UK - Lucy Letby - Post-Conviction Statutory Inquiry

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

iamshadow21 said:
I doubt it. They'll double down. That sort does. The grand conspiracy is a more romantic, enticing story than the fact that a nurse killed babies and a mixture of incompetence and willful ignorance from her superiors allowed her to do it for a minimum of a year.

Murderers, as I said to my partner today, are more often than not underwhelming. We're expecting the grand, melodramatic motive, the complicated web of intrigue, but those are things of the realm of fiction. I'm not saying that the truth can't be fantastical, complicated and fascinating, but generally, murderers are boring and mundane. They're people, not fanged monsters with cape and claws, drinking the blood of the innocent. Just a spiteful, bland nurse, committing acts of cruelty and murder to fuel her own sense of power and self importance and distract herself from her cardboard cutout life.

MOO
Click to expand...

I think for a lot of the long term LL sympathisers it’s about far more than LL now. It’s become part of their identity. Even outside of the small group who have blogs, websites, podcasts and substacks to promote, friendships and communities have been built off the back of this shared belief in her innocence. It’s given those people a sense of purpose, a common goal, a feeling that they’re making a difference. To question her innocence now would mean that they would risk losing all of that.
 
Thanks for all the updates on this I’ve just been catching up.

My thoughts go out to all those families.

I just can’t begin to imagine the complete anger - especially those parents of the babies which happened AFTER concerns have been raised - at this stage these deaths were so preventable.
 
Tortoise said:
The inquiry started off in date order but then seemed to go backwards and forwards in time as it progressed. I feel like it should have been kept in date order to aid with understanding.

I'm not at all sure how Letby came to know what she was suspected of - to me it seems to jump from investigating her practices to her knowing she was suspected of murder at the family meeting.
Click to expand...
You think the grapevine reached her? She had nurses who wanted her back right? Makes sense to me that she was informed. She's also probably smart enough to put two and two together. Is it about the same time as the "not so nice comments"?
 
Sweeper2000 said:
You think the grapevine reached her? She had nurses who wanted her back right? Makes sense to me that she was informed. She's also probably smart enough to put two and two together. Is it about the same time as the "not so nice comments"?
Click to expand...
I think she had her own little network of informants letting her know everything that was going on. Loyal nurses and supervisors, Doc Choc, the head guy... Emails, texts, facebook messages, lunch dates...

She was the spider in the web. It must have been such a shock to her when that support dried up and the police kept coming closer and closer.

MOO
 
 
Tortoise said:
11:48am
Dr David Harkness, in a statement to the inquiry, says he would initiate a Sudden Unexpected Death in Infancy and Childhood procedure, which would involve a post-mortem examination in the case of Child E, with the benefit of his increased experience and knowledge now.
No post-mortem examination was pursued for Child E to save the parents further distress.
The cause of death was recorded as prematurity and necrotising enterocolitis [known as NEC in the trial], and no recommendations were made.

11:52am
Lucy Letby had agreed at trial that Child F and Child L had been poisoned by insulin, but denied being the poisoner.
Child F's low insulin c-peptide to insulin ratio test was relayed to the Countess of Chester Hospital. It was established that no other baby on the Neonatal Unit had been prescribed insulin, making accidental administration unlikely.
A Countess doctor's statement to the inquiry said: "I felt that the most likely explanation for the results was some sort of inaccuracy with the test and I would have liked to repeat them, but Child F had no further periods of hypoglycaemia and was transferred back to his local unit.
"It is our usual practice to repeat neonatal bloods that do not fit with the expected clinical picture."
She did consider whether insulin could have been delivered deliberately: “but this seemed absurd and ridiculously unlikely so the tests being wrong seemed the only possible explanation.”
She added in her police statement that: “with hindsight I should have flagged up this unexpected result.”

11:53am
Dr Gibbs, in his statement to the inquiry, said: "I helped during the initial management of Child F’s low blood glucose, in August 2015, at which time infection was suspected. Low blood glucose is a common problem in babies in early life, more so in premature babies.
"Blood results in Child F indicated that the low blood glucose was likely to have been caused by the administration of synthetic insulin. These blood results were only available several days after being taken, by which time the low blood glucose had resolved.
"The results were not interpreted correctly at the time and so, highly regrettably, an indication that someone was deliberately harming patients was overlooked.
"Not being aware of these insulin results meant that Child F did not cause me to be suspicious of deliberate harm on the NNU.”
Dr Gibbs characterises it as “a collective failure” on the part of the paediatric team to have not recognised the significance of the insulin and c-peptide results in Child F in mid-August 2015.

11:54am
Medical Director Ian Harvey has said in his statement to the Inquiry: “This situation [the insulin result] was not reported to me at any time before my retirement. It should have been. I feel strongly that had this been reported to me, this would have alerted me to an urgent problem and significantly altered my perception of the events on the neonatal unit.”

11:55am
Ms Langdale KC says to Lady Thirlwall: "In light of what we know about the facts of this case, and indeed the facts of the [Beverley] Allitt case and others, where the deliberate administering of insulin has been used to cause harm, you may consider that this is an area that requires particularly careful consideration."

Live: Thirlwall inquiry into Lucy Letby baby deaths case begins
Click to expand...

I'm not so sure about the insulin cases, looking at its short lived duration it could easily be interpreted as "self correcting" and nobody would assume its deliberate insulin administration. Its quite sad to think you have numerous staff all desperately looking for a medical solution and missing that it's some hellbound horror walking amongst them thats doing it.
 
CS2C said:
Good point they made about having concerns. If they had concerns then who's bright idea was it to move her onto dayshifts instead of investigating it properly.
Click to expand...
And they highlight questions about Lucy Letby in red, after a doctor questions if she is harming the bAbies, and they fob off the concern until a meeting 'next Wednesday.' Meanwhile that nurse highlighted in red is on the day shift until next Wednesday.
 
I’m being thick here but can someone explain why Dr J didn’t want one part of the meeting to go into the minutes ?
 
Powell replied: “It is unfortunate that she [Letby] was on – however each cause of death was different, some were poorly prior to their arrival on the unit", adding others had bowel disorders, gastric bleeding and congenital abnormalities.


It is sad that they use the 'excuse' that each COD was different---as if a serial killer can't change their mode of attack.
 
katydid23 said:
Powell replied: “It is unfortunate that she [Letby] was on – however each cause of death was different, some were poorly prior to their arrival on the unit", adding others had bowel disorders, gastric bleeding and congenital abnormalities.


It is sad that they use the 'excuse' that each COD was different---as if a serial killer can't change their mode of attack.
Click to expand...
Exactly!
 
katydid23 said:
Powell replied: “It is unfortunate that she [Letby] was on – however each cause of death was different, some were poorly prior to their arrival on the unit", adding others had bowel disorders, gastric bleeding and congenital abnormalities.


It is sad that they use the 'excuse' that each COD was different---as if a serial killer can't change their mode of attack.
Click to expand...
We have to take the murders within the context of natural deaths on the unit. I have a idea she tried to blend them in together, imagine the confusion? Some natural some not and many just leaving more questions than answers.

I would like to know the dates of every collapse and death on the unit . There may be a pattern there you wouldn't see through what was in the trial.
 

Risk midwife says boss was 'dismissive of her findings' in relation to Letby​

Judith Moritz
Reporting from the inquiry

The inquiry is today looking at the role of governance, the board, and the "effectiveness" of the risk management in the hospital, Nicholas de la Poer KC says.

De la Poer tells the inquiry that in May 2016, while Letby was still on the unit, a woman called Annemarie Lawrence took up the role of “risk midwife” - and she became aware of the internal “thematic review” into baby deaths and requested a copy.

“Having read this document, she describes going through the table and noting, using a highlighter, that Letby was a common factor in the case of most of the deaths," De la Poer says.
He adds that Lawrence took these concerns to her boss Ruth Millward, the head of risk and safety, about what she had read.
Lawrence said in her witness statement that her boss was "dismissive of her findings".
 
Last edited:

Neonatal mortality and Letby concerns 'not escalated to hospital board'​

​

Moritz
Reporting from the inquiry

Nicholas de la Poer KC is talking about the hospital board and their role in risk management and how ultimately, the board was "responsible for the performance of the hospital".

De la Poer describes the board committees as having a "delegated responsibility for scrutiny and assurance" within each of their respective remits.
"In the period June 2015 to March 2017, no board committee ever escalated to the board issues relating to neonatal mortality or Letby,” he tells the room.

Just before this, de la Poer was explaining the system of various risk registers in the hospital trust.

“We note there is no record of the consultants’ concerns of deliberate harm to babies in the urgent risk register, the executive risk register nor the corporate director’s group meeting minutes," he says.

He adds: "The Inquiry will be seeking to understand why this is, and also why it appears that it took until July 2016, one year and one month after the first indictment baby death, and five months after the thematic review, for the concerns to be formally recorded in these forums."
 
Last edited:

Inquiry to explore 'overlap in remit' between various hospital groups​

Judith Moritz
Reporting from the inquiry

The hospital had a multi-layered governance structure, with a range of divisional boards and sub-committees, de la Poer outlines.
"There seems to have been significant overlap in remit between these various groups," he says, adding the inquiry will explore whether this "affected how the hospital identified and dealt with concerns raised about neonatal mortality".

He says that there were a "number of routes" for issues to be referred from groups near the bottom of the hospital’s governance hierarchy, "all the way to the board", but that's "not what happened".

De la Poer adds the inquiry will look at why the "increase in neonatal mortality and the concerns raised about Letby were rarely discussed".


Doctor referred to Letby as 'elephant in room'​

​

Judith Moritz
Reporting from the inquiry

The hospital board met sixteen times between June 2015 and May 2017, the inquiry hears.

Concerns in relation to Letby were only explicitly discussed at four "extraordinary meetings" held in private, de la Poer says.

On 14 July 2016, Tony Chambers, former chief executive of the Countess of Chester Hospital, informed the board that there had been an unexplained increase in neonatal mortality at the trust, the inquiry is told.

The board were told a peer review had been undertaken, which was "inconclusive" - and Ian Harvey, former medical director of the Countess of Chester Hospital, would undertake his own review of the data.

Quote Message
Click to expand...

"The official minutes recorded Dr Ravi Jayaram asking for one matter not to be minuted. In a set of handwritten notes for the meeting, Dr Jayaram was noted to set out Letby’s association with neonatal deaths, referring to Letby as the “elephant in [the] room.”
Nicholas de la Poer KC, at the inquiry
Click to expand...
Following the meeting on 14 July 2016, the board "did not discuss neonatal mortality nor the concerns raised about Letby again until the new year," de la Poer says.

Letby’s last shift on the neonatal unit was on 30 June 2016, de la Poer had outlined.
 
"There are also legal teams here on behalf of the parents of the babies involved in the Letby case – all of those who she was charged with attacking – not just those she was convicted of murdering and attempting to murder.

Some of the parents themselves are in the hearing room too, but they’re not visible to those of us in the main area, as – at their own request – they are sitting in a screened-off area."

www.bbc.co.uk

Lucy Letby hospital inquiry live: Midwife says NHS boss was 'dismissive' of Lucy Letby concerns, inquiry hears

A "risk midwife" describes highlighting Letby's name as she realised the nurse was a "common factor" in deaths.
www.bbc.co.uk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is DeKalb County John Doe (2022)?

Members online

... and 115 more.
Total: 2,836 (members: 116, guests: 2,720)

Online statistics

Members online
116
Guests online
2,720
Total visitors
2,836
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
603,994
Messages
18,166,379
Members
231,905
Latest member
kristens5487
Back
Top