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

[Tortoise]

Sorry to be dim, but can someone please explain the references to a midwife & medication? Is that meds given to Baby E's mother?

Yes, it wasn't reported on during the evidence portion of the trial, I can only presume because the reporting was so bad. Myers referred to it in his closing submissions. It doesn't say what the medications were.

 

[Baileyboo]

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.

Would the mother's phone record not state which timezone was being used? Especially if not the timezone used for the place/ time of the original phone call.

The midwife writes she took over care from 8pm it that doesn't mean she heard of mother E concerns then. She said that's when her shift starts.

I'm wondering if the baby E telephone calls timeliness made more sense if you were actually in court listening live, rather then reading a summary. Nobody sitting through the trial appears to think the phone calls were out by an hour.

 

[Marantz4250b]

I'm wondering if the baby E telephone calls timeliness made more sense if you were actually in court listening live, rather then reading a summary. Nobody sitting through the trial appears to think the phone calls were out by an hour.

This, very much this!

I can't recall much specific detail on here or in any of the reports about precise timings of the phone calls at the time she was on trial.

The jury heard every single word of the evidence presented. They had iPads containing all of the evidence bundles. They had ample opportunity to ask for any clarification they wanted during their deliberations.

I have no idea as to why people keep labouring these points - points which they do not have any background on other than some somewhat sketchy media reports. As you point out this doesn't seem to have been a contentious point at trial so why is it being brought up now?

 

[OhDannyBoi]

These people want to try and discredit anything and everything. The baby E case is a big issue because there was zero issues with the baby before Letby took charge and Letby acknowledged this herself. We also know she was lying and the mother strongly disagreed with Letbys version of events. I don't think baby E in particular is ever going to look good for Letby. The phone records is another red herring. It seems the tactic is to throw as much misinformation as possible to give some doubt because it gets to the point where it becomes much harder to discern the facts and truth from the huge mass of misinformation. The phone records idea is BS


JMO

Not only strongly disagreed but directly impeached with evidence and supporting witness testimony. The attacks on babies E & F are the clearest indication of intentional harm. There is no justification for baby E's mother (and father + phone records) to lie about the timing and content of what she witnessed. Their baby died and his brother was poisoned shortly after.

There's a clear and concerted effort by individuals who have emotionally latched on to a fantasy of Letby's innocence that they are spreading misinformation, harassing expert witnesses and villifying everyone but the woman who was murdering and attacking babies.

 

[Sweeper2000]

I think it's much ado about nothing. If the only reason people think the timings are off are due to handwritten notes from people who we know write these notes often retrospectively then we have more reason to assume teh handwritten notes are off.

 

[Marantz4250b]

There's a clear and concerted effort by individuals who have emotionally latched on to a fantasy of Letby's innocence that they are spreading misinformation, harassing expert witnesses and villifying everyone but the woman who was murdering and attacking babies.

Exactly!

As people on here know, I'm skeptical of the value of any further charges brought against her when the ongoing police investigations are concluded. I'm not convinced that prosecuting someone who is already serving multiple whole life orders will necessarily meet the public interest test the CPS must apply. That's just a personal opinion and I can see both sides of the argument.

My opinion is rapidly being adjusted through the antics of the Letby Conspiraloons, though. There is, I think, a valid public interest argument that further charges, if she is convicted of them, might serve to shut these people up. They will have absolutely no reason not to follow every second of the trial and can even attend, should they be committed enough. Most won't be, though.

Of course there will be the added benefit that as soon as she's charged (arrested, even) the sub-judice rules kick in so what can be discussed and what they can shout about online - especially on here as I know the mods are hot on that - is very much reduced.

And, before anyone starts yelling that I'm calling for new trumped-up charges to be brought simply as a method of gagging her supporters - no, I'm not. I'm referring specifically to the "public interest" side of the charging decision which is the second leg and which comes after the evidential test.

 

[Parker Knoll]

They just can’t ever accept the reality of it all sadly.
She must love it …. sat in her 6 x 9 cell.

 

[OhDannyBoi]

In weighing evidence, the timings of the phone call confirm the mother's account as to when she saw blood on the baby's mouth.

Exactly!

As people on here know, I'm skeptical of the value of any further charges brought against her when the ongoing police investigations are concluded. I'm not convinced that prosecuting someone who is already serving multiple whole life orders will necessarily meet the public interest test the CPS must apply. That's just a personal opinion and I can see both sides of the argument.

My opinion is rapidly being adjusted through the antics of the Letby Conspiraloons, though. There is, I think, a valid public interest argument that further charges, if she is convicted of them, might serve to shut these people up. They will have absolutely no reason not to follow every second of the trial and can even attend, should they be committed enough. Most won't be, though.

Of course there will be the added benefit that as soon as she's charged (arrested, even) the sub-judice rules kick in so what can be discussed and what they can shout about online - especially on here as I know the mods are hot on that - is very much reduced.

And, before anyone starts yelling that I'm calling for new trumped-up charges to be brought simply as a method of gagging her supporters - no, I'm not. I'm referring specifically to the "public interest" side of the charging decision which is the second leg and which comes after the evidential test.

We're in agreement on the necessity of charges to address the misinformed and dishonest who keep trying to argue this is a scapegoating. What has me more curious is how her barrister is getting away with his appalling conduct. Recruiting a team of quacks and having them make defamatory statements against the people who ostensibly accused her and opine about causes of collapse that conveniently suggest no involvement of Letby (by ignoring the medical evidence and the facts indicating guilt outside of it), leading a harassment campaign against not just Dewi Evans but now Sandie Bohin seems like it should raise serious concerns for whichever group is meant to be enforcing code of conduct for barristers.

 

[OhDannyBoi]

Did they do autopsy in all cases?

The 14-experts panes named another pathogen, stenotophomonas maltophilia, as potential cause of death for one of the babies

Stenotrophomonas Maltophilia - StatPearls - NCBI Bookshelf

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Here about Pseudomonas

Pseudomonas aeruginosa - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Did they do autopsy for the baby who died from Necrotizing enterocolitis?

In their analysis of Baby 9 (Child I) the Panel postulate that colonisation of an endotrachealtube (ETT) with Stenotrophamonas maltophilia caused thick secretions to block the ETT andinterfere with ventilation causing: “…recurrent episodes of apnoea, desaturation, bradycardia,respiratory failure, and collapse. S. maltophilia colonisation would have further compromisedher ventilatory capacity.” The summary report omits to explain that Child I was never treated for S. maltophilia because testing never revealed evidence that Child I developed an infection dueto S. maltophilia. The Panel also fail to recognise that whilst Child I was ventilated using an ETTduring the early part of their life, they were not ventilated and did not have an ETT in place atthe point when Letby caused their death, and had not been so for some time.
Annex to Written Closing Submission of Family Groups 2 and 3 - 7 March 2025

https://thirlwall.public-inquiry.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Written-Closing-Submission-of-Family-Group-2-and-3-7-March-2025.pdf

 

[Sweeper2000]

Anyone know anything about the david Carrick ex met Police wrongun case? I'd be interested to see if the two are of similar sums in terms of evidential weight, however I'd bet a pretty penny none would as vehemently back him the way people are doing for the aesthetically desirable letby.

 

[Tortoise]

In weighing evidence, the timings of the phone call confirm the mother's account as to when she saw blood on the baby's mouth.


We're in agreement on the necessity of charges to address the misinformed and dishonest who keep trying to argue this is a scapegoating. What has me more curious is how her barrister is getting away with his appalling conduct. Recruiting a team of quacks and having them make defamatory statements against the people who ostensibly accused her and opine about causes of collapse that conveniently suggest no involvement of Letby (by ignoring the medical evidence and the facts indicating guilt outside of it), leading a harassment campaign against not just Dewi Evans but now Sandie Bohin seems like it should raise serious concerns for whichever group is meant to be enforcing code of conduct for barristers.

I've just now discovered how easy it is to submit an online complaint to the Bar Standards Board, for diminishing public trust in the profession, bullying and harrassment activities, and so on.

 

[Sweeper2000]

I've just now discovered how easy it is to submit an online complaint to the Bar Standards Board, for diminishing public trust in the profession, bullying and harrassment activities, and so on.

Do numbers count T ? If so count me in

 

[Tortoise]

Do numbers count T ? If so count me in

No, I don't think it matters. Although the more individual complaints they receive they might take more notice I suppose.

 

[OhDannyBoi]

(All superstitions stem from cognitive biases. In XXI century, however, we should accept them for what they are, “irrational, albeit comforting, beliefs”.)

Lucy Letby’s case raises a bigger question. How come so many professionals, be it doctors, policemen, journalists, or the court system seemed to show the same pattern of cognition?

Were these different specialists privy to all the facts and aware of their significance before the trial started?

Before we blame the police for not relying on statistics, there is a serious question to ask the doctors involved:

- was the fact of Pseudomonas infestation of COCH NICU in 2015-16 ever disclosed to the police before Operation Hummingbird?

- Was the gravity of this fact explained to the policemen?

If not, the police’s fault might be less, but that of the doctors, surely, more.

I found about the infection after Lucy Letby’s trial. What about the public? Were the expectant mothers planning to give birth in COCH in 2015 aware of it? Didn’t they have the right to know? Was the trial jury aware of what Pseudomonas was?

Dr. Evans was abreast of this, and probably, other things, during his investigation. In his long list of specialists involved, mentioned in the article, sanitary control is glaringly lacking. Drs. Breary, Jayaram, Gibbs, all knew of it. The CEO of the hospital knew.

My question is, was this fact (P. Aeruginosa) shared with Professor Jane Hutton, the statistician initially employed by the police, the one who was let go?

You see, she planned to investigate other factors contributing into NICU mortality and then suddenly the police let her go. Was the decision made solely by the police? Or was the hospital involved, too?

Jane Hutton's prior instances of serving as an expert witness were likely why she was let go. I would put forth that the criticisms levied against her report for the Benjamin Geen case should have been career ending. And given her lack of attention to detail as well as laziness, she was not someone who should ever be working as an expert witness.

There is no grand conspiracy to her removal.

 

[Sweeper2000]

No, I don't think it matters. Although the more individual complaints they receive they might take more notice I suppose.

Any particulars of note to be included in this correspondence?

 

[Tortoise]

Any particulars of note to be included in this correspondence?

‘I had concerns right from the beginning’

https://www.bailiwickexpress.com/news-ge/dr-bohin-to-retire-next-march/?

Running a media campaign to influence public opinion while knowing the CPS are considering further charges, harrassing/bullying expert witnesses, diminishing public trust in the profession.

 

[OhDannyBoi]

Any particulars of note to be included in this correspondence?

If I were writing a submission, I'd draw particular use of his connections to the media as well as his stunt press conferences where he used doctors residing in foreign countries (thus outside UK jurisdiction) to put forth defamatory remarks against Dr Stephen Brearey. The organized harassment of the expert witnesses, including Sandie Bohin who has been driven to early retirement due to harassment from the local community of Guernsey which McDonald has now sought to capitalize on. As well as using the international panel to put forward theories and make public pronouncements to shake confidence in the verdicts and evidence only for the panel's own work to be called into serious question by other professionals and representatives for the families.

It feels like there is serious misconduct in how he is putting together a retrial by media.

 

[Parker Knoll]

I would love to know what his chambers and beyond actually think of him.

Not much I suspect.
Just MY opinion obviously.

 

[JosieJo]

No, I don't think it matters. Although the more individual complaints they receive they might take more notice I suppose.

Oh yes it's quite easy isn't it !!

 

[Sweeper2000]

A how to.

The first page of the form.

Online reporting form for questions and concerns

www.barstandardsboard.org.uk

For ease and accessibility.

Mark McDonald | Furnival Chambers

Mark McDonald has a formidable reputation within criminal law. He specialises in criminal defence and has experience across all offences.

furnivalchambers.co.uk

Current Practising Status
Self Employed
Date of Call
Oct 1997
Inn of Court
Lincoln's Inn
Practising certificate valid
01/04/2025-30/04/2026
Primary practice address
Furnival Chambers, 16 Took's Court, LONDON, EC4A 1LB, United Kingdom
Primary practice switchboard number
(+44) 020 74053232
Rights of Audience

• Full Rights of Audience

Public Access
No
Conduct of Litigation *
No
Areas of practice
Crime , Public Law
Other Entitlements

• Administration Of Oaths
• Immigration Work
• Probate Activities
• Reserved Instrument Activities

Youth Courts Registration
No
Disciplinary Findings
There are no current findings on our Register in relation to this barrister.

Barrister Details - Mr Mark Paul McDonald

www.barstandardsboard.org.uk

let's hope that last bit changes.

Eta . The court case number which is essential. 202402750 B4

I also included quotes from the papers to kind of snapshot it and summarise it.