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

[JosieJo]

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.

I've seen a lot around this lately also ...fed by the fact that the parents actual copy was presented in court. I'd be suprised if the police hadn't extracted their own data surely?

 

[marynnu]

I've seen a lot around this lately also ...fed by the fact that the parents actual copy was presented in court. I'd be suprised if the police hadn't extracted their own data surely?

I can't see them just using the mother's copy! The only real fly in the ointment is the midwife's testimony at Thirlwell that she recieved the call from NNU at 11.30pm. I'm not sure that tallies with the medical records though?

 

[JosieJo]

I can't see them just using the mother's copy! The only real fly in the ointment is the midwife's testimony at Thirlwell that she recieved the call from NNU at 11.30pm. I'm not sure that tallies with the medical records though?

I think some parts of the Doctors notes match the midwife..not all. Even if by some tiny chance the records are out . The mums testimony is still that she stood there doing nothing while her child screamed and the swelling in the throat. Also there was the air embolism claims. It's quite likely she caused the bleed knowing the baby had haematology issues to distract from the air embolism

 

[JosieJo]

I can't see them just using the mother's copy! The only real fly in the ointment is the midwife's testimony at Thirlwell that she recieved the call from NNU at 11.30pm. I'm not sure that tallies with the medical records though?

I would have also thought Ben Myers would have been all over it if the only records shown were the parents copy.

 

[marynnu]

I think some parts of the Doctors notes match the midwife..not all. Even if by some tiny chance the records are out . The mums testimony is still that she stood there doing nothing while her child screamed and the swelling in the throat. Also there was the air embolism claims. It's quite likely she caused the bleed knowing the baby had haematology issues to distract from the air embolism

Exactly. My view is that she would have been found guilty anyway. The timings didn't signify anything for me, it was the situation as described by the mother among other things. Not unlike the Baby K scenario in some ways. The only concern would be if it were seen as significant enough to warrant the case being revisited, what a nightmare that would be for the family.

 

[Baileyboo]

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.

I was reading about this last night. Lucy said there was no blood until 10pm, Dr Harkness saw the baby at 10pm, reported no blood around his face if the mother had visited at 10pm she would have met Dr Harkness - instead she said Letby was the only staff member there and there was blood around baby E's face.

You would think Ben Myers would have checked the phone records before cross examining the mother in court.

 

[marynnu]

I was reading about this last night. Lucy said there was no blood until 10pm, Dr Harkness saw the baby at 10pm, reported no blood around his face if the mother had visited at 10pm she would have met Dr Harkness - instead she said Letby was the only staff member there and there was blood around baby E's face.

You would think Ben Myers would have checked the phone records before cross examining the mother in court.

Would I be right in thinking no doctor knew about the blood on Baby E's face?

 

[Baileyboo]

These are the screen shots. Dr Harkness said he was called to see baby E regarding a gastric bleed arriving about 10pm. He obtained blood from the NG tube and then the baby vomited blood. If baby E's mum was there at 10pm she would have described these events.

 

[Sweeper2000]

Would I be right in thinking no doctor knew about the blood on Baby E's face?

Correct.

 

[Dotta]

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."

 

[JosieJo]

NHS worker appalled at 'privatisation' person mentioned in article

 

[Parker Knoll]

So 200 out of 750000 registered nurses ?
Mmmmm.

 

[joltz]

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.

This is a flat earthers argument. Do they think everyone else is as dumb as them?

 

[marynnu]

This is a flat earthers argument. Do they think everyone else is as dumb as them?

OK, but there is something in it. The time zone used for the phone records, the discrepancy with what the midwife said about the call from the ward. I don't doubt for a second that she assaulted this baby, it just concerns me that it might throw a spanner in the works. Saying that, has Mark McD picked this up at all? I'd expect him to if it had legs.

 

[Baileyboo]

OK, but there is something in it. The time zone used for the phone records, the discrepancy with what the midwife said about the call from the ward. I don't doubt for a second that she assaulted this baby, it just concerns me that it might throw a spanner in the works. Saying that, has Mark McD picked this up at all? I'd expect him to if it had legs.

You would think that for the phone records to be used as evidence, a copy would need to be given to the prosecution and defence and either could check the time zone. As no one knows what was actually said in the phone calls their significance is limited.
It's possible the midwife rang the dad at 22:52 because the mum was upset and then received a second call from NNU at 23:30.

 

[Parker Knoll]

Didn’t Baby E die in august though ?
I can’t see how BST comes into this at all or am I missing something ?

 

[marynnu]

Didn’t Baby E die in august though ?
I can’t see how BST comes into this at all or am I missing something ?

BST is during the summer!

 

[Parker Knoll]

Explain it like I am 5 Mary please !
It’s not as though the clocks went either forward or backward that night so I can’t see how it could be relevant or am I being seriously THICK ?

 

[Baileyboo]

Having watched the video on YouTube, they are saying that the mother requested the phone records two years later and they are held in UTC, a hour behind BST, so they reckon the phone company sent them in UTC not BST and nobody noticed. This would make the phone call to the father when the mother first saw bleeding at 10:11 not 9:11 fitting in better with Letby's case note and later phone call at 11:52 fitting in better with NNU phonecall to midwife Susan Brooks at 11:30. However the time line doesn't work as the mother didn't see Dr Harkness who was with the baby at 10pm and the midwife states in her notes that between 11:40 and 12:10 she was comforting the mother, arranging to visit NNU and taking mum to NNU. Nowhere in her notes does it say she rang the father at 11:52.
It seems likely there was some confusion with the later phone calls and possibly another member of the midwifery team rang dad after 11:30pm from the ward and this was mixed up with mum ringing at 10:52.

 

[Sweeper2000]

Remember as well the doc said he had no memory of delaying the feed. Not quite sure but I thought the first time a doc had seen the baby that night was with that first aspiration.