UK - Lucy Letby - Post-Conviction Statutory Inquiry
- Thread starter Tortoise
- Start date
Welcome to Websleuths!
Click to learn how to make a missing person's thread
Click to learn how to make a missing person's thread
JosieJo
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2018
- Messages
- 3,253
- Reaction score
- 22,447
Doctor secured Lucy Letby hospital placement while she was suspected of murder
Registrar who exchanged more than 1,000 messages with nurse tells public inquiry he believes he was misled
Tortoise
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 15, 2015
- Messages
- 26,686
- Reaction score
- 134,891
Following the deaths of Child O and P later that month, Letby messaged the doctor “do I need to be worried?” following questions that a consultant was asking about the triplets’ care.
Dr U told the inquiry: “I didn’t know exactly what she was worried about but I think having looked after the two babies on consecutive days she was concerned that she would be thought to be responsible for the deaths and as I didn’t know of the number of preceding deaths it was a ‘reassuring no’.”
Miss Langdale said: “Well she was worried if people were asking questions about it, wasn’t she?”
Dr U said: “In hindsight, yes obviously.”
Miss Langdale said: “And at the time you mistook that for what?”
Dr U said: “Anxiety.”
Miss Langdale asked Dr U why he forwarded Letby an email from neonatal lead Dr Stephen Brearey in which he indicated Child O and P’s deaths would be investigated at inquests.
Dr U replied: “It was because of the worry about those two babies. They were unexpected deaths. She gave me the impression she was very upset… I was basically trying to give her some insight into what was going on.”
Miss Langdale said: “Why was it for you for tell her?”
Dr U said: “Again in hindsight, that was an error on my part. I should not have sent it.”
more at link
www.dailymail.co.uk
Most unsatisfactory, IMO!
Dr U told the inquiry: “I didn’t know exactly what she was worried about but I think having looked after the two babies on consecutive days she was concerned that she would be thought to be responsible for the deaths and as I didn’t know of the number of preceding deaths it was a ‘reassuring no’.”
Miss Langdale said: “Well she was worried if people were asking questions about it, wasn’t she?”
Dr U said: “In hindsight, yes obviously.”
Miss Langdale said: “And at the time you mistook that for what?”
Dr U said: “Anxiety.”
Miss Langdale asked Dr U why he forwarded Letby an email from neonatal lead Dr Stephen Brearey in which he indicated Child O and P’s deaths would be investigated at inquests.
Dr U replied: “It was because of the worry about those two babies. They were unexpected deaths. She gave me the impression she was very upset… I was basically trying to give her some insight into what was going on.”
Miss Langdale said: “Why was it for you for tell her?”
Dr U said: “Again in hindsight, that was an error on my part. I should not have sent it.”
more at link
Medic says Letby `misled and maybe manipulated´ him into giving her...
The public inquiry heard he swapped 1,355 Facebook messages with the nurse in a three-month period when they worked together.
Most unsatisfactory, IMO!
Tortoise
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 15, 2015
- Messages
- 26,686
- Reaction score
- 134,891
I'm looking forward to the full transcript.
I suppose I didn't expect anything better from this witness tbh.
Tortoise
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 15, 2015
- Messages
- 26,686
- Reaction score
- 134,891
Transcripts are now up for today!!
thirlwall.public-inquiry.uk
07/10/2024 – Transcript of Week 5 Day 1 | The Thirlwall Inquiry
Transcript of Part B Evidence: Dr ZA and Dr V – Consultant Paediatricians, and Dr U – Consultant Registrar
thirlwall.public-inquiry.uk
Tortoise
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 15, 2015
- Messages
- 26,686
- Reaction score
- 134,891
Page 4
Q. Dr U was at the final stages of his training and was at the Countess of Chester between September 2015 and 2016; okay? He would be described as a senior middle grade?
(link to transcript in last post)
So he should have been aware of everything that had happened on the unit after babies E&F in Aug 2015. Was he living in a bubble? All the doctors had growing concerns except Dr U/choc.
Q. Dr U was at the final stages of his training and was at the Countess of Chester between September 2015 and 2016; okay? He would be described as a senior middle grade?
(link to transcript in last post)
So he should have been aware of everything that had happened on the unit after babies E&F in Aug 2015. Was he living in a bubble? All the doctors had growing concerns except Dr U/choc.
katydid23
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2011
- Messages
- 67,971
- Reaction score
- 239,903
Q=MR DE LA POER
A=DR ZA
A.I had always thought that the relationship between the
Consultants and the nursing staff was again positive and friendly. It was only around 2016 when concerns were being raised about Lucy Letby that that relationship became strained.
Q. And we've heard from others that their perception was the strain was because the Consultants took one view of Letby but at least some of the nurses took a different view
A. Yes.
Q. -- was that your experience?
A. That was my experience.
Q. And in terms of the nurses who were taking
a different view, we know that the unit manager was Eirian Powell.
A. Yes.
Q. Was she in that camp? A. Yes.
Q. Were there any other senior nurses in that
camp, by which I mean those part of the management
structure
A. I'm not sure exactly what position other
senior nurses had taken. They weren't very vocal about what they thought in the way that Eirian was, and it
became something that we didn't talk about because it caused strained relationships. So I don't know what
a lot of nurses' views were because we didn't talk about it.
A=DR ZA
A.I had always thought that the relationship between the
Consultants and the nursing staff was again positive and friendly. It was only around 2016 when concerns were being raised about Lucy Letby that that relationship became strained.
Q. And we've heard from others that their perception was the strain was because the Consultants took one view of Letby but at least some of the nurses took a different view
A. Yes.
Q. -- was that your experience?
A. That was my experience.
Q. And in terms of the nurses who were taking
a different view, we know that the unit manager was Eirian Powell.
A. Yes.
Q. Was she in that camp? A. Yes.
Q. Were there any other senior nurses in that
camp, by which I mean those part of the management
structure
A. I'm not sure exactly what position other
senior nurses had taken. They weren't very vocal about what they thought in the way that Eirian was, and it
became something that we didn't talk about because it caused strained relationships. So I don't know what
a lot of nurses' views were because we didn't talk about it.
Parker Knoll
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Nov 15, 2020
- Messages
- 1,250
- Reaction score
- 10,068
Just skim reading the transcript so I have probably left out loads of stuff that struck me as BS but I can’t believe the utter arrogance of this spineless little rat, he is lying through his sorry teeth. He claims not to know what was being said about Letby yet nurses were checking rotas ?
Utter ... he was showing off to her, feeding her information, trying to throw Dr V under the bus, claiming not to have the previous bigger picture with baby P yet he was cot side ALL DAY, presuming she was on holiday so feeding her information (are you seriously expecting us to believe he didn't know she was away ??)
Claiming not to know the number of proceeding deaths ... SERIOUSLY ? Didn't know she had been moved to day shifts ? Conveniently left the meeting in July just BEFORE the consultants discussed letby being involved ?
Bless him, he's become more aware that he wasn't aware of the full clinical picture and he's been misled and MAYBE just maybe manipulated and he's really sorry things have come to end as they have.
Unbelievable !
Post
Utter ... he was showing off to her, feeding her information, trying to throw Dr V under the bus, claiming not to have the previous bigger picture with baby P yet he was cot side ALL DAY, presuming she was on holiday so feeding her information (are you seriously expecting us to believe he didn't know she was away ??)
Claiming not to know the number of proceeding deaths ... SERIOUSLY ? Didn't know she had been moved to day shifts ? Conveniently left the meeting in July just BEFORE the consultants discussed letby being involved ?
Bless him, he's become more aware that he wasn't aware of the full clinical picture and he's been misled and MAYBE just maybe manipulated and he's really sorry things have come to end as they have.
Unbelievable !
Post
Highlandspring
Active Member
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2023
- Messages
- 24
- Reaction score
- 152
Yes he's beyond words.
Didn't even apologise personally to any of the parents when Skelton gave him a chance, claiming right to the end he was texting about babies 'to share information that would be helpful on a subsequent day, nothing more.' Even when they were dead??
What an absolute insult to those poor people whose trauma he basically exacerbated.
ETA And his answers are straight out of the Letby playbook - evasion, lies and obfuscation. Hope he can be sued along with the other charlatans.
Last edited:
Tortoise
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 15, 2015
- Messages
- 26,686
- Reaction score
- 134,891
Tortoise
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 15, 2015
- Messages
- 26,686
- Reaction score
- 134,891
starting at page 201, to page 211
[Q] If we go over the page, at 457, this by then is 25 June, we see at 22.46 Letby saying to you: "Do I need to be worried about what Dr Gibbs was asking?" You say: "No, he was asking to make sure normal procedures were being carried out. "What was going on there? We can see -- we can by all means have a look at that exchange, what's she worrying about?
A. I don't know exactly what she was worrying about. But the -- I think, having looked after the two babies on consecutive days, she was concerned that she would be thought to be responsible for the deaths and, as I didn't know of the number of preceding deaths, I didn't -- it was a reassuring, no, I don't -- I hadn't observed anything that had gone wrong in the resuscitation of O or P.
Q. You were a Registrar, albeit one of the most experienced ones, at the resuscitation. How could you possibly say, no, nothing to worry about? You didn't know what this death represented. You couldn't know.
A. No, it was -- it was a reassuring no because I -- again, I was aware of her mental health problems and the amount of anxiety that she had.
Q. Well, she was worried, wasn't she, if people are asking questions about it?
A. In hindsight, yes, obviously.
Q. And at the time you mistook that for, what?
A. Anxiety.
Q. If you look at page 14, at message 471, you are reassuring her: "If anyone knows how hard you have worked over the last three days it's me. If anybody says anything to you about not being good enough or performing adequately give my details. I can provide a statement."She says:"Sincerely I hope I won't ever be needing a statement, but thank you." And you then say, message 473: "You will know that the Kotch Neekam [typo per trial report, should be "coch nicu"] mortality rate is a bit higher than the network average. Makes people, consultants look at trends and patterns. That may have been why Dr G came to ask." It wasn't about mortality rates, was it, it was about unexpected deaths? And were you aware that Letby had only been moved to day shifts -- comes back from holiday -- and that's where you knew she had come back from holiday, and that's when Baby O died, the day she came back.
A. I don't -- I don't think I was aware that it was day shifts only.
Q. You didn't know she'd moved to day shifts?
A. I'm not -- no, I don't think so. It may have been mentioned in passing but it wasn't something that -- that I remembered.
Q. She did talk to you about moving to dayshifts, didn't she? If we go to page 19, message 681,you see there: "Eirian has just phoned telling me not to come in tonight and do days instead. Asked if there was a problem. She said no just trying to protect me a bit. We can have a chat about it tomorrow but now I'm worried." You say: "Please don't worry." She says: "I can't do this job if it's going to be like this. My head is a mess. Why is she ringing at this time? There must be a problem." And you continue to say: "You did nothing wrong at all. We all work tirelessly." Message 691: "We did everything possible. I don't see how anyone can question that E has always been very supportive." And from this point onwards, of course, she was going -- just to finish with messages -- she had to undertake or was undertaking a number of processes, wasn't she, she went on to have a grievance process, and you continued to message her during that time?
A. Yes.
Q. If we go to message on page 27, 1028, 6 July, you say: "You need to keep this to yourself. The meeting this afternoon looked at everything with Child O and P from birth onwards, reviewed everything, the room, beds medical views and actions. We looked at all documentation, medicine. If you have any doubt about how good you are at your job stop now, documentation was perfect. Everyone commented about the appropriateness of your request for review following the vomits." What meeting were you referring to there?
A. This was a meeting on the neonatal unit looking at these two deaths. And it was a review -- it was a review of the written medical notes and of the typed nursing notes and whatever other information was available at the time, and we looked from birth through to death for both babies.
Q. Was this one where Dr Brearey, Powell, Williams, Griffiths you, Dr ZA and Hayley Cooper were present, a mortality review, or was it something different?
A. It may have been something different. I --I recall it as a meeting in an office on the neonatal unit.
Q. You say at 6 July there when you say -- when you send the message, "This meeting this afternoon", was that the day -- well, actually it's -- what time is that message? Five to 1, so to could it have happened on 5 July?
A. Yes.
Q. Right. If we go -- we can leave the message for a moment -- to that mortality meeting that occurred on 5 July -- mortality review -- it's INQ0005121. So that's page 1, 2. If we go to page 3. We see the people you said you were likely to be with doctors Brearey, Williams, Powell, Griffiths, Dr ZA. Dr ZA -- and there's one for P as well. There are two babies, everything is being looked at, as you have said. Dr ZA gave evidence this morning to say that Letby's presence was referred to in this meeting of 5 July and Letby having something to do with the deaths, her continued association, and things had gone beyond a coincidence and she might have been involved in someway either deliberately or through incompetence. Do you remember that Letby was mentioned in this meeting as Dr ZA told us this morning?
A. I think I was only present for the beginning of that meeting, so for the bits where the cases were discussed, because I was present for both of them. I --I think I left and then the conversation continued afterwards.
Q. Why do you think it continued after you left?
A. I -- I presume they wanted to discuss what they were considering.
Q. Dr ZA said anyone at the meeting was very clear about this association, but your evidence is that conversation or part of the discussion didn't happen when you were there?
A. I don't think it did. I'm sure that I was just there to give evidence for the -- not evidence, information about the resuscitations.
Q. At this point, it seems everyone has to accept they were discussing or thinking about it, but you say you still weren't at this point thinking that Letby had an association with the deaths or deteriorations.
A. So I -- I think if I'd left earlier in that meeting I may not have been aware of that bit of the discussion about specific concerns.
Q. If you left that meeting early, it doesn't change the fact that all of your colleagues -- your medical colleagues had those concerns at this point. Do you agree?
A. Yes.
Q. So how is it you're the only one who says you had no concerns at this point? Were you not speaking to any of them?
A. Yes, I mean we -- we spoke all of the time. I'm not sure that we discussed specific members of staff. I'm not sure that we discussed specific babies to that extent.
Q. Why did you say in that messaging I took you to earlier "You need to keep this to yourself" to Letby.
A. I wasn't sure whether the nursing team knew that there was review into the deaths, and I didn't -- I think the unit was still very upset about the deaths of Baby O and Baby P and I didn't want it to be gossipped about.
Q. If they had wanted Letby at the meeting or the mortality review she would have been invited, wouldn't she?
A. Yes.
Q. So why was it for you to pass on information about that meeting to her?
A. She'd appeared very upset after the deaths of both Baby O and Baby P.
Q. Everyone was upset.
A. They were, they were. And as the nurse looking after the two babies she told me that she was -- she was upset by it, and I was -- I went -- I gave her information to reassure her that her part in the resuscitation process had been very good. I -- I don't think I actually discussed the resuscitation with her or the discussion about it. I just said that her notes were very clearly written.
Q. If we go back to the messages, so again INQ0000569, page 28, at 1071, please, you say: "I've since had an email from SB [that's Stephen Brearey] which makes me understand what's going on. I'll forward it to you, you might find it interesting." And you forward an email that you've received to her email address, don't you? And if we go to it we can see that email at INQ0001445, page 1. So you're sent this from Dr Brearey: "I think it's quite likely both will go to an Inquest and you're likely to be asked to give a statement. Can I suggest you prepare it now when everything is fresh in your mind. It can include things we discussed yesterday that might not be in the notes, particularly around Child P's initial arrest and who put IOs in and where and what went through them." What can you remember was discussed that wasn't in the notes at the meeting of 5 July?
A. My recollection of that meeting on 5 July was about the resuscitations for the two babies. I'm --clearly there was other -- other items discussed. I'm not -- I don't think I was aware of those.
Q. Well, were the other items the concern of Letby's association with the deaths again?
A. They may well have been, yes.
Q. So does that mean Dr Brearey had raised those concerns with you?
A. I don't recall them being raised as a specific concern about a specific member of staff at that time.
Q. If we were to go back to the notes, we know that Letby says to you -- I can perhaps read them out rather than going back on to the screen -- she says on 6 July: "Why is it going to Inquest?" You say: "Unexplained cause times 2." She says: "It's a bit of a worry if it's going that far." And then she asks: "Do you think I will be involved?" And you say: "Probably not. Your documentation most likely will be used in place of a statement. The questions will be about management and procedures." She says:"I don't know what to say. Feels like a bit of a blow considering everyone's hard work." Why did you send that email to her?
A. Why did I forward that email?
Q. Yes.
A. It was because of the -- the worry about these two babies, they were unexpected deaths, and she had been -- or gave me the impression that she was very upset by them and was doing a lot of -- there was a lot of conversation about these two babies and I was basically trying to give her some insight into what was going on.
Q. That there was going to be an Inquest?
A. Potentially, yes.
Q. Why was it for you to tell her that?
A. It wasn't. Again, in hindsight that was an error on my part.
Q. And you say to her: "This email has to stay between us, is that okay?" So you knew you shouldn't be sending it to her otherwise why would you say that?
A. I shouldn't have sent it.
Q. And you knew that at the time, because you say -- you say that.
A. I think at the time I -- I sent it in order to help reassure her that the process was being followed, but I didn't send it as a way of bypassing normal routes. I did it as a reassurance that the process was being followed.
thirlwall.public-inquiry.uk
[Q] If we go over the page, at 457, this by then is 25 June, we see at 22.46 Letby saying to you: "Do I need to be worried about what Dr Gibbs was asking?" You say: "No, he was asking to make sure normal procedures were being carried out. "What was going on there? We can see -- we can by all means have a look at that exchange, what's she worrying about?
A. I don't know exactly what she was worrying about. But the -- I think, having looked after the two babies on consecutive days, she was concerned that she would be thought to be responsible for the deaths and, as I didn't know of the number of preceding deaths, I didn't -- it was a reassuring, no, I don't -- I hadn't observed anything that had gone wrong in the resuscitation of O or P.
Q. You were a Registrar, albeit one of the most experienced ones, at the resuscitation. How could you possibly say, no, nothing to worry about? You didn't know what this death represented. You couldn't know.
A. No, it was -- it was a reassuring no because I -- again, I was aware of her mental health problems and the amount of anxiety that she had.
Q. Well, she was worried, wasn't she, if people are asking questions about it?
A. In hindsight, yes, obviously.
Q. And at the time you mistook that for, what?
A. Anxiety.
Q. If you look at page 14, at message 471, you are reassuring her: "If anyone knows how hard you have worked over the last three days it's me. If anybody says anything to you about not being good enough or performing adequately give my details. I can provide a statement."She says:"Sincerely I hope I won't ever be needing a statement, but thank you." And you then say, message 473: "You will know that the Kotch Neekam [typo per trial report, should be "coch nicu"] mortality rate is a bit higher than the network average. Makes people, consultants look at trends and patterns. That may have been why Dr G came to ask." It wasn't about mortality rates, was it, it was about unexpected deaths? And were you aware that Letby had only been moved to day shifts -- comes back from holiday -- and that's where you knew she had come back from holiday, and that's when Baby O died, the day she came back.
A. I don't -- I don't think I was aware that it was day shifts only.
Q. You didn't know she'd moved to day shifts?
A. I'm not -- no, I don't think so. It may have been mentioned in passing but it wasn't something that -- that I remembered.
Q. She did talk to you about moving to dayshifts, didn't she? If we go to page 19, message 681,you see there: "Eirian has just phoned telling me not to come in tonight and do days instead. Asked if there was a problem. She said no just trying to protect me a bit. We can have a chat about it tomorrow but now I'm worried." You say: "Please don't worry." She says: "I can't do this job if it's going to be like this. My head is a mess. Why is she ringing at this time? There must be a problem." And you continue to say: "You did nothing wrong at all. We all work tirelessly." Message 691: "We did everything possible. I don't see how anyone can question that E has always been very supportive." And from this point onwards, of course, she was going -- just to finish with messages -- she had to undertake or was undertaking a number of processes, wasn't she, she went on to have a grievance process, and you continued to message her during that time?
A. Yes.
Q. If we go to message on page 27, 1028, 6 July, you say: "You need to keep this to yourself. The meeting this afternoon looked at everything with Child O and P from birth onwards, reviewed everything, the room, beds medical views and actions. We looked at all documentation, medicine. If you have any doubt about how good you are at your job stop now, documentation was perfect. Everyone commented about the appropriateness of your request for review following the vomits." What meeting were you referring to there?
A. This was a meeting on the neonatal unit looking at these two deaths. And it was a review -- it was a review of the written medical notes and of the typed nursing notes and whatever other information was available at the time, and we looked from birth through to death for both babies.
Q. Was this one where Dr Brearey, Powell, Williams, Griffiths you, Dr ZA and Hayley Cooper were present, a mortality review, or was it something different?
A. It may have been something different. I --I recall it as a meeting in an office on the neonatal unit.
Q. You say at 6 July there when you say -- when you send the message, "This meeting this afternoon", was that the day -- well, actually it's -- what time is that message? Five to 1, so to could it have happened on 5 July?
A. Yes.
Q. Right. If we go -- we can leave the message for a moment -- to that mortality meeting that occurred on 5 July -- mortality review -- it's INQ0005121. So that's page 1, 2. If we go to page 3. We see the people you said you were likely to be with doctors Brearey, Williams, Powell, Griffiths, Dr ZA. Dr ZA -- and there's one for P as well. There are two babies, everything is being looked at, as you have said. Dr ZA gave evidence this morning to say that Letby's presence was referred to in this meeting of 5 July and Letby having something to do with the deaths, her continued association, and things had gone beyond a coincidence and she might have been involved in someway either deliberately or through incompetence. Do you remember that Letby was mentioned in this meeting as Dr ZA told us this morning?
A. I think I was only present for the beginning of that meeting, so for the bits where the cases were discussed, because I was present for both of them. I --I think I left and then the conversation continued afterwards.
Q. Why do you think it continued after you left?
A. I -- I presume they wanted to discuss what they were considering.
Q. Dr ZA said anyone at the meeting was very clear about this association, but your evidence is that conversation or part of the discussion didn't happen when you were there?
A. I don't think it did. I'm sure that I was just there to give evidence for the -- not evidence, information about the resuscitations.
Q. At this point, it seems everyone has to accept they were discussing or thinking about it, but you say you still weren't at this point thinking that Letby had an association with the deaths or deteriorations.
A. So I -- I think if I'd left earlier in that meeting I may not have been aware of that bit of the discussion about specific concerns.
Q. If you left that meeting early, it doesn't change the fact that all of your colleagues -- your medical colleagues had those concerns at this point. Do you agree?
A. Yes.
Q. So how is it you're the only one who says you had no concerns at this point? Were you not speaking to any of them?
A. Yes, I mean we -- we spoke all of the time. I'm not sure that we discussed specific members of staff. I'm not sure that we discussed specific babies to that extent.
Q. Why did you say in that messaging I took you to earlier "You need to keep this to yourself" to Letby.
A. I wasn't sure whether the nursing team knew that there was review into the deaths, and I didn't -- I think the unit was still very upset about the deaths of Baby O and Baby P and I didn't want it to be gossipped about.
Q. If they had wanted Letby at the meeting or the mortality review she would have been invited, wouldn't she?
A. Yes.
Q. So why was it for you to pass on information about that meeting to her?
A. She'd appeared very upset after the deaths of both Baby O and Baby P.
Q. Everyone was upset.
A. They were, they were. And as the nurse looking after the two babies she told me that she was -- she was upset by it, and I was -- I went -- I gave her information to reassure her that her part in the resuscitation process had been very good. I -- I don't think I actually discussed the resuscitation with her or the discussion about it. I just said that her notes were very clearly written.
Q. If we go back to the messages, so again INQ0000569, page 28, at 1071, please, you say: "I've since had an email from SB [that's Stephen Brearey] which makes me understand what's going on. I'll forward it to you, you might find it interesting." And you forward an email that you've received to her email address, don't you? And if we go to it we can see that email at INQ0001445, page 1. So you're sent this from Dr Brearey: "I think it's quite likely both will go to an Inquest and you're likely to be asked to give a statement. Can I suggest you prepare it now when everything is fresh in your mind. It can include things we discussed yesterday that might not be in the notes, particularly around Child P's initial arrest and who put IOs in and where and what went through them." What can you remember was discussed that wasn't in the notes at the meeting of 5 July?
A. My recollection of that meeting on 5 July was about the resuscitations for the two babies. I'm --clearly there was other -- other items discussed. I'm not -- I don't think I was aware of those.
Q. Well, were the other items the concern of Letby's association with the deaths again?
A. They may well have been, yes.
Q. So does that mean Dr Brearey had raised those concerns with you?
A. I don't recall them being raised as a specific concern about a specific member of staff at that time.
Q. If we were to go back to the notes, we know that Letby says to you -- I can perhaps read them out rather than going back on to the screen -- she says on 6 July: "Why is it going to Inquest?" You say: "Unexplained cause times 2." She says: "It's a bit of a worry if it's going that far." And then she asks: "Do you think I will be involved?" And you say: "Probably not. Your documentation most likely will be used in place of a statement. The questions will be about management and procedures." She says:"I don't know what to say. Feels like a bit of a blow considering everyone's hard work." Why did you send that email to her?
A. Why did I forward that email?
Q. Yes.
A. It was because of the -- the worry about these two babies, they were unexpected deaths, and she had been -- or gave me the impression that she was very upset by them and was doing a lot of -- there was a lot of conversation about these two babies and I was basically trying to give her some insight into what was going on.
Q. That there was going to be an Inquest?
A. Potentially, yes.
Q. Why was it for you to tell her that?
A. It wasn't. Again, in hindsight that was an error on my part.
Q. And you say to her: "This email has to stay between us, is that okay?" So you knew you shouldn't be sending it to her otherwise why would you say that?
A. I shouldn't have sent it.
Q. And you knew that at the time, because you say -- you say that.
A. I think at the time I -- I sent it in order to help reassure her that the process was being followed, but I didn't send it as a way of bypassing normal routes. I did it as a reassurance that the process was being followed.
07/10/2024 – Transcript of Week 5 Day 1 | The Thirlwall Inquiry
Transcript of Part B Evidence: Dr ZA and Dr V – Consultant Paediatricians, and Dr U – Consultant Registrar
thirlwall.public-inquiry.uk
Last edited:
Baby baby Jane
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2019
- Messages
- 686
- Reaction score
- 8,089
@Tortoise
Thank you for this, it very revealing about the 2 of them.
IMO
Dr: clearly getting a thrill from being Letby “rock”, he’s now claiming his actions were because he was worried for her Mental Health. Considering her job, and his, he was obligated to escalate to Occ Health or HR if there is a worry for her actual MH while caring for most vulnerable babies. He would have to know that an over anxious mind makes mistakes.
Can’t believe he took so much of his time “nurturing” her, making her a priority.
Very surprised there isn’t more to their relationship. Was she not interested in him romantically, but using him for info and as an ally as she did with nurses?
LL: star manipulator and need for attention and “support” with her poor little me persona. How is she so pathetic she needs so much “support” yet Dr/murses think she is able to do her job flawlessly?
Thank you for this, it very revealing about the 2 of them.
IMO
Dr: clearly getting a thrill from being Letby “rock”, he’s now claiming his actions were because he was worried for her Mental Health. Considering her job, and his, he was obligated to escalate to Occ Health or HR if there is a worry for her actual MH while caring for most vulnerable babies. He would have to know that an over anxious mind makes mistakes.
Can’t believe he took so much of his time “nurturing” her, making her a priority.
Very surprised there isn’t more to their relationship. Was she not interested in him romantically, but using him for info and as an ally as she did with nurses?
LL: star manipulator and need for attention and “support” with her poor little me persona. How is she so pathetic she needs so much “support” yet Dr/murses think she is able to do her job flawlessly?
Tortoise
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 15, 2015
- Messages
- 26,686
- Reaction score
- 134,891
Context for part of this, regarding baby P, from the Trial: (Mailonline trial podcast)
"Dr Ukoh quickly returned to his bedside and he said one of the nurses, he couldn't remember exactly which one, asked if Doctor A, the doctor who Lucy Letby had a close friendship with, could attend. The nurse wanted Doctor A in particular, he said. So Doctor A was bleeped and arrived soon afterwards..."
LL's cross-examination on 8th June 2023:
Dr Ukoh, the court is told, gave evidence to say Child P was in a very different condition between 9.35am and 9.40am.
He also said Letby was "very keen" for the doctor colleague to be called. Letby says this was because he had been present for Child O's deterioration. She adds it was one of the other doctors who suggested getting that doctor.
NJ: "Were you trying to attract [the doctor's] attention?"
LL: "No."
NJ: "Did you enjoy being in these crisis situations with [the doctor]?"
LL: "No....[doctor colleague] and I were friends.
NJ: "Something to share?"
LL: "No."
Recap: Lucy Letby trial, June 8 - cross-examination continues
---
The Inquiry transcript - Dr U (Choc/A)
Pages 192 to 197
Q. Dr Lambie told us last week that by September 2015 she had observed a group of nurses in a huddle conducting an exercise where they were looking for a name or information that might link someone to events on the unit that had been unexpected, caused concern and suspicion, otherwise they wouldn't have been doing that exercise. That was in September 2015. Did you ever understand that people were putting together information to see who might be present at these unexpected and unexplained events, not just deaths, unexpected and unexplained events be they death or deteriorations, when did you understand that kind of information was being collated?
A. I think that was later in 2016. I don't recall the exact month but it was in the middle to latter half of 2016.
Q. After Baby O's death or before?
A. I'm not sure.
Q. We know that Dr Brearey had sent an email to fellow Consultants saying that he would like to know or be informed about any deteriorations that had happened, and Baby N fell into -- taking into account after that email had been sent. Did you know about that email from Dr Brearey wanting to know about deteriorations or unexpected events?
A. To the other Consultants?
Q. Yes.
A. No, I don't think I was aware of that email.
Q. But you did talk to the other Consultants, you're a collaborative group, were you not aware informally that Dr Brearey was keen to know about unexpected deteriorations or anything suspicious?
A. Not as a result of that email.
Q. What was it as a result of then?
A. I beg your pardon?
Q. What was it -- you say not as a result of an email, what did you hear that from?
A. There was a discussion with the junior doctors in the office on the paediatric ward, the middle to latter half of 2016, where I believe it was Dr Jayaram and Dr Brearey mentioned to us -- I think it was at the end of an afternoon handover -- that the deteriorations, the -- the neonatal unit was -- I'm sorry, I'm struggling to find the right words -- he had suggested that the neonatal unit was having a bad run, that there were more events occurring on the neonatal unit than had been in previous years and we were I think during that handover asked just to keep our eyes open.
Q. Keep your eyes open, what for?
A. Well, I suspect for things -- for things that may be the cause of the deteriorations.
Q. We know the email Dr Brearey sent was May 2016. Is this conversation around that time -- you [he?] sent it to Consultants, but is this a conversation with you around that time?
A. It was around that time, May or June I suspect.
Q. So by the time of Baby O's death, you are aware of that conversation.
A. Yes.
Q. And Baby O's death comes out of the blue.
A. Yes.
Q. Baby P. What was your involvement with Baby P?
A. On the Friday morning that Baby P deteriorated, I was conducting the ward round on the children's ward. I had been told not to go to the neonatal unit that day because of the events of the previous afternoon.
Q. Pausing there. Why, because you'd endured the death the previous day and shouldn't go back again or what -- why?
A. Yes.
Q. So that was a protective way of managing doctors or nurses, was it, if they'd been exposed to something traumatic before?
A. Yes.
Q. So who gave you that instruction or suggested that you shouldn't go back?
A. That will have been done at the morning handover because both wards were handed over at the same time. It was most likely the Consultant of the week. I think that was Doctor V that week.
Q. Again, my Lady.
LADY JUSTICE THIRLWALL: So that name is not to be reported.
MS LANGDALE: So on that next day, you were told not to go there but did you end up going there?
A. I did.
Q. Right. How did that come about?
A. I was contacted using the bleep system to -- I was bleeped and a message was passed that I should go to the neonatal unit.
Q. And what was the scene on your arrival?
A. So Baby P was in the far right-hand side of Nursery 2 and there were a lot of people in that room, doctors and nurses, and Baby P was clearly unwell from the monitoring system and just how he looked. I had a very, very quick handover about what had happened but it was clear that he was at the point of needing to be resuscitated.
Q. Did you think at the time, "How is this happening again?" You'd said earlier you were all conscious, two siblings, and here you are walking into that scene?
A. At that time my priority was to resuscitate the baby. I -- and I got on with the tasks needed to get him mechanically ventilated and then starting to put more venous lines in so that more drugs could be administered.
Q. And after the intensity of the scene, did you then think, "How can we be here again?"
A. So the rest of that day, the intensity only dropped slightly. He got a little bit better and then declined again, then got a little bit better and declined. I stayed predominantly at the side the cot dealing with breathing, circulation, volume replacement and I -- I didn't have the big picture. I had a summary of what had happened prior to me arriving there. I didn't know what had happened, I don't think, overnight. And I -- I spent I think the rest of the day in that room. There were some discussions because many of the Consultants came through and joined during the day and I -- I understood that they were discussing with the transport team and what should be done next.
Q. Baby O, P, and R's parents knew that they needed to get Baby R out of the Countess of Chester to keep him safe. They didn't know medically what had happened or how, but they knew Baby R was not safe there. Did you as a doctor think something's happening, he's not safe here after what had happened to O and then P?
A. I was glad that Baby R was transferred. I don't think I had put together the string of events of O and P. I was still looking for a medical cause for their deterioration. But I was glad that Baby R moved.
thirlwall.public-inquiry.uk
Dodging the questions IMO. How could he think the conversation about unexpected events was in the latter part of 2016 when there were no more unexpected events after LL had been removed? He doesn't answer the last two questions at all. Even after being officially warned of unexpected deaths in May 2016 he decided LL was no danger, and continued to support her until his police interview in January 2018. That is when LL said their "friendship" fizzled out. That's not manipulation from LL, it's abandoning sound judgement.
"Dr Ukoh quickly returned to his bedside and he said one of the nurses, he couldn't remember exactly which one, asked if Doctor A, the doctor who Lucy Letby had a close friendship with, could attend. The nurse wanted Doctor A in particular, he said. So Doctor A was bleeped and arrived soon afterwards..."
LL's cross-examination on 8th June 2023:
Dr Ukoh, the court is told, gave evidence to say Child P was in a very different condition between 9.35am and 9.40am.
He also said Letby was "very keen" for the doctor colleague to be called. Letby says this was because he had been present for Child O's deterioration. She adds it was one of the other doctors who suggested getting that doctor.
NJ: "Were you trying to attract [the doctor's] attention?"
LL: "No."
NJ: "Did you enjoy being in these crisis situations with [the doctor]?"
LL: "No....[doctor colleague] and I were friends.
NJ: "Something to share?"
LL: "No."
Recap: Lucy Letby trial, June 8 - cross-examination continues
---
The Inquiry transcript - Dr U (Choc/A)
Pages 192 to 197
Q. Dr Lambie told us last week that by September 2015 she had observed a group of nurses in a huddle conducting an exercise where they were looking for a name or information that might link someone to events on the unit that had been unexpected, caused concern and suspicion, otherwise they wouldn't have been doing that exercise. That was in September 2015. Did you ever understand that people were putting together information to see who might be present at these unexpected and unexplained events, not just deaths, unexpected and unexplained events be they death or deteriorations, when did you understand that kind of information was being collated?
A. I think that was later in 2016. I don't recall the exact month but it was in the middle to latter half of 2016.
Q. After Baby O's death or before?
A. I'm not sure.
Q. We know that Dr Brearey had sent an email to fellow Consultants saying that he would like to know or be informed about any deteriorations that had happened, and Baby N fell into -- taking into account after that email had been sent. Did you know about that email from Dr Brearey wanting to know about deteriorations or unexpected events?
A. To the other Consultants?
Q. Yes.
A. No, I don't think I was aware of that email.
Q. But you did talk to the other Consultants, you're a collaborative group, were you not aware informally that Dr Brearey was keen to know about unexpected deteriorations or anything suspicious?
A. Not as a result of that email.
Q. What was it as a result of then?
A. I beg your pardon?
Q. What was it -- you say not as a result of an email, what did you hear that from?
A. There was a discussion with the junior doctors in the office on the paediatric ward, the middle to latter half of 2016, where I believe it was Dr Jayaram and Dr Brearey mentioned to us -- I think it was at the end of an afternoon handover -- that the deteriorations, the -- the neonatal unit was -- I'm sorry, I'm struggling to find the right words -- he had suggested that the neonatal unit was having a bad run, that there were more events occurring on the neonatal unit than had been in previous years and we were I think during that handover asked just to keep our eyes open.
Q. Keep your eyes open, what for?
A. Well, I suspect for things -- for things that may be the cause of the deteriorations.
Q. We know the email Dr Brearey sent was May 2016. Is this conversation around that time -- you [he?] sent it to Consultants, but is this a conversation with you around that time?
A. It was around that time, May or June I suspect.
Q. So by the time of Baby O's death, you are aware of that conversation.
A. Yes.
Q. And Baby O's death comes out of the blue.
A. Yes.
Q. Baby P. What was your involvement with Baby P?
A. On the Friday morning that Baby P deteriorated, I was conducting the ward round on the children's ward. I had been told not to go to the neonatal unit that day because of the events of the previous afternoon.
Q. Pausing there. Why, because you'd endured the death the previous day and shouldn't go back again or what -- why?
A. Yes.
Q. So that was a protective way of managing doctors or nurses, was it, if they'd been exposed to something traumatic before?
A. Yes.
Q. So who gave you that instruction or suggested that you shouldn't go back?
A. That will have been done at the morning handover because both wards were handed over at the same time. It was most likely the Consultant of the week. I think that was Doctor V that week.
Q. Again, my Lady.
LADY JUSTICE THIRLWALL: So that name is not to be reported.
MS LANGDALE: So on that next day, you were told not to go there but did you end up going there?
A. I did.
Q. Right. How did that come about?
A. I was contacted using the bleep system to -- I was bleeped and a message was passed that I should go to the neonatal unit.
Q. And what was the scene on your arrival?
A. So Baby P was in the far right-hand side of Nursery 2 and there were a lot of people in that room, doctors and nurses, and Baby P was clearly unwell from the monitoring system and just how he looked. I had a very, very quick handover about what had happened but it was clear that he was at the point of needing to be resuscitated.
Q. Did you think at the time, "How is this happening again?" You'd said earlier you were all conscious, two siblings, and here you are walking into that scene?
A. At that time my priority was to resuscitate the baby. I -- and I got on with the tasks needed to get him mechanically ventilated and then starting to put more venous lines in so that more drugs could be administered.
Q. And after the intensity of the scene, did you then think, "How can we be here again?"
A. So the rest of that day, the intensity only dropped slightly. He got a little bit better and then declined again, then got a little bit better and declined. I stayed predominantly at the side the cot dealing with breathing, circulation, volume replacement and I -- I didn't have the big picture. I had a summary of what had happened prior to me arriving there. I didn't know what had happened, I don't think, overnight. And I -- I spent I think the rest of the day in that room. There were some discussions because many of the Consultants came through and joined during the day and I -- I understood that they were discussing with the transport team and what should be done next.
Q. Baby O, P, and R's parents knew that they needed to get Baby R out of the Countess of Chester to keep him safe. They didn't know medically what had happened or how, but they knew Baby R was not safe there. Did you as a doctor think something's happening, he's not safe here after what had happened to O and then P?
A. I was glad that Baby R was transferred. I don't think I had put together the string of events of O and P. I was still looking for a medical cause for their deterioration. But I was glad that Baby R moved.
07/10/2024 – Transcript of Week 5 Day 1 | The Thirlwall Inquiry
Transcript of Part B Evidence: Dr ZA and Dr V – Consultant Paediatricians, and Dr U – Consultant Registrar
thirlwall.public-inquiry.uk
Dodging the questions IMO. How could he think the conversation about unexpected events was in the latter part of 2016 when there were no more unexpected events after LL had been removed? He doesn't answer the last two questions at all. Even after being officially warned of unexpected deaths in May 2016 he decided LL was no danger, and continued to support her until his police interview in January 2018. That is when LL said their "friendship" fizzled out. That's not manipulation from LL, it's abandoning sound judgement.
Last edited: