- Status
New to Tattle Life? Click "Order Thread by Most Liked Posts" button below to get an idea of what the site is about:
it's Dr Bohin's turn for attempts at character assassination
It's all getting a bit pathetic. Mark Mcdonald's appeal contains parent's complaints ( which could probably be found for any paediatrician) which have nothing to do with the Letby case for Dr Bohin, Dr Evans changed his mind about baby C ( he didn't really), Svilena's theory over baby O ( which isn't back up by the pathology evidence ) and not forgetting the new insulin evidence which goes against all medical understanding. The CCRC are going to fun ploughing through all that rubbish.
There's an article by Knapton in the Telegraph which lists all the evidence that MM has submitted.
If McDonald wants a decision from the CCRC soon it's strange that he keeps submitting more information that will have to be considered - information that could have been submitted months ago.
The article says that Sandy Bohin is the expert for ongoing Operation Hummingbird so this seems to be an attempt to damage her credibility.
The article says that Sandy Bohin is the expert for ongoing Operation Hummingbird so this seems to be an attempt to damage her credibility.
This is what I think because if you genuinely thought she had grounds of appeal and it could potentially result in another trial, nothing would be being shared in the media so not to harm his clients chances. He’s chasing fame, zero credibility imo.
yeah the stuff about Sandy Bohin is really old - available to be used at the trial - so why is he only now giving it to the CCRC.? It's like he's spinning it out for as long as he can.
I'm curious as to how they know that Sandy Bohin is working on Hummingbird - there must be a leak.
Quagmires sister
Fantastic article by Queen Deb 
That is the most satisfying article I’ve read about the whole thing to date. I need a lie down and a smoke she nailed everything to the wall round of afuckingplauseFantastic article by Queen Deb
Are we allowed to copy and paste the text? I’ll put it behind a spoiler and apologise in advance if it’s not allowed
Silence in Pathology, Noise in Attack: Letby’s Current Defence Strategy
Deb Roberts
@DebRoberts22249
·
20h
Few realise that in the Letby trial, the defence never submitted a single pathology report. There were also no endocrinology reports, and the radiology opinion submitted largely echoed Professor Arthurs.
This is critical. For no defence pathology reports to be submitted is virtually unprecedented in a murder trial, and can only mean that the defence expert agreed with Dr Marnerides.
It also meant that before the trial even began, the judge, the prosecution, and the defence all knew there would be no testimony from a defence pathologist, and that their endocrinologist could not testify either. It explains why neither discipline was represented at the pre‑trial experts’ meeting: there was nothing to contest or agree, there was already consensus.
The only defence radiologist to offer an opinion largely echoed Professor Arthurs, leaving the prosecution’s science effectively unchallenged. It remains unchallenged.
The dubious Mark McDonald, who only took over Letby’s defence in September 2024, has no pathologists, radiologists, or endocrinologists willing to challenge the science that convicted her. That absence is quite a problem for him - and it goes a long way to explain why his publicity campaign has resorted to nothing but ad hominem attacks on the prosection expert witnesses and whinging about "poor" Letby's fate.
These are not scientific arguments, they are publicity tactics. They do not contest the evidence; they contest the people presenting it. In this sense, McDonald’s defence is not a legal strategy but a media stunt, designed to generate noise away from the courtroom because silence inside it will be inevitable. McDonald will be very aware that his application will likely fail with the CCRC.
The pathologist in Panorama who has seen the evidence is also in agreement with Dr Marnerides' findings. That is 3 pathologists in agreement. Not a single one disagreeing.
But McDonald does have a gaggle of paediatricians and statisticians willing to deflect with noise, also to deflect from the fact that not one of his "50+ experts" has any relevant expertise in the required disciplines.
Non‑submission of pathology and endocrinology reports could, in theory, be explained by a poor defence. In English criminal law, an appeal may be brought if the conviction is “unsafe,” and one recognised ground is ineffective assistance of counsel. That requires showing both that the defence fell below the standard of a reasonably competent barrister and that this failure materially affected the outcome.
Yet Mark McDonald has carefully avoided the one step that would allow him to pursue this line: asking Letby to waive privilege. Without her consent, he cannot scrutinise or disclose the internal reasoning of the original defence team. His refusal to seek that waiver is telling - because it would expose the consensus in pathology, endocrinology, and radiology that the far superior Ben Myers KC was left to work with.
Equally striking is McDonald’s refusal to speak to Myers, despite being obliged to under the McCook duties. This avoidance is not accidental; it is strategic. To allege incompetence formally would trigger judicial scrutiny and risk a retrial in which the original defence’s lack of experts would be laid bare. McDonald sidesteps that obligation, preferring instead to generate publicity by attacking the prosecution’s experts in the media.
Dr Dewi Evans has been relentlessly bullied and defamed for over 2 years. McDonald has now turned his attention to Dr Sandie Bohin, claiming that complaints against her which were not upheld are somehow now relevant to her role at trial. And Phil Hammond is questioning Professor Hindmarsh with the help of
@PrivateEyeNews
, and the fact that he relinquished his licence with restrictions in place. Few would not support Prof Hindmarsh's actions if they were aware of the facts, as I am certain Hammond is. The information was available online last year, and does not relate to his clinical practice whatsoever.
So McDonald resorts to ad hominem attacks outside the courtroom. It is a strategy designed purely for the cameras, not for courts at all, and one he intends to keep going for many years to come.
#lucyletby
@legalmarkmc
@AnEmergentI
@drphilhammond
@johnsweeneyroar
@DavidDavisMP
@NadineDorries
@jontay44
@danwootton
@thecarolemalone
@LeeShoo
@NeenaModi1
@thejeremyvine
@Mephitisblog
@adamhpking
@DavidRoseUK
@rosiew5
@Jeremy_Hunt
@Nigel_Farage
@david_conn
@mattfallaize
@barstandards
@DOckendenLtd
@ccrcupdate
Deb Roberts
@DebRoberts22249
·
20h
Few realise that in the Letby trial, the defence never submitted a single pathology report. There were also no endocrinology reports, and the radiology opinion submitted largely echoed Professor Arthurs.
This is critical. For no defence pathology reports to be submitted is virtually unprecedented in a murder trial, and can only mean that the defence expert agreed with Dr Marnerides.
It also meant that before the trial even began, the judge, the prosecution, and the defence all knew there would be no testimony from a defence pathologist, and that their endocrinologist could not testify either. It explains why neither discipline was represented at the pre‑trial experts’ meeting: there was nothing to contest or agree, there was already consensus.
The only defence radiologist to offer an opinion largely echoed Professor Arthurs, leaving the prosecution’s science effectively unchallenged. It remains unchallenged.
The dubious Mark McDonald, who only took over Letby’s defence in September 2024, has no pathologists, radiologists, or endocrinologists willing to challenge the science that convicted her. That absence is quite a problem for him - and it goes a long way to explain why his publicity campaign has resorted to nothing but ad hominem attacks on the prosection expert witnesses and whinging about "poor" Letby's fate.
These are not scientific arguments, they are publicity tactics. They do not contest the evidence; they contest the people presenting it. In this sense, McDonald’s defence is not a legal strategy but a media stunt, designed to generate noise away from the courtroom because silence inside it will be inevitable. McDonald will be very aware that his application will likely fail with the CCRC.
The pathologist in Panorama who has seen the evidence is also in agreement with Dr Marnerides' findings. That is 3 pathologists in agreement. Not a single one disagreeing.
But McDonald does have a gaggle of paediatricians and statisticians willing to deflect with noise, also to deflect from the fact that not one of his "50+ experts" has any relevant expertise in the required disciplines.
Non‑submission of pathology and endocrinology reports could, in theory, be explained by a poor defence. In English criminal law, an appeal may be brought if the conviction is “unsafe,” and one recognised ground is ineffective assistance of counsel. That requires showing both that the defence fell below the standard of a reasonably competent barrister and that this failure materially affected the outcome.
Yet Mark McDonald has carefully avoided the one step that would allow him to pursue this line: asking Letby to waive privilege. Without her consent, he cannot scrutinise or disclose the internal reasoning of the original defence team. His refusal to seek that waiver is telling - because it would expose the consensus in pathology, endocrinology, and radiology that the far superior Ben Myers KC was left to work with.
Equally striking is McDonald’s refusal to speak to Myers, despite being obliged to under the McCook duties. This avoidance is not accidental; it is strategic. To allege incompetence formally would trigger judicial scrutiny and risk a retrial in which the original defence’s lack of experts would be laid bare. McDonald sidesteps that obligation, preferring instead to generate publicity by attacking the prosecution’s experts in the media.
Dr Dewi Evans has been relentlessly bullied and defamed for over 2 years. McDonald has now turned his attention to Dr Sandie Bohin, claiming that complaints against her which were not upheld are somehow now relevant to her role at trial. And Phil Hammond is questioning Professor Hindmarsh with the help of
@PrivateEyeNews
, and the fact that he relinquished his licence with restrictions in place. Few would not support Prof Hindmarsh's actions if they were aware of the facts, as I am certain Hammond is. The information was available online last year, and does not relate to his clinical practice whatsoever.
So McDonald resorts to ad hominem attacks outside the courtroom. It is a strategy designed purely for the cameras, not for courts at all, and one he intends to keep going for many years to come.
#lucyletby
@legalmarkmc
@AnEmergentI
@drphilhammond
@johnsweeneyroar
@DavidDavisMP
@NadineDorries
@jontay44
@danwootton
@thecarolemalone
@LeeShoo
@NeenaModi1
@thejeremyvine
@Mephitisblog
@adamhpking
@DavidRoseUK
@rosiew5
@Jeremy_Hunt
@Nigel_Farage
@david_conn
@mattfallaize
@barstandards
@DOckendenLtd
@ccrcupdate
Deb is amazing, she sees through all the bullsh*t and writes so well. Unsurprisingly Silvena hates her and believes only she is qualified to have opinion on the Letby case.That is the most satisfying article I’ve read about the whole thing to date. I need a lie down and a smoke she nailed everything to the wall round of afuckingplause
What it doesn't mention is that Viv Blondek worked at the COCH as a nurse for 30 years. Like Karen Rees she is from Flintshire. So it's becoming clear who exactly the "Nineteen Nurses" are and why they are largely anonymous.
Thanks so much for this
Doctor in Lucy Letby trial quits her job due to ‘personal vilification’
A key expert witness in the Lucy Letby case has resigned from her job as a consultant paediatrician, saying she had suffered “unrelenting vilification and harassment”.
www.independent.ie
So Knapton and McDonald's harrassment has brought her to this. Shame on them. Hope she enjoys her retirement and her continued work on Hummingbird.
I hope she carries on working Hummingbird. Those Letby fanatics will stop at nothing will they, fabricating complaints against this poor lady. 28 complaints and none upheld smacks of a deliberate and targeted harassment campaign. Vile peopleDoctor in Lucy Letby trial quits her job due to ‘personal vilification’
A key expert witness in the Lucy Letby case has resigned from her job as a consultant paediatrician, saying she had suffered “unrelenting vilification and harassment”.
So Knapton and McDonald's harrassment has brought her to this. Shame on them. Hope she enjoys her retirement and her continued work on Hummingbird.
Doctor in Lucy Letby trial quits her job due to ‘personal vilification’
A key expert witness in the Lucy Letby case has resigned from her job as a consultant paediatrician, saying she had suffered “unrelenting vilification and harassment”.
So Knapton and McDonald's harrassment has brought her to this. Shame on them. Hope she enjoys her retirement and her continued work on Hummingbird.
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
Actually she's retiring in March 2026 says it's be -cause of the Guernsey stuff rather than Letby - at least she can carry on her Hummingbird work without the local distractions.
Just came across this documentary I don't think I've seen before-
It's old (from not long after she was found guilty) so apologies if everyone's already seen it. It's Australian which might be why I missed it.
They interview the parents who think Lucy attacked their daughter Felicity in 2013. The one where the mum went down and saw her standing over the cot-she looks up at mum with a blank expression then takes off. A couple minutes later all the alarms start going off. So another parent who almost caught her in the act, but obviously the mum had no idea at the time.
They also have a criminal psychologist who has some insights into her behaviour. Plus they show some clips of the first panorama which I don't think is available now? Which is a shame because that was one of the best docs they made on her. It includes some of baby E/F's mum talking and I don't think I noticed before but she mentions it being "almost bang on 24 hours" since her other son had died when baby F starts having problems which is just more damning "coincidences" really isn't it...
Anyway I thought the documentary was interesting, and the end where they honour all her victims was very poignant and really hits you all over again
It's old (from not long after she was found guilty) so apologies if everyone's already seen it. It's Australian which might be why I missed it.
They interview the parents who think Lucy attacked their daughter Felicity in 2013. The one where the mum went down and saw her standing over the cot-she looks up at mum with a blank expression then takes off. A couple minutes later all the alarms start going off. So another parent who almost caught her in the act, but obviously the mum had no idea at the time.
They also have a criminal psychologist who has some insights into her behaviour. Plus they show some clips of the first panorama which I don't think is available now? Which is a shame because that was one of the best docs they made on her. It includes some of baby E/F's mum talking and I don't think I noticed before but she mentions it being "almost bang on 24 hours" since her other son had died when baby F starts having problems which is just more damning "coincidences" really isn't it...
Anyway I thought the documentary was interesting, and the end where they honour all her victims was very poignant and really hits you all over again
Thank you for this as not seen before.xJust came across this documentary I don't think I've seen before-
It's old (from not long after she was found guilty) so apologies if everyone's already seen it. It's Australian which might be why I missed it.
They interview the parents who think Lucy attacked their daughter Felicity in 2013. The one where the mum went down and saw her standing over the cot-she looks up at mum with a blank expression then takes off. A couple minutes later all the alarms start going off. So another parent who almost caught her in the act, but obviously the mum had no idea at the time.
They also have a criminal psychologist who has some insights into her behaviour. Plus they show some clips of the first panorama which I don't think is available now? Which is a shame because that was one of the best docs they made on her. It includes some of baby E/F's mum talking and I don't think I noticed before but she mentions it being "almost bang on 24 hours" since her other son had died when baby F starts having problems which is just more damning "coincidences" really isn't it...
Anyway I thought the documentary was interesting, and the end where they honour all her victims was very poignant and really hits you all over again
- Status