UK - Lucy Letby - Post-Conviction Statutory Inquiry

[katydid23]

Maybe but something was clearly happening. Even if murder was the furthest thing from you mind you still need to investigate and try to get to the bottom of it. You don't just dismiss because murder is extremely unlikely. It could be that she was grossly incompetent or just reckless.

When consultants (plural) come to you and express concerns about another staff member you need to take that seriously, even if only to show them they're wrong and put their minds at ease.

Yes, very early on they should have moved her off the floor, maybe give her a role doing something else for just awhile.

Of course, if the collapses stopped during that time, then what would they do?

This is where the problem with the Unions come in---although it is nice for each individual worker to have Union support to protect them from unfair treatment, it can also put an unfair bubble around them, and protect them from firing when they should be fired.

 

[katydid23]

It's true. The management certainly have questions to answer. However I do see both sides of this. On the one hand management didn't have much to actually go on did they? if a more extensive post M at child C had taken place they would have fixed it but whose responsibility was that? Remember the evidence showed the kids died either by natural means or in line with them so management in reflection of that have not much to go on other than talk. Talk is dangerous.

I never got the impression that any of the staff at all were incompetent and that includes herself. Indeed she was capable of acting like a experienced and competent nurse seemingly all of the time. Part of the problem it seems. In terms of spotting incompetence how to do that when there isn't any signs of it other than her presence?

It was a big part of the trial imo, random catastrophes that had no solid lead other than her being around. Then in retrospect with all the efforts of the police and evidence gathered was a clear pathway to what was going on established.

Yes, she was very cunning and used sly details to stay under the radar. She changed up the symptoms so it didn't seem like one person causing harm.

Also, premature babies are vulnerable and it is not unusual to lose one very occasionally. So the first couple of times it did not seem that unusual. But she took breaks from killing so things seemed back to normal and then started back up after she couldn't hold back any longer.

I think the only reason she got caught when she did was that she was being compulsive and obsessive about twins and triplets and just couldn't stop herself. She'd try and kill them on back to back nights.

She'd attack a baby, go on a 2 week vacation, then attack again on her first day back. Two weeks with no collapses while she is on vacay---then the day she returns another one goes down.

 

[Sweeper2000]

Yes, she was very cunning and used sly details to stay under the radar. She changed up the symptoms so it didn't seem like one person causing harm.

Also, premature babies are vulnerable and it is not unusual to lose one very occasionally. So the first couple of times it did not seem that unusual. But she took breaks from killing so things seemed back to normal and then started back up after she couldn't hold back any longer.

I think the only reason she got caught when she did was that she was being compulsive and obsessive about twins and triplets and just couldn't stop herself. She'd try and kill them on back to back nights.

She'd attack a baby, go on a 2 week vacation, then attack again on her first day back. Two weeks with no collapses while she is on vacay---then the day she returns another one goes down.

I remember allot of the evidence made Me think if she did it she didn't really try to hide it very well. Before the triplets came along we all thought the unit musof been rife with talk now we know she was called "an angel of death" then the triplets, then she had her house searched with all that jazz and then the "confession" notes. That all made me think she was either reckless or overtaken by whatever was driving it, in the end it was both.11 Allot about what we heard didn't fit with what I thought would be her doing her best to remove evidence of wrongdoing. That was a part of my initial doubts and then baby e came along. Then the bizarreness followed.

 

[Parker Knoll]

It’s all utterly bizarre sweep.
Nothing about her makes any sense whatsoever.

 

[Tortoise]

I'm just reading Peter Skelton KC's (representing some of the families) opening statement, and one of his points is that the families should have been notified as soon as investigations were initiated at the hospital, not when they concluded. One reason, but not the only reason, being that the investigations didn't capture information and questions that only the parents could have given/asked. Baby E's mum's experience comes to my mind, about seeing baby E bleeding and the excuse LL had given for it, but it wasn't recorded by LL in his notes and she hadn't called the doctor to him, so the hospital investigation wouldn't have uncovered that. Information would have been fresher in the mind of the doctor on shift, than it would a few years further down the line. Baby I's mum's evidence also contradicted the nursing notes that LL had made. I'm sure there are other examples.

When I watched Operation Hummingbird's video, the point was made in it (in my own words not theirs) that even at trial there would necessarily be evidence the families would learn that they had never been told before. This, presumably, although I don't think the reason was stated, to keep their evidence untainted.

I'm interested to know what people here think about that aspect. I also wonder, what if the hospital investigations and later the police investigations had found no evidence of foul play?

 

[Baby baby Jane]

This brought to mind an experience I had with my child,ASD & complex disabilities. He was inpatient, for infection, getting IV antibiotics and nurse’s checking at intervals through the day & night. Day nurses were aware of his challenging reactions to some of their checks, I was sleeping in the room, living there 24/7 to help, and made it clear I was to be woken for nurses checks.
First night, 2am, nurse does his checks without waking me. He is startled, combative, nurse upset that she’s been thrashed at. I wake from commotion. After the checks and he’s settled, I talk to her and explain his disability and ask her be sure it’s in notes, request it’s made really clear that they have to wake me so I can help. Seriously, why the F am I sleeping there!!

The next day, a different nurse leaves his file on the table in the room, I flip through it and see the nurse’s interpretation of the event. She says she woke me, I refused to help and she’s been punched by patient. I take out my pen and update her entry with my view of the incident.
I had a visit from a senior admin person to tell me off about writing in the confidential medical notes!! Of course I defended my action and made it clear that the nursing staff were not doing proper handover or note reading. He was ASD, complex child not a passive child who could be woken, prodded and jabbed with no reaction!!

My point, is nurse has a lot of latitude & privacy to write/record whatever he/she likes in her observations. And sr staff there to defend it. Especially if they are effing up treatment, from incompetence, or deliberately.