The midwife's notes from 8 pm say nothing about a screaming baby with blood streaming from his mouth. If she had been told that she would have gone to the nursery and checked it out.
The mom had twin preemie boys in the hospital. Obviously mom had things to discuss with the midwife. The notes said it was about deterioration and medication concerns. I don't think the 8 pm convo was about the 'bleeding from his mouth' incident.
Perhaps you didn’t read the bit where I said the notes don’t tally regardless. The fact is, we have a hospital record confirming the deterioration happened prior to 9pm. Unless you are saying there was another deterioration an hour prior which the jury weren’t told about? There wasn’t. It was made extremely clear the baby was stable beforehand.
Saying it could only be 9pm because the feed was scheduled at 9pm is simply repeating what was said in court and it’s not helpful. Common sense would suggest if the feed was scheduled for 9pm, mum would try to get there with the milk prior to that so the feeds could be prepared. That’s not a massive stretch and it’s not calling mum a liar.
Pointing out the call log seems to be very obviously out by an hour is not a conspiracy theory. It’s questioning whether mum’s certainty of the time comes from the call log she obtained, as opposed to memory. It doesn’t change the events or the sequence, but it does change when they occurred, and suggests an even longer amount of time occurred between a bleed being observed and the registrar’s attendance.
It’s a bit like Jayaram’s certainty of the timings in Baby K, he said he was certain because he remembered looking at his watch. But then it transpired the swipe data was reversed and therefore his memory of the timings could not be true.
For the call log to be true, lots of hospital notes would all have to be wrong, not just Letby’s. A Time Machine is required to make the 22:52 call fit. I think mum was there around 8pm and that’s when she saw the blood and says she was told they’d let her know of any other developments, she went back and told the midwife about it and asked to be informed of any other developments, with call to the husband happening at 8:30pm. I think she was there again briefly around 10pm, when Harkness was there, resulting in a 10:10pm call to the husband. Around 11:30pm, when NNU was prepping the baby’s medication and intubation, the midwife was called, leading to a 11:50pm call to husband to make his way to the hospital. There is a further medical record noting both parents were now present just after 1am, which tallies with the length of time it would have taken dad to get to the hospital. We know mum was already there a good while prior to that, the midwife stayed with her in the corridor until she was allowed in the room.
These sorts of glaring discrepancies just should not exist in a case where it’s alleged a baby was physically assaulted in plain sight. These are the sorts of discrepancies which fuel the questioning of these convictions. Pretending the discrepancies don’t exist does not help persuade anyone that the convictions are safe.
