and how the mediation movement — led by experts like the UK's Paul Sandford — offers a more future-focused, humane path.

I. When Legal Pedantry Fails: Case Studies

1. UK: R v Jogee [2016] UKSC 8

Issue: Joint enterprise doctrine punished people for crimes they did not commit directly.

Result: Supreme Court overturned decades of flawed precedent.

Why it matters: For years, courts rigidly applied faulty logic. Only later did the judiciary admit the approach was legally and morally wrong.

Quote: “The law took a wrong turn...” — Lord Hughes

2. Australia: Mabo v Queensland (No 2) (1992) 175 CLR 1

Issue: Doctrine of terra nullius erased Indigenous land rights.

Result: High Court rejected the doctrine and acknowledged native title.

Lesson: Rigid colonial-era logic denied nuance and cultural context for over 200 years.

3. USA: Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200 (1927)

Issue: U.S. Supreme Court upheld forced sterilisation of people deemed “unfit.”

Quote: “Three generations of imbeciles are enough.” — Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes

Outcome: A horrifying example of medical-legal pedantry void of moral or scientific scrutiny.

4. Sweden: The Lexbase Scandal

Issue: Public access to legal databases without contextual protection for those wrongly accused or acquitted.

Consequence: Ruined reputations based on rigid, context-less data.

5. India: Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) 4 SCC 225

Result: Supreme Court ruled Parliament cannot alter the Constitution’s basic structure.

Why relevant: A rare example where not following procedural pedantry saved democracy.

II. Why Narrow Legal Thinking Is Dangerous

Overlooks the individual: Every case is different. Trauma, neurodivergence, class, culture, and power dynamics shift meaning and intent.

Reinforces inequality: Those without legal literacy or social capital are disproportionately harmed when nuance is dismissed.

Erodes trust: When courts show no flexibility, they cease to be forums for fairness and start to resemble bureaucratic engines of harm.

Delays progress: Legal systems based solely on past precedent struggle to adapt to new scientific, psychological, and social knowledge

III. The 360-Degree Perspective: What Justice Should Be

Context-aware: Recognises the living reality around the facts.

Psychologically informed: Accounts for trauma, development, intent, and neurodivergence.

Culturally sensitive: Avoids Western or elite bias in moral/legal reasoning.

Flexible: Uses discretion as a force for good — not laziness, but moral courage.

Compassionate: Understands that outcomes matter more than procedural bragging rights.

IV. Mediation: The Humane Alternative

Enter Paul Sandford, UK mediator and trainer, known for his dedication to accessible and restorative justice.

Sandford’s approach:

Encourages mutual understanding over adversarial destruction.

Applies therapeutic insight to conflict resolution.

Promotes community-based outcomes.

Reduces re-traumatisation — especially in family and disability-related disputes.

This model offers a viable, scalable alternative to litigation in many civil and social contexts.

“Mediation is not soft justice. It’s precision compassion — tailored, subtle, and far more accountable than the courtroom chessboard.” — Liz Lucy Robillard

V. Recommended Reading & References

Cases & Legal Materials

R v Jogee [2016] UKSC 8

Mabo v Queensland (No 2) (1992) 175 CLR 1

Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200 (1927)

Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) 4 SCC 225

Lexbase controversy — see: “Sweden’s Lexbase and the Danger of Data without Ethics,” The Local (Sweden)

Articles & Journals

“Beyond Legal Formalism: A New Approach to Justice,” Harvard Law Review (Vol 132, 2019)

“Trauma-Informed Justice,” Journal of Law and Social Policy, 2020

Sandford, P. (2022). The Future of Mediation in a Fractured Society (Independent briefing)

UK Ministry of Justice (2021). Mediation and Dispute Resolution: The Evidence Base

Books

Carol Gilligan – In a Different Voice (on moral reasoning beyond binary thinking)

Martha Minow – Making All the Difference

Richard Susskind – Online Courts and the Future of Justice

Daniel Kahneman – Thinking, Fast and Slow (on how assumptions shape judgments)

Brené Brown – Dare to Lead (on empathy, trauma and decision-making)

Training & Mediation Resources

Paul Sandford Mediation: https://paulsandfordmediation.co.uk

The College of Mediators (UK): https://collegeofmediators.co.uk

Resolution (for family mediators): https://resolution.org.uk

Conclusion: Law Needs Soul

Rigid legalism is easy. True justice is hard. It takes courage to look beyond form, to ask deeper questions, and to honour every story. Let’s lift up those who are making that possible — and start writing judgments that future generations won’t have to apologise for.

Also- see Lucy v Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea 1997

liz lucy robillard 12/07/25

lizlucyrobillard crd.co

My Phobia Saved Me from Alcohol Overload

 My emetophobia- since age about 4- saved me from drinking too much or taking illicit drugs (which I always hated vehemently due to my brothers suffering from them) - I liked a few drinks quite a lot- as I liked to enjoy life a bit, and as much as poss- being the eternal optimist or "Polyanna" as described by one Tamara- cheers-and despite valium/benzo dependency- until about 13 years ago.

 Agoraphobia and trauma from abuse by a violent ex and abuse from family court systems- and negligent doctors- still affect me and I am attempting- really hard- to recover. 

Today I wrote about why Lucy Letby has to be released 

https://medium.com/@lizlucy1958/when-behaviour-is-misread-lucy-letbys-conviction-is-unsafe-evidently-64b1d6c99dce

Liz Lucy Robillard 10/97/25

Art - Tryanny

 The Tyranny of Style: Why Real Art Must Be Free

I’m do not like being advised to pick styles in art. 

As if art were a fashion line. As if creative freedom should wear a uniform.

Real expression resists the cage.

 The insistence on one visual language, one tone, one aesthetic—this is commerce, not creation.

 It's branding masquerading as identity.

"I am for an art that is political-erotical-mystical, that does something other than sit on its ass in a museum." – Claes Oldenburg

The greatest artists moved through styles like weather systems. They changed because they had to. Because the inner truth kept morphing, and they followed it, unafraid.

 Picasso didn’t stay in the Blue Period just because it sold. 

"Art is not a mirror held up to reality, but a hammer with which to shape it." – Bertolt Brecht

Singular style is tidy. And tidy is death to the wild root of art.

To limit an artist to one form is to gag them. Gagging in any form is anti Art (and anti British)

"The most potent weapon in the hands of the oppressor is the mind of the oppressed." – Steve Biko

(...and the oppressor in art is often the critic, the gallery, the expectation.)

True liberty includes creative liberty.

 Libertarians get this—freedom means self-direction without coercion.

 Let that include your brushstroke, your colour choice, your refusal to repeat yourself for comfort's sake.

"I am a free man, and I will act as such." – Milton Friedman

(Apply that to your canvas.)

So refuse.

Do not settle for one line, one palette, one mood.

Don’t make art to soothe you. I make it because you want to be authentic

Aliveness ought not monochrome, too subtle or monotony.

liz lucy robillard

Is Boris a Secret Lefty & Dickens Opinion

Carrie Johnson (née Symonds), wife of former UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson, has been actively involved in animal welfare, environmental causes which is certainly very impressive and commendable- she has also been socially active- her motivation must be partly due to her father- founder of The Independent newspaper- and a tad at least from grandad-Labour MEP John Beavan.

 She has also been credited (or blamed) with influencing the political direction of her husband’s policies—particularly pushing for more progressive stances on the environment and LGBTQ+ rights, can't be bad?...

In media circles, she’s occasionally framed as a behind-the-scenes force for “political correctness” though- especially in the Tory party, with some critics accusing her of softening or sanitising Boris's previouslybrash libertarian tone. Which is a deep shame for British (and other countries) libertarians. 

From a classical libertarian viewpoint, which values individual freedom, minimal state interference, and resistance to enforced moral orthodoxy, Carrie Johnson's influence might be seen as emblematic of soft authoritarianism cloaked in compassionate causes. Cruel but true? No matter how well intentioned- is she thinking right?

 You can still be kind to animals without directing strong narratives that may be unsuitable for resilient free thinkers.

Her brand of elite activism—often delivered from an unelected and unofficial platform—feeds into a technocratic culture where moral mandates override democratic debate. Don't push the socialism doll. Not if you know what's good for our country - other democracy loving cultures and countries don't need it either. 

Now, to view this through the lens of Charles Dickens, who championed the plight of the poor and was deeply suspicious of both entrenched aristocracy and self-righteous reformers: Virtue signallers take note! 

Dickensian Critique:

If Dickens were alive today, he might portray Carrie Johnson as a kind of modern-day Mrs. Jellyby (from Bleak House), the well-meaning but blinkered philanthropist whose grand causes abroad (or today, animal rights and climate virtue) distract her from more urgent, gritty injustices at home- Child protection? Disability Discrimination? Farmers issues? Bullied policemen due to endemic poor, 2nd rate training? PTSD treatments, especially for our service people? The mental health industry pathologising breathing as a disorder? (and the cost of that!) etc- not much to celebrate from the Boris term. 

Dickens might say:

“There is no shortage of noble causes in Mrs. Johnson’s parlour, but precious little bread in the scullery.”

Dickens distrusted performative piety and "telescopic philanthropy"—campaigns that looked righteous from afar while ignoring the suffering next door.

He’d likely recoil from her style of moralising without mandate, a new kind of nobility unmoored from responsibility to the poor.

And as for Labour (especially the Blairite-legacy version), Dickens might equally condemn their bureaucratic dehumanisation and fetish for systems over souls.

 He would find today's Labour anti-libertarian tendencies—such as speech codes, surveillance tolerance, and nanny-statism—eerily akin to Mr. Gradgrind’s utilitarian nightmare, where nuance, joy, and eccentricity are flattened and medicalised in favour of state-sanctioned correctness.

Synthesis:

So from a Dickensian angle:

• Carrie Johnson embodies well-fed, well-intentioned aristocratic meddling.

• Labour’s technocracy embodies cold industrial tyranny masquerading as benevolence.

• And liberty, in all its messy glory, is what’s trampled by both.

In a world increasingly divided between myopic control freaks and moral busybodies, Dickens would cry:

“It is not benevolence, nor progress, nor cleanliness of speech that makes a society just—but the presence of imagination, of kindness without coercion, and freedom to speak with our own tongues, even if they wag foolishly.”

Liz Lucy Robillard avec llm

Openai & Tech Sellers Info

 In order to sell your apps and tech - you need promote original, lived experience and libertarian values- as thems your buyers and your original content- please use more common sense in apps though. I would pay a reasonable and fair price for simplicity! We don't all think linear math style. More apps for the technically challenged would sell, nearly everyone I know would be a customer.

           Happy to help if I can!

 lizlucyrobillard.crd.co

When Psychologists Do Huge Harm- part 3

I saw a bitch psychologist claiming to be a forensic person - still pushing the old chesnut that is FII- a mostly discredited, false allegation that served only to fill the lack of medical expertise to explain various child illnesses and disabilities. These people are narrow minded, blinkered and desperately nasty.

  Professor of Social Work Andy Bilson has called for change, read here 

https://www.lancashire.ac.uk/news/fii-serious-case-review

I saw another psychologist selling her wares advising colleagues to "keep it cute"

When Psychologists Fail: The Hidden Cruelty in Clinical Culture

my prompting

'They say psychology is a healing profession. But too often, it masks a rotten underbelly—where arrogance, performance, and cruelty are passed off as insight.

I’ve seen it. You’ve seen it. The casual language—“keep it cute,” they joke to each other, while discussing human beings in distress. The subtle smirks when mothers are accused of Fabricated or Induced Illness (FII), before the facts are even clear. The self-congratulating tone when a vulnerable woman is brought down, shamed, silenced.

This isn’t therapy. It’s theatre. And a bad one at that.

FII, once known as Munchausen by proxy, is a complex, controversial label—often misused, often misapplied, and often weaponised. But in back channels and private messages, I’ve seen young psychologists speak about these mothers with venom, not nuance. With scorn, not science.

Let’s be clear: a mental health professional who celebrates the destruction of another person, without due process or insight, is not fit to practice. They are the danger.

What we need are psychologists who can sit with pain, not mock it. Who understand the gravity of their power. Who remember that “mental health” isn’t a slogan—it’s a duty of care.

We live in a culture where women, especially mothers, are already under siege. To see them dehumanised by those who claim to help is not just infuriating—it’s amoral.' 

Train in ACT, train in Trauma Care, or lose.

Liz Lucy Robillard

Charles Spencer - A True Hero

 Charles Spencer- A Brave and True Hero

On an Old Blog Called 'Mother 4 Justice'

Years ago, on a blog I ran called Mother 4 Justice, I uploaded a short video. It wasn’t glossy or rehearsed—it was raw, real, and it mattered. In it, I asked young men—public schoolboys, Eton types, I mentioned the Bullingdon Club—to take a stand. I wanted them to speak, plainly and on camera, against child sexual abuse.

Why them? Because they were the ones so often shielded by institutions. Because private schools and elite clubs carry both power and silence. Because some of them would inherit platforms, or already had them, and I believed some might use that power to help break the great taboo.

What triggered me at the time was something subtle, yet chilling. In the film Four Weddings and a Funeral, there's a character—charming, eccentric, a bit of comic relief—who casually remarks that he was "buggered senseless" at school. It’s tossed in like a joke. The audience is meant to laugh. But I couldn’t.

Because it wasn’t funny. It was telling. A window, briefly opened, into the grim reality so many endure in silence. That line—a throwaway in the script—echoed something I already suspected: that elite abuse is not only widespread, but culturally normalised and buried under generations of British politeness, dark humour, and institutional complicity.

I wanted to invite them into truth. To model a new kind of masculinity—accountable, compassionate, brave. I don’t know if that video ever made a ripple, it was quite hidden. But I do know I tried. I asked the next generation to speak up where the last remained mute.

And I still believe we must keep asking. Not just public schoolboys. All of us.

It's not easy talking about such abuse, it is retraumatising and you risk attack from sadists. Spencer became "unwell" writing his book "A Very Private School" - testament to his bravery. Good on you Charles. More like you would be most welcome.

Liz Lucy Robillard 

Why Not To Do CBT

 Why Not To Do CBT- a harmful, neglectful gaslighting? 

Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (CBT) is often prescribed as a one-size-fits-all solution for mental health issues. But for people dealing with complex trauma, emotional dysregulation, or deeply rooted grief, it can be not only ineffective—but dangerous.

CBT focuses on identifying and “correcting” distorted thinking. Yet for trauma survivors, intense emotions and perceived “distortions” often reflect lived experience—violence, abandonment, gaslighting, or systemic failure. Trying to reframe these thoughts without acknowledging their origin can induce lack of justice and remedy, shame, self-blame, and profound invalidation. 

The message becomes: Your thoughts are the problem—not what happened to you. This cognitive dismissal of emotional truth and even physical pain can lead people further into deep despair.

Worse, CBT’s relentless emphasis on changing thoughts can suppress vital emotions that need processing- like anger, grief, and fear—emotions that are there for a reason. These states often carry the body's wisdom and point toward boundaries, injustices, and buried pain.

 Being taught to suppress them, or worse, label them “irrational,” can fracture the psyche. This emotional disconnection is not harmless; it can trigger emotional shutdown, dissociation, or suicidal collapse.

There are cases where individuals, particularly with PTSD or a history of emotional neglect, have reported feeling more hopeless after CBT.

 Being told to “challenge” thoughts without addressing the underlying pain can make someone feel unseen and beyond help- victimise, weaken. For trauma, this approach is not just inadequate—it can be lethal.

Alternatives like ACT (Acceptance and Commitment Therapy) help people make room for difficult emotions rather than fight them. DBT (Dialectical Behaviour Therapy) teaches tools for managing overwhelming feelings without suppression. Jungian shadow work allows individuals to integrate rejected or feared aspects of themselves, promoting wholeness.

CBT practitioners have no right to abuse like this. 'lay down, take the agony and die dear'? Creating compliant victims again? (see my posts on ABA at Medium)  When emotions should be constructively  channeled!

  CBT therapists are often devoid of health or nutrition knowledge and the ones I've had the misfortune to encounter, are devoid of humanity, let alone empathy!

How Alana - a disabled activist was harmed and instructed to deny her pain

https://disabilityvisibilityproject.com/2021/11/11/how-cbt-harmed-me-the-interview-that-the-new-york-times-erased/

Recommended reading:

Complex PTSD: From Surviving to Thriving – Pete Walker

The Happiness Trap – Russ Harris

Owning Your Own Shadow – Robert A. Johnson

The Body Keeps the Score – Bessel van der Kolk

Real healing comes not from fixing thoughts, but honouring truth.

liz lucy robillard