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

[Parker Knoll]

Ahhh - thank you !
Ok well I cannot recall a criminal case where mobile phone log timings have been called into question over this type of point and surely there would have been endless ?
I’m not buying this.

 

[Baileyboo]

It's very unlikely that baby E's mother just grabbed the phone records and gave it to the jurors. However this is the Letby case where a different flaw will be made up each week.

 

[Sweeper2000]

It's very unlikely that baby E's mother just grabbed the phone records and gave it to the jurors. However this is the Letby case where a different flaw will be made up each week.

Yeh that's a good point isn't it. The mums phone times would show bst, wouldn't also the hospitals records and schedule be bst?

 

[Baileyboo]

Yeh that's a good point isn't it. The mums phone times would show bst, wouldn't also the hospitals records and schedule be bst?

The hospital records would be in BST.

It would be easy to check the phone records. It's obvious she saw the baby bleeding before 10pm as she was there before Dr Harkness, who saw the baby around 9:40.

 

[marynnu]

When I read about Baby E I was totally convinced of her guilt, without any regard to the idea she falsified the records. The intense screaming with nothing being done by Letby, blood around the mouth, the absurd explanation, sending Mom back to the ward before a doctor saw the baby.

 

[Marantz4250b]

Ahhh - thank you !
Ok well I cannot recall a criminal case where mobile phone log timings have been called into question over this type of point and surely there would have been endless ?
I’m not buying this.

Agreed. The suggestion that the phone logs were an hour out and subsequently got past the police, the CPS, the prosecution barrister and the defence team is ridiculous, quite frankly.

 

[Marantz4250b]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1989845800357163040

"Around 200 nurses and health professionals gathered to show their support for Lucy Letby yesterday
amid growing calls for an independent review into her conviction.

The medical staff,
from hospitals across the UK,
met in Sheffield at a conference held by campaign group Nineteen Nurses
to discuss mounting fears that Letby,
who was sentenced to life imprisonment in August 2023 for the murder of seven newborn babies and the attempted murder of six more,
is a victim of a grave miscarriage of justice."

Sorry, a what now?

Independent from whom, precisely?? The hospital/NHS?

What "independent" body do these people want to have do that? Do they mean that well known independent boody called the police who spent literally years investigating it and still are?

I know, why don't we have an independent body check the police's work and decide whether she should be charged?

How about if we then asked a further independent body to test the opinion of the prosecution outfit whereby they can all get together and present everything - for and against - in front of a random collection of folks who have absolutely no vested interest what-so-ever in the outcome?

So - just what independent body are they referring to and why is it needed after so many existing independent bodies have already been literally all over it for years and at vast expense?

 

[Parker Knoll]

Agreed. The suggestion that the phone logs were an hour out and subsequently got past the police, the CPS, the prosecution barrister and the defence team is ridiculous, quite frankly.

Exactly … you would have every lag in the land wanting to crack open their convictions.
Utter claptrap.

 

[WaneLyrical]

The call log presented in court was a redacted copy of what Baby E’s mum obtained from her provider, with her handwritten notes on. Letby had already been interviewed by police before they became aware of those records, so by that point the records would have been gone and there would be no way to corroborate whatever the mum obtained. There were 4 calls to the husband on it, and they don’t really tally with the medical notes whether they are correct or whether they’re an hour out.

Baby E’s mum said she told the midwife about her concerns with Baby E when she was back on the ward and receiving medication. There is a contemporaneous note from the midwife about this (medications and Baby E’s deterioration), but that note was at 8pm. Which is neither 9pm (feed due) nor 10pm (if records are in UTC).

Baby E’s mum knew a deterioration happened earlier, that’s why she obtained her call log in the first place. But this idea that it was 9pm doesn’t seem to fit with any of the notes at all. That 9pm call lasted less than 5 minutes. There was a call to the husband an hour and a half earlier which lasted much longer.

The 22:52 obviously doesn’t tally with when the husband would be asked to “come quickly”. If that was true, there’s no way mum would still be on the post natal ward an hour later for the midwife to be writing notes like ‘23:50 asking if mum can go to NNU sooner than 30 mins’.

Something is clearly wrong with the call log whatever way it’s looked at.

 

[Sweeper2000]

Interesting. Would it be the case then that the stronger indication of accuracy in timings would come from both parents stating that the call about baby e's mouth was at the 9.11 mark along with this coinciding with the 9 pm feed?

I've looked high and low for verbatim reporting on the words used but can't find them. Only quotes I can find about the actual words in that call were from dad saying he thought the nurses would know what they are doing.

 

[JosieJo]

The call log presented in court was a redacted copy of what Baby E’s mum obtained from her provider, with her handwritten notes on. Letby had already been interviewed by police before they became aware of those records, so by that point the records would have been gone and there would be no way to corroborate whatever the mum obtained. There were 4 calls to the husband on it, and they don’t really tally with the medical notes whether they are correct or whether they’re an hour out.

Baby E’s mum said she told the midwife about her concerns with Baby E when she was back on the ward and receiving medication. There is a contemporaneous note from the midwife about this (medications and Baby E’s deterioration), but that note was at 8pm. Which is neither 9pm (feed due) nor 10pm (if records are in UTC).

Baby E’s mum knew a deterioration happened earlier, that’s why she obtained her call log in the first place. But this idea that it was 9pm doesn’t seem to fit with any of the notes at all. That 9pm call lasted less than 5 minutes. There was a call to the husband an hour and a half earlier which lasted much longer.

The 22:52 obviously doesn’t tally with when the husband would be asked to “come quickly”. If that was true, there’s no way mum would still be on the post natal ward an hour later for the midwife to be writing notes like ‘23:50 asking if mum can go to NNU sooner than 30 mins’.

Something is clearly wrong with the call log whatever way it’s looked at.

What do you mean there would be no way of checking..as in at a later time?

 

[Marantz4250b]

I'm sure it was discussed here (in fact, I know it was) at the time of the trial but in how much detail I can't recall. I certainly don't recall it being given a huge amount of coverage in the general media.

This is the thing, though; the people who are pushing her innocence were not at the trial and did not sit though all of the evidence relating to the phone calls - let alone the full nine-plus months of other evidence.

 

[JosieJo]

This makes my blood boil. I hope McDonald, the social media vilifiers and Deputy St Pier sleep at night

Dr Bohin to retire next March - Bailiwick Express News Guernsey

Dr Sandie Bohin will stand down from her work in Guernsey early next year. The Consultant Paediatrician who has worked for the Medical Specialist Group since 2009 has told her bosses that she intends to retire in March. Her decision to retire has followed controversies around her involvement in...

www.bailiwickexpress.com

 

[WaneLyrical]

What do you mean there would be no way of checking..as in at a later time?

Yes I just mean call records are only stored for 12 months. So by the time police questioned Letby on this, the records would be long gone.

 

[WaneLyrical]

Interesting. Would it be the case then that the stronger indication of accuracy in timings would come from both parents stating that the call about baby e's mouth was at the 9.11 mark along with this coinciding with the 9 pm feed?

I've looked high and low for verbatim reporting on the words used but can't find them. Only quotes I can find about the actual words in that call were from dad saying he thought the nurses would know what they are doing.

So they both testified the 9:11 call was the one where blood was discussed. But this doesn’t align with the midwife’s notes. It seems the blood situation may have occurred even earlier than that.

It doesn’t say anything about Letby’s guilt particularly, just that the timeline as presented in court is really not likely to be accurate, there are so many conflicting bits of evidence.

 

[WaneLyrical]

There was a call around 7:30pm on the call log. Let’s assume for a minute those records are in fact out by one hour, as a result of records being in UTC. We know the mum deliberately obtained these records because she knew for certain the deterioration happened earlier than the medical notes suggested, and not as late as 10pm. It’s possible that blood phone call to the husband actually happened at 8:30pm, but the nearest call on the call log was 9:11pm and so it was assumed to be that call.

It likely doesn’t change much in the grand scheme of things, but so much focus was placed on 9pm, when really they should have been looking at earlier in the evening for when things started to go downhill.

 

[katydid23]

What evidence is so compelling that you believe it is being with held by the prosecution (and ultimately Letby )?

Her trial was more than 10 months long. There were thousands of pieces of evidence, including thousands of pages of medical records, internal hospital documents, and text messages between Letby and coworkers, friends and family. There were 2 years of her handwritten medical logs, some of which were found to be falsified. These were detailed medical records, fluid balance charts, and blood gas readings. There were inconsistencies found which were incriminating. As an example, her falsifying her notes about Baby E and the time of his initial bleeding injuries. His mom had evidence to corroborate her version of events and Lucy only had her own notes, which had no corroboration. The mom's testimony was more believable and she had receipts and phone logs, and if she is to be believed, Letby would be guilty of assaulting Baby E. The mom and Dad's testimony made Lucy look very guilty, imo.

The jurors heard testimony from numerous medical experts, colleagues, and the families of the babies. And most notably, the defendant's own testimony, about these 27 collapses. She was cross examined which brought up many questions about her actions.
There was evidence linking Letby to the times of the deaths and collapses, showing she had the means and opportunity to commit these crimes. And there were even potential motives discussed.l

Also, there were 257 confidential medical documents she had illegally brought home, some found under her bed. Initially she denied bringing them home, then she said she may have accidentally brought a few home, then eventually she claimed to have a problem with hoarding paperwork. The problem was that these papers were not ever supposed to leave the hospital. They had classified information about each patient and family and their medical status. Did she use these stolen documents to choose her victims? She had moved houses and still kept these stolen medical papers and moved them with her.

Handwritten notes were found at her home, including phrases like "I AM EVIL I DID THIS" and the defense argued they were outpourings of distress. Others found them suspicious and incriminating.

There was 10 months of evidence set forth concerning TWENTY SEVEN collapses. It is hard to just point air one piece of evidence. I think everything taken in context, staff member's testimony, parents of babies testimony, Lucy's own testimony, all taken together, showed she was guilty beyond reasonable doubt. IMO

 

[katydid23]

There was a call around 7:30pm on the call log. Let’s assume for a minute those records are in fact out by one hour, as a result of records being in UTC. We know the mum deliberately obtained these records because she knew for certain the deterioration happened earlier than the medical notes suggested, and not as late as 10pm. It’s possible that blood phone call to the husband actually happened at 8:30pm, but the nearest call on the call log was 9:11pm and so it was assumed to be that call.

It likely doesn’t change much in the grand scheme of things, but so much focus was placed on 9pm, when really they should have been looking at earlier in the evening for when things started to go downhill.

I don't know what you are talking about? The call about blood couldn't have happened at 8;30. The mom did not go to the nursery until 9 pm because that is what her SCHEDULED feeding was set for. At 8:30 she was still expressing her milk, in preparation for feeding her twin boys.

She had no way of seeing any bleeding in Baby E before 9 pm.

And it does 'matter in the grand scheme of things' because during the trial Lucy was caught falsifying some of her medical logs. Claiming that a doctor told her to 'OMIT' baby E's 9 pm feed. But there was only one doctor assigned to him, and he said he never cancelled the feeding and his notes verified that. Then Lucy, on the stand, said she couldn't remember which doctor it was that cancelled the feeding. HOWEVER the mom had expressed her milk at 8 pm and arrived at 9 with her milk and was ready to feed her twins. Her testimony and timeline was corroborated by phone records, and testimony of other staff and her husband.

So the jury watched that unfold and they saw the testimony of Baby E's parents, explaining clearly what happened the night of his death. It made a big impact because their timeline coincided with the attending doctor and the midwife they had spoken to.

Lucy looked like a deer in headlights because she had to call the parents liars, but had nothing to corroborate that accusation. She claimed the grieving parents were mistaken about the Mom coming to the nursery at 9 pm with her milk, and mistaken about seeing her baby bleeding from the mouth. Mom had immediately called her husband at 9:11, crying and telling him what happened. He testified in court about that timeline.

Lucy failed in court that day. I really think it was a turning point in her trial. Her testimony did not sound convincing compared to the powerful, grief stricken testimony of Baby E's parents. It was Lucy's word against the parents and they had phone records and the doctors testimony, denying that he had cancelled the 9 pm feed.

 

[katydid23]

I apologise if this has been discussed before! The issue of the mother's phone calls & the timeline for Baby E has cropped up again, on YouTube this time. The basic argument is that phone records do not take account of BST. Do you folks have any thoughts on this? My argument is that the police would obviously be completely aware of this if it is the case.

LE would have picked up on that. IMO

There were other corroborating things besides just the time of the call to Dad. The hospital had a SCHEDULED feed set for 9 pm.
So it makes no sense that the Mom was there at 8 pm. She said she was expressing her milk at 8 pm in preparation.

AND Lucy falsified her notes and wrote OMIT under the 9 pm feed scheduled. But then they could not find anyone who told her to omit that feed. She claimed the attending dr told her to omit. But he denied that and had his own medical notes corroborating that. Lucy then pivoted and said she didn't actually remember who told her to cancel the feed.

Would all that ^^^ happen if mom was mistaken about the 9 pm timeline? I don't think so.

Mom said she saw her baby bleeding at 9 pm. She testified that Lucy told her to leave and promised her that the doctor had already been informed and was on the way.

All of the above was a lie. Lucy had not told a doctor that the baby was bleeding from his mouth. She waited until 9:30 and then just reported that there was flecks of blood in the diaper and in the vomit. NO MENTION OF ACTIVE BLEEDING.

 

[katydid23]

So 200 out of 750000 registered nurses ?
Mmmmm.

There is obviously going to be concern among some nurses. Who wants to be charged with murder if a patient dies? It makes sense some small percentage would jump to conclusions that nurses are unsafe.