Anyone with the slightest nose for a conspiracy or cover-up already knows that incarcerated nurse, Lucy Letby, charged with murdering several infants in the hospital in which she worked, is innocent.

It's extremely obvious she is, because - even without knowing another single detail about the case - the entire thing collapses on the basis of one key concept:

Motive.

Every killer, and especially every serial killer, has a clearly defined motive. There is no case in history where someone has been convicted of serial murder - much less the serial murder of vulnerable infants - for no reason.

The only motive ever put forward by the prosecution is so ludicrously laughable that even the MSM doesn't report on it anymore. That is that, Letby went on a killing spree in order to attract the attentions of someone she fancied.

Yep. They really said that.

The prosecution couldn't even prove with any degree of plausibility that she did fancy this person (the text messages between them were made public and there was no indication they were anything but colleagues and friends), let alone that she had determined serial murder would be a good seduction strategy.

So, with that "motive" summarily dismissed by anyone remotely sane, we are left with the ineffable fact that this young nurse - who had always wanted to work with vulnerable babies after her own difficult birth - had absolutely no reason whatsoever to harm them.

If you look into the case further, you can see all the other huge gaps and glaring anomalies... or you could, if the article enumerating all this wasn't "banned in the UK".

Much has been made of the fact that a detailed New Yorker piece scrutinising the holes in the Letby case isn't available to UK readers.

Of course, such 'bans' are pretty easy to get around and you can read it here.

The point is though: why is such an establishment vehicle as the New Yorker (owned by international publishing giant, Condé Nast) exposing this?

Why is the UK media *telling* us this article is banned? (Therefore inevitably making everyone want to read it.)

Because this story, of course - like every story that gets dramatic, sensationalist, international mainstream news coverage - screams psy-op.

First, conspiracy 101... guess how old Letby was when convicted? 33, of course!

And her initials, LL - L is the 12th letter of the alphabet. In numerology, you add double digits together until you get a single digit, so 12 = 1+2 = 3. Therefore, LL = 12 /12 = 33.

Whenever a media event has a disproportionate number of obvious 33s attached to it, it's almost always a signal from "them" that this is manipulative Masonic theatre of some sort (they have to tell us what they're doing, etc).

What their clear intent is with Letby is to make it absolutely abundantly obvious that a severe miscarriage of justice has taken place, and, in order to maximise public sympathies for her, they've made sure she's as appealing and sympathetic as possible.

Pretty, but not threateningly so. Wears a bit of make-up, but not too much. Popular, but not a 'mean girl' type. White, blonde, slim, etc etc.

If the media had gone to central casting and said, "we want the most universally appealing and sympathetic character you could possibly think of for our 'innocent victim gravely betrayed by flawed justice system' production", they would have got a Lucy Letby.

Even her name sounds cutesy and unthreatening and like a character from a children's storybook. (I've never liked the full extension of my own first name, Miriam - as I think it sounds too stern and severe - that's why I use it when I'm writing strongly worded letters to tell people off - but girls' names that end with an "ee" sound are much softer and nicer.)

Letby is now languishing in a prison cell where, we are told, she has no possibility for parole and will die in prison. As our country doesn't have the death penalty, this is the most severe penalty our justice system can deliver.

But who delivered this sentence to Letby?

Who listened carefully, considered all the evidence, and determined that this young woman should be condemned as being guilty of the most horrific possible crimes?

Not a panel of "experts" - but a jury, composed of ordinary men and women.

And guess what a major agenda item is, heavily pushed throughout the 'Covid' chapter?

Abolishing trial by jury.

Writing for The Guardian in 2021 - at the height of Covid mania - BBC broadcaster Simon Jenkins said:

"A crisis can often be an opportunity... The government should take the opportunity to give the system a long-overdue reform. Jury trials are archaic, and should be abandoned..."

Mr. Jenkins went on:

"After three terms as a juryman, I am convinced that juries are a costly indulgence. They have nothing to do with justice except often to distort it... "

Of course the establishment doesn't like trials by jury, as these are the exact antithesis of the authoritarian technocracy the overlords are working so hard to implement, and that we got a clear preview of throughout "Covid".

Trial by jury supposes that ordinary people matter, and that their ability to think, to assess evidence and come to an informed view, is as important and as valid as the views of so-called "experts".

This is a concept that the ruling classes wish to entirely annihilate. What they want to "prove" - and what I strongly suspect they are using the Lucy Letby case to prove - is that ordinary people are idiots. They can't think properly, they can't assess evidence reliably, and they certainly can't be trusted to come to the right view.

Because just look what happens when we entrust them with that kind of responsibility - they put innocent angels like girl-next-door, salsa-dancing, cat loving Nurse Lucy in prison for life!

(A detail cleverly included in all the publicity on the Letby trial was that her two beloved cats, Tigger and Smudge, had to be rehomed. Every cat lover out there - and Britain is nothing if not a nation of cat lovers - shuddered at the thought of those poor confused fur babies losing their home and missing their "mum"...)

The desired social model for the future is something far more authoritarian and less egalitarian than we currently have, and something far more resembling the medieval feudal system, where a small class of powerful rich people tell the rest of us what to do.

Therefore, any existing social structures that support the idea of equality, and ordinary people being as worthwhile and important as "experts", has to go.

That means no trial by jury, only trial by "experts".

It also means no democracy - the idea of ordinary people having a say in politics is incredibly new historically speaking, and that too is earmarked for abolition.

The overlords have been diligently working away to make the voter turnout lower and lower every year - at this year's General Election, it was the lowest since World War Two - so they can say:

"Well, the masses have made it clear they're not interested in democracy, they're too apathetic and uninterested to be extended the privilege of having a view, so it's best we scrap that failed system and replace it with one where we just tell them what to do."

They're already talking about the prospect of "Citizen's Assemblies" where so-called "representatives of the wider community" decide what everyone else should do.

Ominously, they already have a Climate Assembly with 108 members who were "selected through a process known as ‘sortition’ or a ‘civic lottery’ to be representative of the UK population."

In other words, you didn't get a say on who was in this "assembly" that supposedly represents you, and that is going to make decisions that go on to affect your life. This assembly was - not elected, but - "selected".

Whatever you think about our current system, and flawed as it obviously is, the fact is that the people currently in parliament and on councils are actually elected. It's not "rigged" in terms of votes being shredded or added, the voting populace really does decide (and as I've said, I'm happy to publicly debate anyone who believes otherwise).

With "Citizen's Assemblies", however, there is no electing. There is no suggestion you have any choice. These people will simply be "selected" for you.

So, that's where we're headed: for institutions that support the egalitarian model that ordinary people matter and count, and that their voices should be heard, to be scrapped.

Elections and democracy will be replaced with selections and 'Citizen's Assemblies'.

Trial by jury will be replaced with trial by "expert" - and, who knows, maybe eventually "trial by AI" (remember the ominous line in Back To The Future II that "the justice system works swiftly in the future now that they've abolished all lawyers").

So, while we certainly should be challenging the Letby verdict, as obviously innocent people shouldn't go to prison, we also have to be mindful of how and why the social engineers are manipulating us to mount this challenge.

Because we have to ask ourselves, if we are ever falsely accused of a serious crime, who would we want to assess whether we are guilty? A jury of ordinary people much like ourselves... or the same "experts" who gave us Covid, lockdowns, mandates, and ultimately every psychopathic psy-op the world has ever seen?

Ordinary people are not perfect, of course, and they can get things wrong. Yet in any serious situation, I would always invest far more trust and faith in their ability and integrity than any shady cabal of state-appointed "experts".

I'm pretty sure every regular reader of this site would (vigorously) agree.

Thanks for reading! This site is entirely reader-powered, with no paywalls, adverts, or wealthy corporate backers, making it truly independent. Your support is therefore crucial to ensuring this site's continued existence. If you'd like to make a contribution to help this site keep going, please consider...

1. Subscribing monthly via Patreon or Substack (where paid subscribers can comment on posts)

2. Making a one-off contribution via BuyMeACoffee

3. Contributing in either way via bank transfer to Nat West account number 30835984, sort code 54-10-27, account name FINCH MA

Your support is what allows this site to continue to exist and is enormously appreciated. Thank you. 

Find Miri AF on social media via the links below...

Substack, Facebook, Instagram, YouTube and Twitter (posting there as my other resource, Informed Consent Matters)