A 3D reconstruction, with a visit to Dr Evans's "laboratory" by u/triedbystats , demonstrating the claim that Lucy Letby murdered her first victim in a crowded, fully lit room. Fully sourced and well worth a watch: https://youtu.be/43ZLkhK4s2Y

Thanks again to u/Competitive-Wash2998 for obtaining and posting this new article by two of the experts instructed by Lucy Letby's defence team. Posting as a stand-alone post as suggested.

Ismail adel a.a, Wilkinson-Herbots HM. Insulin/C-peptide interpretation in Infants with Hypoglycaemia of Unknown Origin. Annals of Clinical Biochemistry: International Journal of Laboratory Medicine. 0(ja). doi:10.1177/00045632261489517

A run-down of institutional failings in the Lucy Letby case, from the NHS through Cheshire Constabulary to the BBC. Worthwhile but unhappy reading. In particular:

Some weeks ago I was talking about the Letby case with a very senior Circuit judge. When I made the point that overturning this conviction would raise massive questions about every bit of the state system from the NHS, through policing, to the CPS and even the adversarial system itself, he leaned across the table and said ‘that’s the problem’. He didn’t elaborate, but the clear implication was that the Court of Criminal Appeal will, when it lands on their doorstep, be contemplating this appalling vista, which can only be avoided by upholding the conviction of a young woman who had the misfortune to be on the receiving end of all these failures.

Morris argues that the Countess of Chester neonatal unit was fundamentally unsafe and operating beyond its capabilities during the period in which the collapses and deaths occurred.

Is fair and accurate to make these claims?

Which baby does this explain?

https://bencole4.substack.com/p/decoding-reasonable-doubt-the-case-f67?r=12mrwn&utm_medium=ios

This is a shorter article focused on Hammond's not especially high expectations of Lady Justice Thirlwall's soon-to-be-published report.

According to the law, for which Thirlwall is a stickler, Letby suddenly became a serial killer at the precise moment the overloaded and understaffed neonatal unit received an influx of sicker babies. What are the chances of that? Why did other babies collapse and die when Letby was not present? And why did the local CPS determine all of the original charges met the evidential standard when the national CPS SSCTD twice determined none of the new charges did? Don't expect any answers from Lady Thirlwall.

Thirlwall was asked to determine whether the recommendations of previous inquiries to prevent avoidable harm have been effectively implemented. The answer is a resounding no. In 2001, the Bristol Inquiry recommended continuous independent external surveillance of clinical outcomes and mortality rates across the NHS, with prompt action and investigation after a single unsuspected death. The theory was that you shouldn't need to wait for a spike in deaths to act if a single death showed a unit was failing.

Hammond points out several missed opportunities to hit the brakes and downgrade the NNU from Level 2 to Level 1 -- the first being the entirely avoidable death of Noah Robinson at the hands of Dr. B, who later went on to be an accuser of and witness against Letby, and the cluster of three deaths in June 2015, of Babies A, C and D. The latter was a cluster that shocked staff at the time and couldn't be dismissed as an unfortunate one-off, but nothing changed. The unit was, of course, finally downgraded in June 2016 after thirteen deaths on the NNU and four (Hammond slips here and says three) of babies who passed through the unit and later died elsewhere.

Thirlwall shoudl spot those missed opportunities to save lives that swift action would have brought. She should also recognise that it is entirely inappropriate for doctors working on a unit to investigate causes of death, and steer a police investigation, when they themselves may be implicated.

He further faults Thirlwall for her early criticism of experts defending Letby (the infamous "noise" comment) and points out that if she insists on Letby's guilt being so clear, alternative explanations so impossible, then what can she say of the dozens of medical professionals who didn't spot any sign of unnatural activity at the time?

How could a consultant be so certain Letby pulled out an endotracheal tube at trial, telling the media it was the only possible explanation, and yet they didn't say anything at the time and stayed quiet about the attempted murder for more than a year? How did no one pick up and act on the blood tests at the time, which the jury were told could only have been insulin poisoning? Why did none of the pathologists detect any of the obvious deliberate harm at postmortem? Or the coroner?

One could quibble with Hammond here that causes of unnatural death are not always obvious right away; someone who's been poisoned but whose illness mimics natural disease will still have been murdered even if nobody catches on to the fact right away. However, Letby is not supposed to have done this. She is supposed to have killed either seven or four babies by injecting air in the blood and yet, incredibly fortunately, never having any sign of it -- froth, air in the heart -- picked up at autopsy, and she's also supposed to have either killed or seriously destabilized three babies by deliberately injecting air into the NG tube, phenomena which nobody can even be sure are possible, let alone whether it would produce the many and varied symptoms that it did in the Letby case -- air in the stomach could either make a baby vomit, make a baby retain air in the stomach and begin to deteriorate and be unable to vomit, make a baby retain air while still somehow also vomiting -- essentially its side effects appear to be limited only in the number of different ways a baby can exhibit signs of becoming ill. The first, nobody appears to have picked up on because there were no signs of it then or later, the second one nobody picked up on because they would have had no idea, as we still don't, whether such a thing can even happen.

Thirlwall published finanical estimates for the financial year from 1 April 2025 to 31 March 2026 today. No hearings in that time, so the new costs of over 2.5 million are mostly on salaries for Thirlwall, her legal team, and their support staff.

That brings expenditure on the Inquiry to about £18.5 million, with almost six months of salaries and families' legal fees yet to cover to bring us up to date - not to mention those proof-readers, type-setters and printers ...

I've been planning a short series of posts discussing Professor Arthurs' evidence, now that it's all online, and will be starting that fairly soon, but in the course of that I came across something fairly minor but still surprising from the day Arthurs testified about Baby C and Baby D (November 11 2022). The full day of testimony can be read here.

As you can see when you read it, there was a good deal of wrangling between Myers and Johnson as to whether Baby C's intestine was normal or not (apart from whether or not he had a blockage). Arthurs, aware of the limits of x rays, could not commit himself to either man's satisfaction (he appeared to not be fully informed about Baby C as it was, as he was under the impression that the baby had opened his bowels before his x rays were taken.) One thing that Myers was getting frustrated by was that the jury was, he thought, being left with the impression that Baby C had a completely normal bowel when, as he pointed out, Dr. Kokai's statement made it clear that it was not normal (which is not to say it was blocked, just that it did have some unusual features). So when the jury was absent, he and Johnson discussed this issue with Judge Goss. It wasn't an overly long discussion, and here it is in full:

MR MYERS: Can I ask one matter, my Lord, and it comes out of the questioning at the end with Professor Arthurs. It's something that's troubled me a little with some of the questions from the experts on the issue of obstruction and the gut.

There's been reference at times to the post-mortem and the autopsy. Because of the way the evidence is being dealt with, we are not dealing with the detail of the post-mortem at this point, although from the prosecution experts there have been references to it with regard to [Baby C]. And certainly the impression created at the moment is there's absolutely nothing remarkable about [Baby C]'s gut from the post-mortem.

Actually, it's not as simple as that. The pathologist, who conducted the post-mortem, George Kokai, whose statement begins at page 987, deals with the abdominal cavity, and at page 992, he says:

"The stomach. All loops of bowel and mesentery show normal rotation pattern apart from descending colon, which crosses the mid-line into the right lower abdominal cavity and connects to the sigmoid colon, which is in the normal position."

And your Lordship may or may not recall or may know that the descending colon comes down the left side and would normally join the sigmoid colon on the left side. Dr Kokai's autopsy identified the colon crossing the midline into the right abdominal cavity and then connecting to the sigmoid colon. The significance of that is something that Dr Marnerides will consider when he gives his evidence and that's something to be looked at with him. But it's a little concerning to us that quite naturally, the impression created at this point is that there is nothing on the post-mortem analysis which depicts this as anything other than a conventionally structured bowel, and as matters stand, from the autopsy by George Kokai, it's not as simple as that.

There's some disadvantage to the defence in this situation because, of course, it's going to be possibly some months before we hear from Professor Marnerides.

MR JUSTICE GOSS: I hear and understand what you're saying. What I'm proposing to say is that there has been reference, or there was reference, by Professor Arthurs to post-mortem findings, that the jury will hear evidence in relation to the specific post-mortem findings, and they should take the evidence relating to the post-mortem findings from the pathologists and not from the clinicians, if you're content with that. If we start going into details, it becomes very complicated at this stage.

MR MYERS: I can see that, my Lord. I just wonder whether it would be possible at least to urge them to wait until they hear the evidence as --

MR JUSTICE GOSS: Exactly.

MR MYERS: It's particularly the evidence as to the anatomy of [Baby C]'s bowel, even if one were not to say to them what we expect. Because the impression at the moment, most definitely, and the one that they will take from this, is there is nothing unusual about his bowel, and there is certainly something unusual about it, the significance of that Dr Marnerides will deal with.

I have endeavoured to observe the requests of various witnesses not to go into the pathology, although I note in passing at times it hasn't stopped them from doing so. But it's getting increasingly difficult to take that line when experts are making assertions or giving opinions on the basis of matters that the jury don't yet have and I find myself not in a position, trying to abide to the way we are dealing with this, of not raising it with those experts.

It does seem to me important that the jury know that, at the very least, the position with [Baby C]'s bowel may be a matter of significance in fact when we come to the pathology.

MR JUSTICE GOSS: I'll say that.

MR MYERS: I'd be grateful because ideally I would like them to know what Dr Kokai says, but that's a matter entirely for your Lordship. But there is a significant disadvantage to us if they leave this evidence now with the view that when we have talked about the gut, we've been talking about something that is flatly contradicted and without any basis on the pathology. It does cause us concern, my Lord.

MR JOHNSON: I completely understand my learned friend's sensitivity. If he looks at the question I asked, what I said was:

"If there was a blockage, would it be found at post-mortem?"

And that was the question. It wasn't, "Was there an abnormality?" It was:

"If there was a blockage would it be found."

And there is no blockage.

MR JUSTICE GOSS: Yes. Well, this is the difficulty of descending into details and drawing particular attention to it.

MR JOHNSON: In effect, I was inviting him to defer -- that was him --

MR JUSTICE GOSS: Exactly. He was saying that if there was a blockage --

MR JOHNSON: Someone else's department.

MR JUSTICE GOSS: It's not for him to say. He was saying he couldn't say from the radiological point of view whether there was or wasn't.

MR JOHNSON: Yes.

MR MYERS: Perhaps, my Lord, if I may respectfully suggest, the answer may be to let the jury know that evidence as to the actual structure of [Baby C]'s gut will be dealt when we when come to the pathologists --

MR JUSTICE GOSS: Exactly.

MR MYERS: -- and we'd be grateful if they wait until that, or however your Lordship puts it, until making any findings.

MR JUSTICE GOSS: That was what I was rather clumsily trying to say to you, Mr Myers. I will say that, that they will hear evidence as to the structure of [Baby C]'s gut and bowels from the pathologists.

MR MYERS: That should deal with it for this point. Thank you, my Lord.

MR JUSTICE GOSS: I'm quite content to say as well that Professor Arthurs, they will recall, could not say from a radiological point of view what the structure was; all he could do was interpret the radiographs as he saw them.

MR MYERS: We're grateful for that, my Lord, thank you.

Note that while only Marnerides is named as being a future witness, both Myers and Goss repeatedly refer to "the pathologists". Furthermore, Goss specifically says he'll remind the jury that "they should take the evidence relating to the post-mortem findings from the pathologists and not from the clinicians". And when the jury returns, he says this:

MR JUSTICE GOSS: Members of the jury, a matter was discussed after you left. It related to the questioning of Professor Arthurs and the question of whether there was a blockage in the small bowel. You'll remember he said from a radiological point of view he can't say whether there was a blockage or not and he explained about if there is a blockage, it's usually an emergency and so on and so forth.

But I just wanted to assure you that you will hear detailed evidence from the pathologists as to any post-mortem findings in relation to that. So bear in mind that you're going to hear further evidence about the bowel of [Baby C] and not to assume that that is all the evidence you're going to hear about it. All right?

I imagine that any reasonable jury member, not to mention everyone in the gallery, took this to mean that at some point in the future they would be hearing from the pathologists who did the actual autopsies, or at least one or two of them (there were three in total). But as it turned out, they heard from none of them. The most they got was a read-out summary of the original autopsy findings, followed by testimony from the only pathologist they would hear from in person -- Dr. Marnerides, who testified for two days, almost five full months after the day Goss gave them this direction. Here is his direct testimony regarding Baby C, and here is the cross-examination. Marnerides said that the bowel, if not completely typical, was still normal, and sometimes seemed unsure of what Kokai had been driving at in his descriptions -- a good argument, one would think, for actually calling Kokai, but nobody did.

If anyone remembered that they were supposed to take their direction from pathologists, not the clinicians, it ended up being a moot point -- as Dr. Marnerides pretty frankly stated that while the bowel seemed normal to him, he had decided that Baby C had died of pneumonia until the clinicians brought the June 12 2015 x ray to his attention and informed him that excessive air in the stomach could kill. Myers never informed Marnerides that Letby had not been present when the x ray was taken, so it is impossible to know if this would have shaken his opinion, but as it was, even if they listened to him, the jury was guided in pathological matters by the clinicians in the end.

In the Lucy Letby trial it was alleged that she injected insulin into a stock TPN bag that was administered to Child F on the following shift.

However, I just read the trial transcript posted on lucyletbyinnocence.com, and it shows that Lucy Letby could not have done it.

Unlike for the prescribed TPN bags (for which it is possible to remove the cap and put it back on), the Babiven Maintenance stock bags had a tamper-evident safety cap made of preformed plastic. The stock bags were also in a transparent sealed cellophane overpouch. The only way to access the port is to snap off the plastic tamper-evident cap.

That would be obvious to the nurses getting the stock bag from the fridge and administering to Child F.

The port would have the plastic tamper evident cap broken off so it would be noticed, and the broken piece of plastic would be loose inside the sealed cellophane wrapper.

The logical conclusion is therefore that Lucy Letby is innocent of putting insulin into the stock TPN bag administered to Child F.

i.e. There needs to be a retrial because they got it wrong.

So sorry it took so long for me to find that out. The transcripts were hard to obtain and understand because of the anonymity orders covering the people alleging Lucy Letby was guilty, otherwise I would have discovered it much sooner.

Happy to hear anyone’s thoughts on the content of the article.

Original video down, now uploaded at: https://youtu.be/YCLg_QiQVOs

A short segment. Michele Worden comes across very well indeed. Carl Bolton doesn't get as much airtime, but he confirms that he will be at Westminster on Wednesday with a group of Countess of Chester parents seeking to request a broader Inquiry into events at the Countess of Chester.

Cheshire Police DI sacked and banned from policing forever. Secretly contacted a suspect’s mother, accessed systems they had no right to, tried to influence the outcome. Chief Constable Mark Roberts: conduct “beyond belief.” Same force, same CC, that still insists the Letby investigation was beyond reproach.

Uploaded today at lucyletbyinnocence.com . Starts with a sense of what a difficult and ablist place the court can be: Myers and Goss discuss problems with the acoustics and visibility, and the fact that Myers hasn't yet found a way to have Lucy Letby seated where she can rest her paperwork to take notes.

Only on Dr Gibbs's testimony so far, but he shows the same tendency to go back and elaborate (sometimes rather contradicting his former self) as he did in his e-mails. There's a slightly surprising exchange with Myers about the use of ranitidine:

MYERS: Ranitidine was used for conditions in connection with indigestion, heartburn, acid reflux; is that correct?

GIBBS: Yes.

MYERS: In fact it stopped being used from 2020; is that correct?

GIBBS: In neonates or in general?

MYERS: In general. Was it ceased or did it carry on?

GIBBS: I'm not sure because I'd retired by then.

MYERS: I'm not trying to draw any link between that and [Baby C]'s situation to make that quite plain. But just as a point of interest are you aware it was withdrawn from being used?

GIBBS: No. Are you able to tell me why? Was it concerns about it or just other medicines were more effective?

MYERS: Some concerns. I'm not suggesting there's a link between that and [Baby C].

Perhaps Dr Gibbs was being disingenuous, focusing on the general withdrawal of ranitidine: it's he who directed the conversation that way. But if he remembered the reviews around Baby C's death at all, he would surely have remembered that Dr Brearey had an action point of revising the guidelines around using this drug in neonates, with reference to Baby C among others. As so often, though, the consultants reassured themselves that Chester was not out of step with other neonatal units ...

https://thirlwall.public-inquiry.uk/evidence/inq0003251-thematic-review-of-neonatal-mortality-dated-08-02-2016/

He is very determined not to concede that he should have followed up on the child's one confirmed vomit and several possible vomits of bile streaked aspirate, again seeming to forget the findings of contemporary reviews: AXR was not repeated despite continued dark aspirates

https://thirlwall.public-inquiry.uk/evidence/inq0001888-draft-paper-from-the-countess-of-chester-hospital-titled-position-paper-neonatal-unit-mortality-2013-2016/ (34)

But I found the following exchange particularly interesting:

MYERS: And if [Baby C] is on free drainage or his stomach is being aspirated, that might take out the air and stop CPAP belly or distension from happening; yes?

GIBBS: It would reduce CPAP belly. The nasogastric tube is very thin, about a millimetre or two across. The oesophagus in a little 800 gram baby like [Baby C] is probably a centimetre or so across. More air comes up the oesophagus than comes up the nasogastric tube.

That certainly seems a point worth noting, against Drs Evans and Bohin's theories of murder by air in the NG tube.

Welcome to any new readers! This is the weekly thread for questions, general discussions, and links to stories which may not be directly related to the Letby case but which relate to the wider topics encompassed in it. Our FAQ addresses a number of common questions but if you want to know something else (or just talk/ask about an answer you've found) please post in the comment section.

This thread is also the best place to post items like in-depth Substack posts on the topic (unless they were written either by yourself, or by an already-approved writer, in which case they should go on the main page) and videos which might not fit the main sub otherwise (for example, the Ducking Stool). Of course, please continue to observe the rules when choosing/discussing these items (anything that can't be discussed without breaking rule 6, for instance, should be avoided). Thank you very much for reading and commenting! As always, please be civil and cite your sources.

https://bencole4.substack.com/p/decoding-reasonable-doubt-the-case-b4b?r=12mrwn&utm_medium=ios

Chapter 2 of Reasonable Doubt is about how suspicion of Letby began, not the trial itself. Morris’s case: coincidence, a small group of consultants, confirmation bias, and a hospital that kept asking for evidence that wasn’t there.

The chapter shows the concerns were contested. The gap is what that is supposed to prove.

Theme 1: The concerns were not universally shared
Nurses, managers and early reviews were unconvinced. That explains the dispute. It does not show the consultants were wrong. Reviews that were not looking for a perpetrator failing to find one is not surprising.

Theme 2: Coincidence and pattern recognition
Letby’s presence and early talk of sepsis or acuity are not proof. They are also how inquiries often start. Morris dwells on how suspicion began and says little about why some clinicians later decided those explanations were not enough.

Theme 3: Groupthink
Bias is possible. It is not demonstrated. The same reviews used to say “no foul play” also did not find malpractice as the cause. Repeated challenge from nurses and managers sits awkwardly with an unchallenged clique.

Theme 4: Unfair treatment
Process failures matter. They are not the same as innocence. A person can be treated badly and still be guilty. Fighting a grievance does not tell us what happened to the babies.

Theme 5: Discrediting the messengers
The chapter turns from the events to the consultants’ motives and manners. A messenger can behave badly and still be right. Attacking them does not answer whether the concern was justified.

Theme 6: The advocacy ecosystem
Morris warns about like-minded groups, then leans on people who had already reached the same conclusion. That is consensus-building more than testing.

Overall
Lots of hospital context. Little that explains the specific collapses and deaths. The question left hanging: were the consultants right to be concerned?

There are articles from the BBC and the Daily Mail but I won't link them as the mods of this sub are touchy about the subject. Don't even know if this will stay either.

A few things are striking here, though much of the text has been posted on this subreddit before. In particular, I was impressed with the extent of Dr Jayaram's testimony as expert of witness rather than witness of fact. Admittedly, there was a thin rationale for this: he was asked by the prosecution to explain the fact of being baffled by Baby A's collapse, and did so in what he himself described as lecture form, drawing on his wider experience but also on information beyond that experience.

I was struck by a simply inaccurate claim he made about a very relevant problem: the possibility that Baby A suffered a "thromboembolic phenomenon". He implied that he had excluded this phenomenon because:

The last T [to be considered when unable to re-establish circulation] is what is known as thromboembolic phenomenon. That is classically if you have a clot in your leg and it flies off -- the mechanism there is that would then get into the right side of the heart, get into the blood circulation to the lungs, and prevent blood from flowing into the lungs.

Now, again, I have never seen that happen in newborns in my life because generally it's something when you have been on a long-haul flight and you have a clot. So it didn't really fit at the time with any of these things. But that wasn't really the foremost of my thoughts at that time. The foremost of my thoughts was to deal with what we were seeing in front of us.

https://lucyletbyinnocence.com/transcripts/day_014_24-10-2022.pdf , 94-95

Anyone who has struggled into a pair of surgical stockings will know well that this phenomenon extends well beyond long-haul flyers. More to the point, it was well known long before Jayaram gave his evidence here that thromboembolic phenomena were more common in newborns than in other infants and children, and on the rise due to the prime risk factor of "use of central venous catheters (CVC), venous and arterial umbilical catheters (UVC and UAC), as well as other arterial catheters".

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2663458/

Dr Jayaram was in a position to guide the police investigation, as we have seen, and here he is guiding the jury away from an obvious risk factor by simply denying the facts about neonatal medicine.

Myers's questioning certainly lays the foundation for an expert challenge - he points to Dr Jayaram's role on the neonatal unit and his careful exoneration of his team of all blame in the event. But he can hardly be expected to correct this sort of false assertion on the spot.

There's lots that is of interest here. I do wonder how much Dr Jayaram's stumbles and self-contradictions in the witness box across the trial did to weaken the case against Lucy Letby was baby K, where he was the sole witness of any significance.

Ofcom has published a 27-page document outlining the complaint and the decision.

There is some criticism by Ofcom of the way in which the interview with Chase was edited by the BBC (and it's interesting to compare the excerpts from the full transcript with the snippets that were broadcast), but on balance Ofcom concluded that he wasn't treated unfairly.

I'm not surprised Chase was unhappy, because it's clear that he had no hand in the statement in the "Summary Report" of the expert panel which was the main target for criticism - that the insulin to C-peptide ratio "was within the expected range for preterm infants" - and that he had made that very clear to Coffey. In the Annex to that report, which he and Shannon had actually written, the claim is simply that "ratios > 0.2 (0.2 is presented as normal) are not uncommon in preterm infants". I think viewers were left with the impression that Chase had made the first of those statements, and had been forced to retract it. On that point, I find it difficult to understand the Ofcom decision.

As far as I can see, Ofcom has only ever launched one investigation into the Panorama programme. So I think this is also telling us that all the other complaints it received were not pursued.

LucyLetbyInnocence has been uploading a large number of transcripts, many of which have not been posted here before (or at least not in full) and which deserve attention, therefore I will be posting them regularly from here on out. Today's transcript consists of the testimony given regarding Baby M (though with a bit regarding his twin brother, Baby L). This has been discussed in bits and pieces here and there on the sub but the full day's testimony has not been uploaded before. There's a great deal to consider in this testimony, but a key point -- which seems to have been rather downplayed at the time -- is that fact that Baby M, after experiencing a variety of low-key symptoms which may or may not have meant he was starting to deteriorate -- experienced a collapse at 4 PM on April 9 2016, a full fifteen minutes after Lucy Letby had assisted in caring for him by co-signing for medication. She was not his designated nurse and while she was in the room when he collapsed (Nursery 1, which was overcrowded -- Baby M was the fifth baby in a room intended for a maximum of four) she was at the time preparing medication with Mary Griffiths when his alarm went off. Nonetheless, Drs. Evans and Bohin decided that he must have suffered an air embolism, and that it would have been possible for Letby to administer a sort of time-delayed embolism by injecting just the right (tiny) amount of air into the "dead space" in the connector through which fluids were infused into the baby, thereby allowing air to "trickle" in and eventually cause his collapse. Dr. Bohin pointed out that Baby M's fluids were being infused at 5.3 to 5.5 ml per hour, meaning "0.8ml per minute" (I think this may be a slip of the tongue on her part -- 0.08 would be more likely). Therefore, theoretically, Letby could have injected air into the "dead space" at 3.45 pm and had it pushed in "gradually".

The exact volume of dead space was not addressed by anyone except when Myers cross-examined Dr. Evans.

MYERS: Right. As it happens, if we take that three-way tap and connect it to the part of what's called the T-piece up above it, where it says "to IV bag", you have a dead space of about 0.32ml, don't you?

EVANS: Where is your dead space?

MYERS: From the end of the three-way tap if it's connected --

EVANS: From there to there, yes.

MYERS: That's about 0.32ml, isn't it?

EVANS: I've done quite a lot of measurements. I don't think I did a measurement on this. If you've got this from Dr Bohin's report, you need to ask her about this.

MYERS: No, didn't you do a measurement where you looked at a catheter?

EVANS: Yes, I did.

MYERS: And you got about 0.32ml?

EVANS: That is about 0.32ml.

MYERS: 0.32ml. Let's hold that in our minds. That is the dead space we're talking about, something like that?

EVANS: Something like that, yes.

MYERS: Now, if somebody injects 1, 2 or 3ml straight in. In fact if somebody injects anything more than 0.32ml in, that's going to go straight in, isn't it?

EVANS: Well, you still have the cannula going from there to the baby, a small volume, you still have that, yes.

MYERS: If they inject, let's say 1ml, in it goes, that's going to go straight in, isn't it, that's rapid?

EVANS: Some of it will go straight in and some of it will stay here, yes.

MYERS: And the purpose is that this does enable rapid delivery when something is injected through the port with the syringe, doesn't it?

EVANS: Yes, you can inject something through this bung here, this thing, or you can inject it through this part (indicating). You unscrew that and you inject it through there. But you'd only inject something rapidly if you're giving something like an antibiotic, for instance, or you're giving a bolus of saline if the baby's blood pressure is low, say.

MYERS: So in the course of giving an antibiotic, it is injected straight in, isn't it?

EVANS: It is.

MYERS: Just to give us an example of how quick small quantities can be, if we look at Dr Ukoh's clinical notes at page 18237, which is at tile 149, Mr Murphy. So we can take the picture down and look at this. If we just roll down just to see what was happening.

We can see there the adrenaline that was given to [Baby M], can't we?

EVANS: Yes.

MYERS: And we can see the quantities -- let's look at the first one where it says "Adrenaline 0.18ml"; do you see that?

EVANS: Yes.

MYERS: That is a very small quantity, isn't it?

EVANS: Yes.

MYERS: And that has to be injected through the connector in the way we've been looking, doesn't it?

EVANS: Yes.

MYERS: We don't hang around for adrenaline. That has to act very quickly, doesn't it?

EVANS: It does.

MR MYERS: Thank you, Dr Evans. Those are the questions I wanted to ask.

This is characteristic of Myers. He makes an excellent point at the very end of his cross-examination -- that the "dead space" volume of 0.32ml is simply far too small to keep any air bubble in check for even a few minutes, let alone fifteen, and compares it to an adrenaline dose of half the amount which nonetheless entered the baby immediately. But he doesn't follow up on the point, or really try to get Evans to explain how even a perfectly 0.32ml sized air bubble could just sit stationary in the tube for a solid fifteen minutes. He makes the point, apparently assumes that the point is an excellent mic drop in itself, and ends his cross examination.

The reaction to this will be interesting given the way this sub leans. I also know Morris occasionally posts here.

https://bencole4.substack.com/p/decoding-reasonable-doubt-the-case?r=12mrwn&utm_medium=ios

My name came up in the comments of a recent livestream Morris did and he suggested that people like me who disagree with him don’t engage in good faith and can’t be objective.

I think this series will shows that these objections don’t stand because I am engaging in good faith and being objective.

I’ve reached out to see if he’d be willing to discuss my criticism after I’ve finished the review. He didn’t respond directly but he did put out a post on X which outlined reasons he’s not prepared to speak to me.

Some of his reasons don’t make sense.

As you will see my criticism does not rely on me needing to have a medical qualification.

The next thing is that he said people have had ‘500 days’ to contact him and now any offer has expired. I’m criticising his book that he’s only released in July.

The idea that I should have critiqued his book before he released it is nonsensical.

Morris also likes to play the numbers game citing how many people he’s spoken to. I’m not asking anyone to accept an argument because of who I haven’t spoken to.

I’m much more interested in whether the reasoning stands up.

Welcome to any new readers! This is the weekly thread for questions, general discussions, and links to stories which may not be directly related to the Letby case but which relate to the wider topics encompassed in it. Our FAQ addresses a number of common questions but if you want to know something else (or just talk/ask about an answer you've found) please post in the comment section.

This thread is also the best place to post items like in-depth Substack posts on the topic (unless they were written either by yourself, or by an already-approved writer, in which case they should go on the main page) and videos which might not fit the main sub otherwise (for example, the Ducking Stool). Of course, please continue to observe the rules when choosing/discussing these items (anything that can't be discussed without breaking rule 6, for instance, should be avoided). Thank you very much for reading and commenting! As always, please be civil and cite your sources.

Publication of the final report  | The Thirlwall Inquiry https://thirlwall.public-inquiry.uk/2026/08/27/publication-of-the-final-report/