UK - Nurse Lucy Letby, murder of babies, 7 Guilty of murder verdicts; 8 Guilty of attempted murder; 2 Not Guilty of attempted; 5 hung re attempted #38

[Ruthbullock]

We also have confirmation from Dr Harkness that the desaturation happened at 11.40, which again doesn’t fit with the phone call timeline- this is also the point LL decides this requires a DATIX completing as per the trial reporting as she believes a blood transfusion at this point may have helped.

Recap: Lucy Letby trial, July 4 - judge's summing up

The trial of Lucy Letby, who denies murdering seven babies at the Countess of Chester Hospital neonatal unit and attempting to murder 10 more, is…

www.chesterstandard.co.uk

 

[Ruthbullock]

We have Dr Wood, Dr Harkness and Dr ZA the consultant dealing with baby E- all who are subsequently redacted in the inquiry.

 

[katydid23]

We also have confirmation from Dr Harkness that the desaturation happened at 11.40, which again doesn’t fit with the phone call timeline- t

Yes, it does fit the phone call timeline. The child began his decline before 10 PM. There was a call from the midwife at 10:52 PM, when he went into his initial desaturation.
[See Below for trial testimony from Meyers]

his is also the point LL decides this requires a DATIX completing as per the trial reporting as she believes a blood transfusion at this point may have helped.

Recap: Lucy Letby trial, July 4 - judge's summing up

The trial of Lucy Letby, who denies murdering seven babies at the Countess of Chester Hospital neonatal unit and attempting to murder 10 more, is…

www.chesterstandard.co.uk

There was more than one desaturation, as shown in the court testimony. The 11:40 pm was the final and lethal incident.

There was also one which began before !0 pm---
Dr David Harkness records readings from 9.40pm, written at 10.10pm, 'asked to see patient re: gastric bleed'.

'Large, very slightly bile-stained aspirate 30 mins ago.'

14ml of blood vomit is also recorded.

Letby records: "At 10pm large vomit of fresh blood. 14ml fresh blood aspirate obtained from NG tube.


10:40

NG tube on free drainage. Further 13mls blood obtained by 11pm. Beginning to desaturate and perfusion poor. Oxygen given via Neopuff'.

Child E was said by Letby to be 'cold to the touch' and was beginning to 'decline'.

Then at 11:30 he has a total collapse.

Recap: Lucy Letby trial, Monday, November 14

The trial of Lucy Letby, who denies murdering seven babies at the Countess of Chester Hospital neonatal unit and attempting to murder 10 more,…

www.chesterstandard.co.uk

the Defence attorney refers to the 10:52 pm phone call from the midwife during his cross examination of the mom:

Recap: Lucy Letby trial, Monday, November 14

The trial of Lucy Letby, who denies murdering seven babies at the Countess of Chester Hospital neonatal unit and attempting to murder 10 more,…

www.chesterstandard.co.uk

3:45am
The mum said she told her husband "there was something very wrong", cannot remember telling the midwife that, but said she was very upset at the time.

Mr Myers says, for the 10.52pm phone call, she mentioned to her husband about the blood coming out of Child E.

The mum says she does not remember the 10.52pm phone call as the midwife got in contact with the husband.

Mr Myers suggests the mum was not as worried at the 9.11pm phone call as she was at 10.52pm.

The mum says she disagrees with that.

HERE IS ANOTHER REFERRAL TO THE 10:52 PM CALL:

He tells the court the phone call he received from his wife at 9.11pm, wo was "upset and very worried" about the bleeding from the baby's mouth.

He said he was sure the medical staff knew what they were doing, and she was panicking over nothing.

The second phone call was split between the midwife and his wife. He was told: "Don't panic, but get over here now."

Mr Myers asks if the bleeding was referred to at the 10.52pm phone call, rather than 9.11pm. The father replies it was not; that was referred to in the 9.11pm phone call.

 

[katydid23]

We also have confirmation from Dr Harkness that the desaturation happened at 11.40, which again doesn’t fit with the phone call timeline- this is also the point LL decides this requires a DATIX completing as per the trial reporting as she believes a blood transfusion at this point may have helped.

Recap: Lucy Letby trial, July 4 - judge's summing up

The trial of Lucy Letby, who denies murdering seven babies at the Countess of Chester Hospital neonatal unit and attempting to murder 10 more, is…

www.chesterstandard.co.uk

Again, there was more than one desaturation. 11;40 PM was the final lethal incident. But his decline and initial desaturation was noted by Dr Harkness beginning around 10 PM.

So it fits the phone call timeline perfectly. The midwife called the parents at 10:52 PM right after their baby began to desaturate the initial time.


initial decline:
Dr David Harkness records readings from 9.40pm, written at 10.10pm, 'asked to see patient re: gastric bleed'.

'Large, very slightly bile-stained aspirate 30 mins ago.'

14ml of blood vomit is also recorded.

Letby records: "At 10pm large vomit of fresh blood. 14ml fresh blood aspirate obtained from NG tube. Reg Harkness attended.

NG tube on free drainage. Further 13mls blood obtained by 11pm. Beginning to desaturate and perfusion poor. Oxygen given via Neopuff'.

Child E was said by Letby to be 'cold to the touch' and was beginning to 'decline'.
THE PHONE CALL @10:52 PM:
He tells the court the phone call he received from his wife at 9.11pm, wo was "upset and very worried" about the bleeding from the baby's mouth.

He said he was sure the medical staff knew what they were doing, and she was panicking over nothing.

The second phone call [10:52] was split between the midwife and his wife. He was told: "Don't panic, but get over here now."

Mr Myers asks if the bleeding was referred to at the 10.52pm phone call, rather than 9.11pm. The father replies it was not; that was referred to in the 9.11pm phone call.

Recap: Lucy Letby trial, Monday, November 14

The trial of Lucy Letby, who denies murdering seven babies at the Countess of Chester Hospital neonatal unit and attempting to murder 10 more,…

www.chesterstandard.co.uk

 

[katydid23]

The midwife stated it was around midnight that she requested dad attend on mums phone and she was notified by the NNU at 11.30- so if mum (that feels unfair, but we are for court proceedings) is reliant on phone records for the timings- then the first phone call must also be an hour out and 10, not 9.00

Recap: Lucy Letby trial, July 4 - judge's summing up

The trial of Lucy Letby, who denies murdering seven babies at the Countess of Chester Hospital neonatal unit and attempting to murder 10 more, is…

www.chesterstandard.co.uk

Meyers, Lucy's defense attorney discusses the phone call from the midwife to the parents as being @ 10:52 PM.

Recap: Lucy Letby trial, Monday, November 14

The trial of Lucy Letby, who denies murdering seven babies at the Countess of Chester Hospital neonatal unit and attempting to murder 10 more,…

www.chesterstandard.co.uk

He confirms he had gone home on the evening of August 3, and then received a phone call from his wife that night.

He tells the court the phone call he received from his wife at 9.11pm, who was "upset and very worried" about the bleeding from the baby's mouth.

He said he was sure the medical staff knew what they were doing, and she was panicking over nothing.

The second phone call [10:52 PM] was split between the midwife and his wife. He was told: "Don't panic, but get over here now."

Mr Myers asks if the bleeding was referred to at the 10.52pm phone call, rather than 9.11pm. The father replies it was not; that was referred to in the 9.11pm phone call.

 

[katydid23]

Katy I wrote 22:50 instead of 22:52 just to keep things simple from a timeline perspective. That’s 10:52pm. We can’t check now because the post has been removed as containing misinformation. The point I was trying to make is all the other hospital notes, as well as the time the mum got to the NNU (which I hope we can all agree did not take anywhere near an hour, she was desperate to get there asap obviously), support that the dad was actually called at 23:52 (I wrote 23:50 again to keep things simple), which was right before the mum headed to the NNU.

I was talking about the second call. And that if it was indeed out whether that had implications on the timing of that first call.

I’m not interested in arguing with anyone. I was looking for some explanation that I hadn’t considered, or something that helps it make sense, perhaps if something came out thirlwall that I wasn’t aware of.

But that doesn't have anything to do with the FIRST call at 9:11 PM.

It is a fact that there was a 9 PM Feed scheduled by the hospital for the twins, E and F---right? no one disputes that.

The question is, was Letby correct that it was cancelled by a doctor? That is her contention.
[Although she couldn't find anyone to corroborate that. In fact they had evidence which refutes it.;

The Mom was under the impression she was expected to bring milk at 9 PM to the nursery. NO ONE HAS DENIED THAT.

Lucy denied that the mother showed up at 9 with milk. And she denied that the mother walked into a room and saw her baby screaming and bleeding.

It is Lucy's word against the Mom and Dad's sworn testimony.

Mom and Dad have phone records showing a 5 minute call from Mom to Dad at 9:11. Dad swears that Mom told him about the bleeding crying baby.

Lucy claimed it never happened. But how can that be true? WHO NOTIFIED MOM NOT TO GO TO THE SCHEDULED FEED AT 9 PM?

Are we supposed to believe that the mother of newborn twins was there at the hospital and she just ignored her 9PM scheduled feeding? Why would she do that?

I think it is much more believable that she did as she testified---she expressed her milk at 8:30, and took it up to the nursery.

Can you give me a believable reason for her to ignore that Feeding schedule and not go to the nursery as scheduled?

 

[Ruthbullock]

Meyers, Lucy's defense attorney discusses the phone call from the midwife to the parents as being @ 10:52 PM.

Recap: Lucy Letby trial, Monday, November 14

The trial of Lucy Letby, who denies murdering seven babies at the Countess of Chester Hospital neonatal unit and attempting to murder 10 more,…

www.chesterstandard.co.uk

He confirms he had gone home on the evening of August 3, and then received a phone call from his wife that night.

He tells the court the phone call he received from his wife at 9.11pm, who was "upset and very worried" about the bleeding from the baby's mouth.

He said he was sure the medical staff knew what they were doing, and she was panicking over nothing.

The second phone call [10:52 PM] was split between the midwife and his wife. He was told: "Don't panic, but get over here now."

Mr Myers asks if the bleeding was referred to at the 10.52pm phone call, rather than 9.11pm. The father replies it was not; that was referred to in the 9.11pm phone call.

The quotes you are using are all based on mums testimony/evidence of the phone calls from the records- I shared from the same paper as you that the midwife during the trial confirming it was after 11.30 that she spoke to NNU and then she spoke to the dad via the mums phone. They can’t both be accurate

 

[Ruthbullock]

But that doesn't have anything to do with the FIRST call at 9:11 PM.

It is a fact that there was a 9 PM Feed scheduled by the hospital for the twins, E and F---right? no one disputes that.

The question is, was Letby correct that it was cancelled by a doctor? That is her contention.
[Although she couldn't find anyone to corroborate that. In fact they had evidence which refutes it.;

The Mom was under the impression she was expected to bring milk at 9 PM to the nursery. NO ONE HAS DENIED THAT.

Lucy denied that the mother showed up at 9 with milk. And she denied that the mother walked into a room and saw her baby screaming and bleeding.

It is Lucy's word against the Mom and Dad's sworn testimony.

Mom and Dad have phone records showing a 5 minute call from Mom to Dad at 9:11. Dad swears that Mom told him about the bleeding crying baby.

Lucy claimed it never happened. But how can that be true? WHO NOTIFIED MOM NOT TO GO TO THE SCHEDULED FEED AT 9 PM?

Are we supposed to believe that the mother of newborn twins was there at the hospital and she just ignored her 9PM scheduled feeding? Why would she do that?

I think it is much more believable that she did as she testified---she expressed her milk at 8:30, and took it up to the nursery.

Can you give me a believable reason for her to ignore that Feeding schedule and not go to the nursery as scheduled?

You know I can’t answer that question- maybe she did go down at 9, and 10- her memories and timings were only prompted by receiving the RCPCH report and thinking the times were wrong, then asking her phone company for her phone records. It was relevant to the prosecution to question that LL was lying about the times, it seems to have been skated over that Susan Brookes either lied about the times in court or the phone record times were wrong. It’s obvious why the prosecution wouldn’t highlight that aspect as it didn’t support their argument.

 

[Tortoise]

The quotes you are using are all based on mums testimony/evidence of the phone calls from the records- I shared from the same paper as you that the midwife during the trial confirming it was after 11.30 that she spoke to NNU and then she spoke to the dad via the mums phone. They can’t both be accurate

The midwife does not say it was after 11.30 that she spoke to the dad on mum's phone. She doesn't say anything ever about speaking with the father.



"Agreed evidence is now being read out by prosecutor Simon Driver.
A statement by Susan Brookes is read out, dated April 2, 2019. She was a registered midwife at the Countess of Chester Hospital in August 2015.
She said there would have been two midwives working that night shift.
She said her responsibilities included making sure the mother was well and providing emotional support when needed.
Her 'midwife notes' are presented to the court, showing the mum of Child E was 'post-natal well', and one of the twins had 'deteriorated slightly'.
At 11.30pm on August 3 she had a call from the neonatal unit to ask Child E's mother to go down in 30 minutes as Child E had a bleed and required intubating - 'very poorly'.
She said the mum was very upset and she thought the 30-minute was 'unreasonable' and asked to go sooner.
At midnight, the midwife stayed with Child E's mother for 10 minutes in the corridor outside the neonatal nursery room where Child E and Child F were, and the mum was eventually allowed in once medical staff had stabilised Child E."

LIVE: Lucy Letby trial, Tuesday, November 15



"She had recalled at 11.30pm the neonatal unit rang to bring Child E's mother to the unit in 30 minutes, as Child E had a bleed."

Recap: Lucy Letby trial, July 4 - judge's summing up





In fact the midwife's notes that evening showed that one of the twins had "deteriorated slightly". Then the call from the NNU at 11.30pm was to say he had a bleed and was "very poorly". Clearly two different status updates, IMO.

 

[Tortoise]

Based on Mother E's evidence at Thirlwall I think it is probable that the parents were not local to CoCH and that is why it took the father some time to get there after the second call.


Some quotes:

A. Okay, so I was under the care of Liverpool Women's Hospital. I was there as an inpatient, there'd been a problem at one of my last appointments, and the Consultant thought it was best that I stayed in hospital. They were trying to get the pregnancy to 30 weeks and they thought that was going to be possible and I was being scanned every day. It was suggested that Child E was significantly smaller than Child F, and there was a problem with the blood flows to the boys. We knew there was a problem with the neonatal unit at the Liverpool Women's as in capacity and we knew a few days before that it was actually at capacity. And it was suggested that we -- you know, we be transferred to different units and I think one of them was actually Cardiff, and I was quite upset at the prospect of being sent to Cardiff, which is quite --

Q. Yes. So you ended up having a C-section, didn't you, at the Countess of Chester?

A. I did.

[...]

A. We wanted to leave but we were waiting on transport. So every day it was waiting to see if the transport team could have two ambulances available for the boys to move them, and unfortunately for us, that never happened. So after Child E died, we were very, very keen to move.

[...]

A. No. Quite the opposite. Everybody who came into contact with us said our boys were doing really, really well, and that was why the transfer had been suggested, because if they were unstable they wouldn't have been able to travel.

Q. I think you said in response to questions from my learned friend that there was a planned transfer for the twins.

A. Yes.

Q. Why did you understand that that was transfer was considered to be safe?

A. Because we were told that was the case. Because it wouldn't be -- they wouldn't have been able to travel if the boys, either of the boys were unwell. They had to be in a stable condition to be able to be transported because ...

Q. When were you expecting that transfer to take place?

A. That transfer was, it was mentioned, I think it was mentioned to us on, I want to say on the 30th -- the 31 July, and we were simply just waiting on transport to be available, and that was the only thing that was keeping us at the Countess of Chester at that point.

[...]

Q. When you phoned Debbie Dodd what did you ask and what happened?

A. I asked to speak to Ian Harvey, because he'd signed the letter. And she said he wasn't available, and that she would pass any messages on and I said I was concerned because I had no idea that there was ever any issue, and, you know, why was this the first time that I'm hearing about this? And in my mind, I thought it was because we were out of the area, and I felt like we'd kind of been forgotten.

https://thirlwall.public-inquiry.uk...24/09/Thirlwall-Inquiry-18-September-2024.pdf

 

[katydid23]

The quotes you are using are all based on mums testimony/evidence of the phone calls from the records- I shared from the same paper as you that the midwife during the trial confirming it was after 11.30 that she spoke to NNU and then she spoke to the dad via the mums phone. They can’t both be accurate

You are correct---they can't both be accurate.

The midwife was giving an approximate time based off her memory years later. She had no records to confirm her timeline.

The mother of the murdered baby was using phone records to corroborate her timeline.

Which is more believable?

Besides that---Lucy's defense attorney conceded that the midwife phoned the parents AT 10:52 PM.

 

[katydid23]

You know I can’t answer that question- maybe she did go down at 9, and 10-

But Lucy swore under oath that mom didn't show up at 9 pm.

Does that make any sense? Mom had been to all of the previous scheduled feeds.

No one told her not to go to the 9 PM scheduled feed. So why would we believe Lucy when she swears Mom never came to the nursery at 9 PM? It does not make any sense that a nursing mom would just sit up in her hospital room and not feed her newborn twins.

Lucy swears Mom never went to the nursery at 9 PM. And Lucy also swears that Mom never saw her baby bleeding from his mouth at 9 PM. She says mom is mistaken or lying.

But why wouldn't we believe that Mom saw her son bleeding at 9 PM? Less than an hour later Dr Harkness reported a 'gastric bleed' and a large vomit of blood.

That makes it very believable that Mom saw her baby bleeding at 9 PM. And the panicky phone call to her husband 10 minutes later is corroboration.

The only reason Lucy denies that the mom came to the nursery and saw the blood was because Lucy had lied to Mom when she claimed she had already reported it to the doctors. THAT WAS A LIE.

And Lucy had to scramble to try and cover up that damning lie. She falsified her medical logs, she called both parents liars, she told the attending doctor false medical data concerning the child, and delayed calling for help by an hour. By then the poor baby was already in a steep decline.

her memories and timings were only prompted by receiving the RCPCH report and thinking the times were wrong, then asking her phone company for her phone records. It was relevant to the prosecution to question that LL was lying about the times,

YES, it was relevant to the prosecution because it was not just the 'time' that was in dispute. It was the bleeding from Baby E's mouth that Lucy also denied. And she denied that she asked the mom to leave and she denied that she told the mom that a doctor was on his way to help.

So it was not just about Lucy lying about the 9 PM time---it was about her pretending that the mother never walked in and saw her baby crying and bleeding.

Less than 4 hours later that same baby had a massive internal hemmorhage and lost 1/4 of his total blood. So excuse me if I don't believe Lucy when she denies that the baby was crying and bleeding from his mouth already by 9 PM.

it seems to have been skated over that Susan Brookes either lied about the times in court or the phone record times were wrong.

Susan was going from memory and giving approximate times. The parents were using actual verified phone records accepted by the court.

Meyers the defense attorney also confirmed the time of the midwife's call as being 10:52 PM. So can we agree that the defense attorney and the courts verified phone records should be accepted as the correct timeline?

It’s obvious why the prosecution wouldn’t highlight that aspect as it didn’t support their argument.

 

[magikarpmagikarp]

Wouldn't Ben Myers have disputed the phone records if they were not reliable? He is very sharp and I can't believe he wouldn't have caught that. This is a genuine question from me, for those with legal knowledge.

 

[Tortoise]

Wouldn't Ben Myers have disputed the phone records if they were not reliable? He is very sharp and I can't believe he wouldn't have caught that. This is a genuine question from me, for those with legal knowledge.

Guarantee he wouldn't have missed it. Myers also had Fiona Clancy junior assisting barrister. She is unlikely to have missed it either, with her reported experience in high-profile cases involving conspiracy offences. Neither of them would have missed it, after the conspiracy theories came out of the woodwork, before the first appeal. Both barristers had a legal team working behind them as well. The police would have analysed the records. There is no evidence the records were wrong, it's baseless conjecture coming from a position of bias.

If anything, the clocks here move forward an hour in spring. 8pm becomes 9pm. At 9.11pm BST in August it was 8.11pm in spring before the clocks changed. It's not going in the right direction for the theory.

JMO

 

[Parker Knoll]

Neither side or the police/CPS have missed anything.
She’s a proven liar.

 

[Ruthbullock]

The midwife does not say it was after 11.30 that she spoke to the dad on mum's phone. She doesn't say anything ever about speaking with the father.



"Agreed evidence is now being read out by prosecutor Simon Driver.
A statement by Susan Brookes is read out, dated April 2, 2019. She was a registered midwife at the Countess of Chester Hospital in August 2015.
She said there would have been two midwives working that night shift.
She said her responsibilities included making sure the mother was well and providing emotional support when needed.
Her 'midwife notes' are presented to the court, showing the mum of Child E was 'post-natal well', and one of the twins had 'deteriorated slightly'.
At 11.30pm on August 3 she had a call from the neonatal unit to ask Child E's mother to go down in 30 minutes as Child E had a bleed and required intubating - 'very poorly'.
She said the mum was very upset and she thought the 30-minute was 'unreasonable' and asked to go sooner.
At midnight, the midwife stayed with Child E's mother for 10 minutes in the corridor outside the neonatal nursery room where Child E and Child F were, and the mum was eventually allowed in once medical staff had stabilised Child E."

LIVE: Lucy Letby trial, Tuesday, November 15



"She had recalled at 11.30pm the neonatal unit rang to bring Child E's mother to the unit in 30 minutes, as Child E had a bleed."

Recap: Lucy Letby trial, July 4 - judge's summing up





In fact the midwife's notes that evening showed that one of the twins had "deteriorated slightly". Then the call from the NNU at 11.30pm was to say he had a bleed and was "very poorly". Clearly two different status updates, IMO.

So if we believe the phone records are correct-did the midwife ask dad to come to the hospital at 10.52 (mum accepts it was about 2 hours after the first phone call)

From Mother E's Thirlwall Inquiry testimony, 18th September 2024, page 11: Q. When you went back, did you get a call later that night to go back to the NNU? A. Yes, yes. So I'd had a conversation with a midwife and I was upset, and I told her what I'd found, and I think she checked on me throughout the couple of hours, and she then asked me to -- she'd come in to the room and asked me to contact my husband, and ring him. And at that point I knew something really bad was happening, and she asked to speak to him and she didn't -- she wanted to speak to him and she told him to come to the hospital straight away and not to drive. To get somebody else to drive him. So at that point, I knew something really awful was happening, but I never for a million years did I think that my boy was going to die. It never entered my head that he was going to die.

From her Thirlwall Inquiry testimony, pages 11-12:Q. So you go down with the midwife again that evening?A. Yes. Q. How long after when you first went down are we talking about? Do you remember the timings or not?A. A couple of hours. About two hours, I think.Q. So you go down, and what situation confronted you? Where were you when you went down?A. Sorry? Q. Where were you when you went down, where were you taken?A. So when I went down I was sat in that same corridor where I could first hear them crying and there were some chairs and the midwife was sat next to me and I think she was trying to talk to me, and I was -- I don't really know what she was saying because I was watching what was happening through the window because I could see his incubator straight from where I was sat. And I could see -- or I couldn't really see -- I couldn't see Child E, but I could see the team around him working and it looked busy and it looked serious.
Q. You say in your statement you had to sit outside in the corridor for approximately 15 minutes?A. Yes.

https://thirlwall.public-inquiry.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/Thirlwall-Inquiry-18-September-2024.pdf

From the trial transcript:
At midnight, the midwife stayed with Child E's mother for 10 minutes in the corridor outside the neonatal nursery room where Child E and Child F were, and the mum was eventually allowed in once medical staff had stabilised Child E.

Recap: Lucy Letby trial, Tuesday, November 15

The trial of Lucy Letby, who denies murdering seven babies at the Countess of Chester Hospital neonatal unit and attempting to murder 10 more,…

www.chesterstandard.co.uk

From the prosecution trial testimony:

The prosecution add that at 11.40pm, Child E suffered a sudden desaturation.His abdomen "developed a striking discolouration with flitting white and purple patches."CPR was started, but Child E "continued to bleed".

Recap: Prosecution opens trial of Lucy Letby accused of Countess of Chester Hospital baby murders

THE trial of former Countess of Chester Hospital nurse Lucy Letby, who is accused of multiple baby murders, is due to finalise its jury and hear…

www.chesterstandard.co.uk

There are a lot of similarities in everyone’s statements for this to be two separate events

 

[Ruthbullock]

Guarantee he wouldn't have missed it. Myers also had Fiona Clancy junior assisting barrister. She is unlikely to have missed it either, with her reported experience in high-profile cases involving conspiracy offences. Neither of them would have missed it, after the conspiracy theories came out of the woodwork, before the first appeal. Both barristers had a legal team working behind them as well. The police would have analysed the records. There is no evidence the records were wrong, it's baseless conjecture coming from a position of bias.

If anything, the clocks here move forward an hour in spring. 8pm becomes 9pm. At 9.11pm BST in August it was 8.11pm in spring before the clocks changed. It's not going in the right direction for the theory.

JMO

I’m not sure how you believe the clocks going forward doesn’t go in the right direction- her phone records would show 9.00, which is GMT, the real time of BST would be 10.00

 

[Ruthbullock]

If you are convinced the phone times are correct and we know it was the second phone call from mum, where the midwife spoke and asked dad to come urgently was at 10.52 (not 11.52) and we know the bleeds were at 9.00 and 11.00- what prompted the urgency for the NNU ringing up to ask that dad be contacted to attend?
Attached is mums testimony in the inquiry stating that it was 2 hours after the first phone call, the midwife used her phone to request her husband to attend.

 

[Ruthbullock]

Wouldn't Ben Myers have disputed the phone records if they were not reliable? He is very sharp and I can't believe he wouldn't have caught that. This is a genuine question from me, for those with legal knowledge.

Would they have known that in the trial- it was mums testimony, about the phone calls, I’m not sure the actual records were in evidence, until they were brought up by mum as a witness.

 

[Tortoise]

I’m not sure how you believe the clocks going forward doesn’t go in the right direction- her phone records would show 9.00, which is GMT, the real time of BST would be 10.00

winter is GMT, summer (BST British Summer Time) is GMT + 01.00.

At 9pm that night, which the mother remembers as the time she went to feed the twins, the phone records would show 8pm if they were incorrectly reporting the time in GMT.

If the phone records showing 9pm were in GMT+1 (BST) it agrees with the mother's memory.

I think. I admit it is doing my head in a bit.