Help protect children from gaming harms.

Take our survey

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Lucy Letby thread

1000 replies

Words · 14/06/2026 06:55

Starting this as don’t think we have a new one.

OP posts:
Thread gallery
25
MyrtleLion · 26/06/2026 22:23

I listened to John Sweeney’s podcast as it was released. It is very good.

I don’t know why people are casting aspersions on Mark McDonald. How do you know he “doesn’t have a great track record of client success”?

With respect to the shift patterns that shows Letby was there for every death, it’s wrong. It doesn’t account for the nurses not using their cards to open the doors and it doesn’t show every single death on the ward during the period.

This site has interactive charts you can use to check.

And COCH had the 12th increase in baby deaths in the period. Were the other 11 hospitals harbouring murderers as well?

https://triedbystats.com/

FrippEnos · 26/06/2026 22:39

Barbie222 · 26/06/2026 21:51

Letby had a great defence team with no expense spared. She had lots of experts ready to testify. They weren’t called to testify because after her own performance on the stand, her barrister rightly judged that the experts would stand to harm her case more in cross examination than they stood to benefit it in direct questioning. Which makes me think it’s the sort of evidence that sits better in the court of public opinion where it isn’t scrutinised as much.

I’ll keep an open mind and see where the CCJC goes but new evidence would need to be tested in court rather than in the media before I was willing to think the verdicts given were incorrect. McDonald doesn’t have a great track record of client success but he does get a lot of airtime.

As far as I am aware, no reason has formally been given as to why expert witnesses were not called to the stand.
So what you have wrtten (unless you hav a source) is supposition.

Frequency · 26/06/2026 22:40

The door swipe data, even if it was recording accurately, which it wasn't, was useless.

I used to work in IT in the NHS, and we'd run regular tests on people letting others tailgate through secure doors.

100% of people held the door open for you if they knew you, including the bosses asking us to run the tests and send the reminder emails.

It dropped slightly if you were a stranger but had a badge, any badge, not just an NHS one, it could be some random badge you've printed off and laminated at home, and they'd still let you in, especially if you told them you were there about the broken printer. We had a guy (who genuinely was from IT but from a different hospital) get into a secure ward by saying IT had sent him to fix the printer (they had not reported a broken printer) and then walk out with a PC full of sensitive data by saying IT asked him to collect the slow computer for them to look at while he was there. They had not reported a slow PC. An hour later, an HCA from the ward thought she'd better come and check with IT that we knew who this guy was and that we had the PC.

Firefly1987 · 26/06/2026 22:40

Oftenaddled · 26/06/2026 21:51

You're the one who is bringing statistics into it!

Statistics is a recognized science for working out how likely or unlikely events are.

If we are going to lock people up based on something being unlikely, we have to use statistics (properly) instead of common sense.

The point is that there is no special significance in her having returned from holidays. That would be a likely happening whether the children died naturally or not. Nurses came back from holidays all the time

I didn't attempt to calculate the chances of two deaths followed by a collapse because we have insufficient data. We don't know how many collapses happened in a year. But they certainly were not rare. So the collapse is probably not worth taking into account.

Deaths, two days in a row? Likelihood depends whether they were independent events. Age of children (days not weeks) is a factor making death more likely. They were the same age. Identical triplets? More vulnerable. Identical errors by treating doctor, as identified by Lee's panel? A terrible consequence of the consultant of the week system at Chester, which placed twins or triplets born there under the same consultant while they did their one in six weeks at the neonatal unit - none of them worked there full time. Those aren't the only factors, but they are enough to tell us that the deaths of the triplets can't be treated as two events. They have related causes.

Ok it might technically be "statistics" but it's more like common sense and it doesn't require any scientific skill. Most people can see it's an incredibly unlikely scenario-especially given that the unit was supposed to see 2-3 deaths a year not 2 in 2 days(!) we don't need statisticians to explain it to us.

The triplets were healthy, the ones she attacked were in room 2 with her. The last baby she was determined to attack was in room 1 as he was thought to be weaker and had higher needs. She never got to attack him as he was removed from the hospital. He was the only one who survived when his stronger brothers died-and collapsed one by one whilst he didn't have any major issues. He wasn't in Letby's care and she was focused on killing his brothers first, that's why. Since she targeted multiples I assume you'll just shrug it off as them being "vulnerable" each and every time.

Oftenaddled · 26/06/2026 22:42

MyrtleLion · 26/06/2026 22:23

I listened to John Sweeney’s podcast as it was released. It is very good.

I don’t know why people are casting aspersions on Mark McDonald. How do you know he “doesn’t have a great track record of client success”?

With respect to the shift patterns that shows Letby was there for every death, it’s wrong. It doesn’t account for the nurses not using their cards to open the doors and it doesn’t show every single death on the ward during the period.

This site has interactive charts you can use to check.

And COCH had the 12th increase in baby deaths in the period. Were the other 11 hospitals harbouring murderers as well?

https://triedbystats.com/

Edited

McDonald is like Lucy Letby. He takes on the difficult cases, and people point the finger. And the cases creak their way slowly through the CCRC, the courts of appeal etc. He is awaiting CCRC action on the case of Michael Stone (convicted for the murder of Lin and Megan Russell), for example. Obviously his CCRC and CoA cases are less likely to succeed than prosecuting or even defending in the criminal courts, and they are going to drag on. It's become fashionable on Twitter etc recently to use this against him. But obviously he has other successes, and obviously he could stack cases the other way and stop the pro bono work and the CCRC referrals if he wanted to impress the masses with his numbers

I find the spite he attracts quite disturbing. (Not aimed at @Barbie222 , I mean more widely) Suppose he were wrong? He's a man working free of charge to try to right what he perceives as injustices. Surely we don't want to live in a society where that's not a valued contribution? It's certainly a necessary one.

But there's no indication that he gives a damn anyway!

Oftenaddled · 26/06/2026 22:54

Firefly1987 · 26/06/2026 22:40

Ok it might technically be "statistics" but it's more like common sense and it doesn't require any scientific skill. Most people can see it's an incredibly unlikely scenario-especially given that the unit was supposed to see 2-3 deaths a year not 2 in 2 days(!) we don't need statisticians to explain it to us.

The triplets were healthy, the ones she attacked were in room 2 with her. The last baby she was determined to attack was in room 1 as he was thought to be weaker and had higher needs. She never got to attack him as he was removed from the hospital. He was the only one who survived when his stronger brothers died-and collapsed one by one whilst he didn't have any major issues. He wasn't in Letby's care and she was focused on killing his brothers first, that's why. Since she targeted multiples I assume you'll just shrug it off as them being "vulnerable" each and every time.

Sorry - you don't get to dismiss a branch of science because you don't like it. You are making the weaknesses in your argument obvious when you do that. Certainly if the prosecution tries to do that against professional statisticians, if there's a retrial, they'll come off the worse.

Whether or not the triplets were healthy is a matter for medical review. Their causes of death as per the international panel and the initial postmortems would have seen quite rapid deterioration. Few neonates with ruptured liver hematomas survive. Their presentation can be normal until relatively late. Children certainly can survive a pneumothorax, but delays in treatment combined with excessive ventilatory pressures make that less likely. Who knows what would have happened to the third triplet if he stayed at Chester, but he was moved to a specialist unit better equipped up care for him.

As always I will trust Shoo Lee on that over Dewi Evans, since he is better qualified and doesn't make illogical and contradictory statements. Even Evans, though, thought both children had their suspicious events when Lucy Letby wasn't on shift, initially.

Yes, the two triplets who died were in the same room as Letby, the nurse in charge of them. That is normal. That is where she should have been.

MyrtleLion · 26/06/2026 23:14

Oftenaddled · 26/06/2026 22:42

McDonald is like Lucy Letby. He takes on the difficult cases, and people point the finger. And the cases creak their way slowly through the CCRC, the courts of appeal etc. He is awaiting CCRC action on the case of Michael Stone (convicted for the murder of Lin and Megan Russell), for example. Obviously his CCRC and CoA cases are less likely to succeed than prosecuting or even defending in the criminal courts, and they are going to drag on. It's become fashionable on Twitter etc recently to use this against him. But obviously he has other successes, and obviously he could stack cases the other way and stop the pro bono work and the CCRC referrals if he wanted to impress the masses with his numbers

I find the spite he attracts quite disturbing. (Not aimed at @Barbie222 , I mean more widely) Suppose he were wrong? He's a man working free of charge to try to right what he perceives as injustices. Surely we don't want to live in a society where that's not a valued contribution? It's certainly a necessary one.

But there's no indication that he gives a damn anyway!

He seems to be the new Michael Mansfield, in defending those suffering miscarriages of justice. He founded the London Innocence Project as well.

I think he's admirable.

Firefly1987 · 26/06/2026 23:45

Oftenaddled · 26/06/2026 22:54

Sorry - you don't get to dismiss a branch of science because you don't like it. You are making the weaknesses in your argument obvious when you do that. Certainly if the prosecution tries to do that against professional statisticians, if there's a retrial, they'll come off the worse.

Whether or not the triplets were healthy is a matter for medical review. Their causes of death as per the international panel and the initial postmortems would have seen quite rapid deterioration. Few neonates with ruptured liver hematomas survive. Their presentation can be normal until relatively late. Children certainly can survive a pneumothorax, but delays in treatment combined with excessive ventilatory pressures make that less likely. Who knows what would have happened to the third triplet if he stayed at Chester, but he was moved to a specialist unit better equipped up care for him.

As always I will trust Shoo Lee on that over Dewi Evans, since he is better qualified and doesn't make illogical and contradictory statements. Even Evans, though, thought both children had their suspicious events when Lucy Letby wasn't on shift, initially.

Yes, the two triplets who died were in the same room as Letby, the nurse in charge of them. That is normal. That is where she should have been.

They can have their say, and they've certainly done that. What they don't get to do is declare her innocent and overtake the entire case. It's probably why Jane Hutton was fired. You seem to think they can maths there way out of any scenario. They can't and most normal thinking people aren't prepared to let LL kill 50 babies or whatever number is required for the statisticians to finally say the numbers are significant and indicative of harm.

Frequency · 26/06/2026 23:46

Firefly1987 · 26/06/2026 23:45

They can have their say, and they've certainly done that. What they don't get to do is declare her innocent and overtake the entire case. It's probably why Jane Hutton was fired. You seem to think they can maths there way out of any scenario. They can't and most normal thinking people aren't prepared to let LL kill 50 babies or whatever number is required for the statisticians to finally say the numbers are significant and indicative of harm.

I remember when Roy Meadows thought similarly re statistics. That worked out well...

Firefly1987 · 26/06/2026 23:47

MyrtleLion · 26/06/2026 23:14

He seems to be the new Michael Mansfield, in defending those suffering miscarriages of justice. He founded the London Innocence Project as well.

I think he's admirable.

Admirable? You must be joking. I really question the judgement of some people.

kkloo · 27/06/2026 00:28

Firefly1987 · 26/06/2026 23:45

They can have their say, and they've certainly done that. What they don't get to do is declare her innocent and overtake the entire case. It's probably why Jane Hutton was fired. You seem to think they can maths there way out of any scenario. They can't and most normal thinking people aren't prepared to let LL kill 50 babies or whatever number is required for the statisticians to finally say the numbers are significant and indicative of harm.

And yet the other day you shared a video for the 'stats lovers' saying they would find it interesting, and quoted the stat from the video even though it was the most amateur load of crap.

You're actually the person who brings dodgy stats in all the time to every single one of these threads, but actual stats, real stats...oh God no, you've no time for them at all....

Firefly1987 · 27/06/2026 00:35

@kkloo You rubbished that video simply because it went against your views. None of the statisticians have any stats. They keep claiming there isn't enough data to come up with anything. At least he gave it a shot.

Sorry if it affirmed her guilt, as expected. If it was just as amateur but he came to the conclusion she was innocent you'd be all over it singing his praises. People just go with what affirms their bias, doesn't matter the source.

kkloo · 27/06/2026 00:46

Firefly1987 · 27/06/2026 00:35

@kkloo You rubbished that video simply because it went against your views. None of the statisticians have any stats. They keep claiming there isn't enough data to come up with anything. At least he gave it a shot.

Sorry if it affirmed her guilt, as expected. If it was just as amateur but he came to the conclusion she was innocent you'd be all over it singing his praises. People just go with what affirms their bias, doesn't matter the source.

I rubbished it because it was a load of crap 😂

The other statisticians could have also given it a shot also but why would they if they don't have the required information? " Oh look here's the number I came out with that means absolutely nothing"

No I wouldn't, I'm sure there's plenty of amateurs posting stuff about LL being innocent on youtube etc but do any of us ever quote them or post their videos ever?

No we don't. I doubt anyone on here even watches them, because they don't need to, there's tons of stuff out there from reputable sources.

kkloo · 27/06/2026 00:51

Frequency · 26/06/2026 17:27

I'd usually be the first to laugh when it comes to conspiracy theories, but when it comes to CP and the way they handled this case, I'm not so sure.

They ignored NCA advice about a panel of experts, even after the NCA sent them a list of available experts.
They ignored advice not to focus on one suspect.
They sacked one expert who didn't agree with them.
They referred the case to the wrong CPS.

When they're challenged on any of this, their response seems to be to stick their fingers in their ears and start singing "la la la". Why? If they have genuine reasons for making the choices they did, surely they should be able to articulate that when they are challenged?

I don't believe they sat down together and all decided to frame an innocent nurse for shits and giggles. I do think they are 100% convinced they got the right result, and that Letby is guilty, but I also think they knew their case was weak and were willing to do whatever it took to get the result they wanted.

When it got to the CPS level you'd think that they at least would know that they shouldn't have been dealing with it and it should have went to the special division? but of course they were also happy to build a case without making sure the evidence was robust enough to both prosecute and to withstand future challenges.

Oftenaddled · 27/06/2026 05:59

Firefly1987 · 26/06/2026 23:45

They can have their say, and they've certainly done that. What they don't get to do is declare her innocent and overtake the entire case. It's probably why Jane Hutton was fired. You seem to think they can maths there way out of any scenario. They can't and most normal thinking people aren't prepared to let LL kill 50 babies or whatever number is required for the statisticians to finally say the numbers are significant and indicative of harm.

I didn't say they could prove innocence or had done so. That's not what statisticians are doing when they present on this. They're just explaining why the sorts of assertion you come up with aren't proof of guilt, and the patterns you keep pointing to are perfectly possible without any crime.

They've spoken out in the media, yes, and their evidence is with the CCRC in a statistical report.

You would lock up far more nurses than Lucy Letby if you went around looking for similar patterns at other units and declaring them proof of murder. They're not.

You are also showing the prosecution's tendency to put together badly defined incidents - the parents and nurses had just left? Really? How long before? In how many cases? And do we have proof she was there? - and call it a pattern. But the pattern disappears when you look closely.

What the prosecution will need to do to keep Lucy Letby in prison is to prove that there were murders with reference to science instead of wilful denial of science, because people who understand science are now alert to the problems with that case. They'll have their work cut out.

EyeLevelStick · 27/06/2026 06:33

Firefly1987 · 27/06/2026 00:35

@kkloo You rubbished that video simply because it went against your views. None of the statisticians have any stats. They keep claiming there isn't enough data to come up with anything. At least he gave it a shot.

Sorry if it affirmed her guilt, as expected. If it was just as amateur but he came to the conclusion she was innocent you'd be all over it singing his praises. People just go with what affirms their bias, doesn't matter the source.

Astonishing statement. I think the only person who listens solely to sources that confirm their view is you.

There are people on the “not guilty side” who I have challenged where I think they are over-egging or misleading. I’ve also corrected them on points of accuracy around PN and other medicines-related issues, and others have done the same in their own specialist field. It benefits no-one to propagate misinformation and inaccuracies. Some of the “not guilty side” will indeed be “pro-Letby” people with their blinkers on.

But the majority of people on here are critical thinkers who examine information from all angles. For many of us, this approach is what we are trained for. Dismissing this approach in favour of “common sense” statistics - and you are repeatedly (and evidently unconsciously) making appeals to (junk) statistics - takes us back to the ducking stool and the stake.

EyeLevelStick · 27/06/2026 06:58

nomas · 26/06/2026 18:29

I haven’t been on an LL thread for a few months but I am wary of it become a default position that the evidence is flawed without challenge.

It’s a fair question if asked genuinely, which I think you are doing.

Some of the flawed evidence:

Insulin poisoning:

  • insulin:c-peptide ratios from the immunoassay in pre-term babies may differ from the adult norm because of insulin binding, and possible other causes (Chase and Shannon)
  • another baby (Y) with confirmed hyperinsulinism had similar anomalous results with the immunoassay, despite it being certain that the insulin was endogenous
  • a routine lab proficiency sample from around the same time gave a similar and certainly erroneous result showing high insulin/low c-peptide
  • the means of administration of insulin is improbable; tampering would be difficult to achieve and the amount of insulin required to bypass the adsorption process and reach the baby has not been determined

Splinting the diaphragm with air (not “splintering” as often said) does happen as a result of excess air in the stomach from CPAP, but

  • there are no reports of it causing death
  • even if it has caused death, there’s no evidence that it was administered deliberately rather than from CPAP
  • it’s incredibly difficult to push air down a NG tube. It can’t be done in seconds.
  • Evans has changed his mind about this one anyway

Air embolism

  • the only rashes that characterise AE are Lee’s sign - red veins on a cyanosed background
  • Lee’s sign is seen only in arterial, not venous embolism, so the allegedly injected air would have had to travel through the patent foramen ovale into the arterial side. This is theoretically possible but unlikely owing to higher pressures on the arterial side.
  • none of the babies exhibited Lee’s sign anyway
  • Evans asserted that a certain type of cry characterised AE. There’s no evidence of this in the literature
  • so…there was no actual evidence of AE at all

Battery about to die. Do you need more?

GwendolineFairfax8 · 27/06/2026 07:34

DrRylandGrace · 20/06/2026 21:43

This is offensive and not remotely comparable, as you either know very well or, alternatively, you are trying to deliberately deceive people.

Jamie Varley abused and killed Preston. There is clear physical evidence of that; the injuries he inflicted on the baby which could not have occurred any other way and 999 calls that were recorded, spurious excuses and telling different people different stories about how injuries occurred, physical evidence from Preston’s post-mortem proving sexual abuse had taken place and photos and videos on Varley’s phone, taken and sometimes shared by Varley, showing him being abusive to Preston and laughing about it.

There is no evidence in the Lucy Letby case that any baby died from anything other than medical negligence by the hospital doctors and poor standards of medical care and unacceptable facilities and treatment by the NHS (hardly a shock to most people who have been unfortunate enough to be subjected to NHS “care”, and these were extremely vulnerable premature babies).

There is no evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that any of the crimes of which Letby was accused actually took place at all, let alone proof beyond reasonable doub that she perpetrated these alleged crimes.

If you have such evidence, please share it, because all of the “evidence” the prosecution put forward has been thoroughly debunked. Presumably, if they had some evidence that met the threshold, they’d have produced it by now.

This miscarriage of justice has wrecked her life beyond any prospect of repair and also those of the families whose babies died. Losing a child is trauma enough without falsely being told the child was murdered and later discovering that this was not the case. I understand the motivation to protect them from that last trauma, but continuing with the pretence that there was sufficient evidence to take Letby to court — let alone convict her — is absurd to anybody who has a basic understanding of science or statistics or the law, and eventually the families will have to be told the truth so protecting them from this additional, now sadly inevitable, damage is not a reason to keep someone in prison for the rest of their life when nobody has even been able to produce evidence that any murder took place at all, and there is plenty of evidence of other far more plausible explanations for the tragic deaths. Ever heard of Occam’s Razor? Do you understand the test of “beyond reasonable doubt”? In this case the doubt is not just “reasonable”, it’s the vastly higher likelihood by a huge proportion.

As for the CCRC, it’s a shameful disgrace to a country that holds itself up as having a high standard of justice. It is well-documented how dysfunctional and unjust it is. As someone who lives in the UK I find it terrifying that any one of us could find ourselves at the mercy of this “justice” system.

Edited

Agree with you 100%

Nyungnyung · 27/06/2026 08:45

Firefly1987 · 26/06/2026 20:26

So someone can't be convinced of her guilt just because you're not?

There are plenty of cases I have theories on but am open to it not being who I think. Madeleine McCann, JonBenet Ramsey, Peter Falconio, even the Jeremy Bamber case. I'm sure on this because there is no other explanation that holds up. And she all but proved she did it herself.

There's no chance she's getting out. You'd have to overturn 15 whole life orders! And like I keep saying, if Evans' evidence was so flawed it wouldn't exactly be hard to counter it and yet she didn't even bother to try.

Of course you can be convinced of her guilt for any reason at all - but it is still bizarre that you have absolutely no concern that the evidence presented in court, has been so widely criticised by so many professionals with far more experience of neonatal care, than the prosecution expert

MyrtleLion · 27/06/2026 11:12

Firefly1987 · 26/06/2026 23:47

Admirable? You must be joking. I really question the judgement of some people.

I am not joking. You have to admire him for taking on three horrible cases where the public are convinced of guilt:

  • Michael Stone
  • Ben Geen
  • Lucy Letby

Even if he was a publicity-hungry lawyer, why would he take on such horrible cases with little to no chance of success, for free, unless he was convinced they were all miscarriages of justice? It doesn’t do his reputation any good if they’re all guilty.

So yes, I do admire him.

Oftenaddled · 27/06/2026 11:45

MyrtleLion · 27/06/2026 11:12

I am not joking. You have to admire him for taking on three horrible cases where the public are convinced of guilt:

  • Michael Stone
  • Ben Geen
  • Lucy Letby

Even if he was a publicity-hungry lawyer, why would he take on such horrible cases with little to no chance of success, for free, unless he was convinced they were all miscarriages of justice? It doesn’t do his reputation any good if they’re all guilty.

So yes, I do admire him.

Yes. Public opinion on Lucy Letby was very different in summer 2024, when he took on the case. He did it at the request of her parents.

Michael Stone was accused of horrific crime. He was, at least, a violent drug user. But there is none of his DNA at the crime scene, and there is DNA from another unidentified man. One of the things McDonald said he learned from a mentor and takes as a personal rule is not to judge people on the worst thing they have ever done. He phones Stone in prison every week, apparently.

I feel there are gaps in my knowledge of Ben Geen's case, so find it hard to summarize or express an opinion. But I know that Mark McDonald has explained he finds Geen's testimony on a key point convincing because of his own background as an NHS hospital porter. He is a late entrant to the profession.

Nobody believes the court system gets it right every time - not even the state. That's why the CCRC and Court of Appeal exist. So the justice system, if it is to function as a justice system, needs people like Mark McDonald who are willing to take on tough cases and to resist hostility from the public when he does so.

Frequency · 27/06/2026 12:11

I don't know much about the other cases, but regardless of their guilt or otherwise, and the brutality of their crimes, they are entitled to due process and representation throughout that process.

I can understand how tempting it can be to wish someone convicted/accused of heinous crimes were unable to access help, but I also understand how doing so could leave the system open to abuse and pave the way to gross miscarriages of justice.

So yes, someone willing to give up their own time for free, in spite of the nature of the crimes, is admirable. Even the guilty and evil deserve representation to ensure they are treated fairly, no matter how badly that sits with the general public.

GinaandGin · 27/06/2026 12:33

thecuree · 14/06/2026 08:43

Funnily enough multiple babies deaths makes me a little emotional

That's the problem with LL
People think emotionally and not rationally

GinaandGin · 27/06/2026 12:37

Frequency · 26/06/2026 23:46

I remember when Roy Meadows thought similarly re statistics. That worked out well...

That was so tragic. RIP Sally clarke. Life totally destroyed by his fake statistics. Poor Angela Cannings too

Frequency · 27/06/2026 14:11

What happened to Sally is heartbreaking, and it's so frustrating that we've apparently learned nothing from the horror the justice system subjected that poor woman to.

Common sense is precisely what Meadows based his statistics on; common sense would dictate that having three babies die unexpectedly is suspicious. We now know that statistics say otherwise and that the application of "common sense" overrode other evidence and ultimately killed an innocent, bereaved woman.

The same can be said for the argument to trust in the system, and not to speak out when you witness miscarriages of justice, in case you're wrong, and to avoid causing undue harm to the victims.

I'm sure Sally was grateful that the appeals system existed and that it did eventually work for her, but it didn't give her back the years of her life that were stolen from her. It didn't take away the deep trauma she suffered. And, devastatingly, it didn't save her life

I know we're taught to trust in the system, but I wholly believe we have a responsibility to speak out when we see something going wrong because we cannot allow what happened to Sally to happen again.

If Letby is guilty, evidence will be found to prove that, but if she's not, the horror not just Letby, but the parents too, have faced is unthinkable.

Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.

This thread is not accepting new messages.