UK - Nurse Lucy Letby, murder of babies, 7 Guilty of murder verdicts; 8 Guilty of attempted murder; 2 Not Guilty of attempted; 5 hung re attempted #35

[Jazmania]

This new reporting by the Guardian as well, that she wrote those notes on the advice of her GP, is utter rubbish. Why, if so, did she not say so in her multiple police interviews and when she spent 2 weeks on the stand in the trial.

 

[Becky53]

Lots if stuff coming out.

What do peeps think of this?

"Dr Jane Hawdon, a consultant neonatologist at the Royal Free hospital in London, was asked by the CoC to review 17 cases in which babies had collapsed or died in more detail and individually. The conclusions of her report, seen by the Guardian, were that the deaths or collapses of 13 babies could be explained, and “may have been prevented with different care”. Four cases she was unsure about were reviewed in forensic detail by a further neonatologist who is understood not to have found foul play."

A superbug, doctor shortages and a neonatal unit ‘out of its depth’: failures at Lucy Letby hospital revealed

As the Thirwall hearings approach, the Guardian has discovered concerns were repeatedly raised about alarming shortcomings at Countess of Chester

www.theguardian.com

It's a long article, covers many things.

From Aug 2023

Ian Harvey, who was then medical director at the hospital, contacted London-based neonatologist Dr Jane Hawdon.

The doctor, who specialises in the care of newborns, did a brief review of each baby's medical notes.

However she told the trust she did not have the time to conduct the thorough investigation the Royal College had recommended.

It is understood Dr Hawdon did not speak directly to the board but sent her report and it was up to executives to brief the board on its findings.

In a statement to the BBC, Sir Duncan said: "I believe that the board was misled in December 2016 when it received a report on the outcome of the external, independent case reviews.

"We were told explicitly that there was no criminal activity pointing to any one individual, when in truth the investigating neonatologist had stated that she had not had the time to complete the necessary in-depth case reviews."

Lucy Letby: Hospital bosses were misled, former chair claims

NHS trust board was told there was 'no criminal activity pointing to any one individual', he says.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[Marantz4250b]

If you want to find out Letby's real reasons for writing those notes take a listen to CS2C's recent video on it. He's pulled up the court transcripts regarding what she said in her police interviews when questioned precisely about that. The Guardian's unnamed source is contradicting Letby herself.

I've just watched this and I agree with everything. The Guardian is for some reason held out as some paragon of saintly virtue (mostly by itself, I have to say) yet it is nothing of the sort. As has become so common these days, it has lowered itself to the same level as every other mainstream outlet by often quoting "unnamed" or "anonymous" sources "close" to the case as an excuse to print literally anything they like.

News media almost never used to do this except in extremely rare circumstances where there might be a risk to life or national security. They didn't do it for obvious reasons - it's too easy for your story to be rubbished as you can't check where it came from.

As someone who lived with a journalist for years I know this is how it should work. Believe me, I've tried to get stories written on the basis of me being the course and she always said "....nope, only if you go on the record.... and we both knew the stories were true. Still wouldn't do it.

We can see in this case about the notes that their "anonymous" source is completely wrong - or someone simply invented it.