UK - Lucy Letby - Post-Conviction Statutory Inquiry

[Sweeper2000]

IDK the answers. Those members who've been following the LL case longer will have a better idea. I just included the screenshots because one of the paragraphs cropped up when I was trying to find a date on another subject.

I'm almost certain it's a lie told knowingly and as a result of the docs saying "we think someone did this" done in order to alter the known course of proceedings as a result of the deaths being logged properly. That's senior management not going the "docs way" imo and being obstinate. Notice that "med errors" actually makes the doctors look bad doesn't it? Presumably Dr brearey being the lead.

I can only think of one case and that was when the surfactant was not administered in good time. Was the case that Dr Bohin criticised. I can't think of any others that fit the description of "med errors" we didn't hear of one where the care was thought to be potentially lethally below standard.

Eta
I'm guessing whoever Punched that data in did so knowing that at those rates the potential recommended courses of action did not leave open the door of "deliberate harm" and so the "docs way" was not a possibility. Its really looking that way, as if those deaths had been registered properly they could launch the immediate investigation which senior management apparently didn't want to do. I'm guessing "immediate investigation" is only a possibility in severe circumstances such as "deliberate harm" or other legal relevancy. Maybe also in cases of negligence and sub clinical practice. Does seem that way "med errors" suggests that the cod is known and thus not a problem if its unknown you have to leave open the door of "deliberate harm".

 

[cottonweaver]

Lucy Letby, The creme de la creme?
'....but, but.... it's just that she was the most qualified nurse taking the sickest babies' All this kinda nonsense is dispatched by Langdale in short order.

Langdale KC provides a reality check on LL and the grandiose claims about LL's expertise: ' We're talking about a Band 5 who has done one course. ' Ouch! Langdale then refers to KR's own statement and skewers it
So, Karen Rees tries to make a quick recovery/catch ' No, that's why I said could have...'


Page 32 of PDF, Karen Rees testimony. same link that I previously posted on the previous WS page

 

[Kittybunny]

I think fwiw it is contained within her family and it will never come out.
The dynamics between them are so off.
Jmo

I’m absolutely flabbergasted at the involvement or pandering not just to LL, but to her parents! Why? Are or were her parents wealthy, influential, have connections? It makes no sense, but then very little does in how the hospital responded.

Also, many thanks to all of you who are keeping us up to date on this inquiry. It’s absolutely mind-blowing and will hopefully serve as a case study for how checks and balances should be set up to prevent any tragedies and malfeasance, and ensure patient safety is first and foremost. What stands out here is that few people other than the consultants seemed to care about those poor babies. No, it was all about making Letby happy, avoiding conflict, and burying their heads in the sand.

Plus really interesting glimpses into Letby’s underlying personality traits - the failed examination was particularly revealing of her as a typical narcissist, arrogant and entitled.

 

[Kittybunny]

Deleted - double post!

 

[Marantz4250b]

I think fwiw it is contained within her family and it will never come out.
The dynamics between them are so off.
Jmo

I tend to agree on the first point but I'm not convinced that it won't ever come out.

As I think I mentioned in another place, I think that certain things will come out (and we'll likely never know whether they are actually true or not) but not for a few years yet.

But, yeah, in my purely personal opinion, that's a messed up family!

 

[Marantz4250b]

That depends on whether there are children living with resultant disabilities, and clearly families who were not given the true cause of their babies' deaths. IMO

I see where you're coming from but regardless of all that, I still don't really see any good reason to prosecute yet further cases against her.

There may well be children she's disabled out there but her being convicted of same isn't going to help them.

I do honestly get the point about families not being given the full facts but those facts can still be put to them correctly - perhaps after the inquiry - but it doesn't require a conviction. The CPS saying that, "yes there is enough to prosecute but the public interest doesn't warrant it is sufficient", I think.

Realistically, a line has to be drawn under things and I think that this is the proper place to draw it. My opinion, obviously.

 

[Marantz4250b]

Agree. This is about the babies and their parents' right to know, not about further punishment for LL. And particularly, as you say, if any of those babies survived and have special needs. They and their families equally deserve to benefit from any resultant compensation that happens down the line.

I see your points but you don't need a conviction to benefit from criminal injuries compensation. Any additional compensation can be dealt with via the usual methods of seeking it through the courts. Many of the families are already doing this and I'm sure it's going to cost the NHS many millions before this is all sorted.

As regards the bolded section; with the very greatest of respect - it isn't. Criminal cases are brought in the name of the Crown (the state/public/society at large) and are brought because there is a public benefit - because it is in the public interest to do so.

 

[Marantz4250b]

I’m absolutely flabbergasted at the involvement or pandering not just to LL, but to her parents! Why? Are or were her parents wealthy, influential, have connections? It makes no sense, but then very little does in how the hospital responded.

Also, many thanks to all of you who are keeping us up to date on this inquiry. It’s absolutely mind-blowing and will hopefully serve as a case study for how checks and balances should be set up to prevent any tragedies and malfeasance, and ensure patient safety is first and foremost. What stands out here is that few people other than the consultants seemed to care about those poor babies. No, it was all about making Letby happy, avoiding conflict, and burying their heads in the sand.

Plus really interesting glimpses into Letby’s underlying personality traits - the failed examination was particularly revealing of her as a typical narcissist, arrogant and entitled.

Her parents weren't/aren't particularly wealthy or influential. Or at least nothing in the public domain suggests they were/are. Their house is nothing special, she didn't go to private school (and from what I can tell, if they'd been able to afford that then she definitely would have done), and I don't see any of the other trappings of wealth there. They certainly weren't poor, though.

We can only guess at why this was allowed but I'd imagine it's something to do with the whole you have to be nice and respectful to everyone these days regardless of how much of a total muppet they are. If you don't act like that then you get all sorts of claims for harassment and bullying levelled at you. It's the whole ..everyone's opinion is as valid and as worthy of respect as everyone else's.. when it clearly isn't!

I'd surmise that if she hadn't been allowed to involve her parents that the hospital would be worried that they'd be facing claims for unfair treatment or even a constructive dismissal case. And, let's face it - they lied to her about why she was moved to admin for starters so they're already on the wrong foot on that score. Hell, they even fabricated a bogus "secondment" system to make it look normal and that everyone was going to have to do it. They should have told her from the outset that certain concerns about her practice had been raised and that she was on garden leave until it was sorted.

The first sign of her wanting involve people from outside of work or a union rep/mediator should have resulted in a firm "no"* but they'd already messed things up by this point.

*My personal choice of terminology would have been markedly different were one of my staff to try that - a short phrase ending with "off", most likely.

 

[Anxala]

I see your points but you don't need a conviction to benefit from criminal injuries compensation. Any additional compensation can be dealt with via the usual methods of seeking it through the courts. Many of the families are already doing this and I'm sure it's going to cost the NHS many millions before this is all sorted.

As regards the bolded section; with the very greatest of respect - it isn't. Criminal cases are brought in the name of the Crown (the state/public/society at large) and are brought because there is a public benefit - because it is in the public interest to do so.

So how would they benefit from any future compensation if their cases are never evaluated?

Look, I appreciate that a line has to be drawn, I really do, but I'm not the parent of a baby who may have been murdered or left with long-term incapacities as a result of being in the 'care' of LL. They're the 'public' and the 'public benefit' I'm on the side of.

It may be an unrealistic stance to take but that's the one I'm taking, nevertheless. I'm not arguing further over it, there's no point. Let's just agree to disagree.

 

[Marantz4250b]

So how would they benefit from any future compensation if their cases are never evaluated?

Look, I appreciate that a line has to be drawn, I really do, but I'm not the parent of a baby who may have been murdered or left with long-term incapacities as a result of being in the 'care' of LL. They're the 'public' and the 'public benefit' I'm on the side of.

It may be an unrealistic stance to take but that's the one I'm taking, nevertheless. I'm not arguing further over it, there's no point. Let's just agree to disagree.

You only need to show that the injury was caused by a crime. It doesn't require someone to be convicted of that crime.

But yeah, same.

 

[Anxala]

Lucy Letby, The creme de la creme?
'....but, but.... it's just that she was the most qualified nurse taking the sickest babies' All this kinda nonsense is dispatched by Langdale in short order.

Langdale KC provides a reality check on LL and the grandiose claims about LL's expertise: ' We're talking about a Band 5 who has done one course. ' Ouch!

^ So much for the LL we were bombarded with!

It feels wrong to delight in Langdale's take no prisoners approach - there's nothing to be delighted about here - but I am.

 

[cottonweaver]

The transcripts for the 14/10 finally up.

Just skim-read the some of the anon nurses' testimony.

Nurse T starts at the top of the PDF - it's all very interesting and well worth reading
T was good pal of LL. T had mentored LL as a student, in LL's 2nd & 3rd years.
T was a shift leader and had 15 yrs experience with neo nates. She changed her mind on LL's guilt after she became aware of the evidence.

She gives an unflattering account of working under Unit manager Eirian Powell. . T felt intimidated by EP. T had hardly ever seen Karen Rees ( The things T says about KR contradict some of the things KR testified to yesterday) T finally left Coch NNU partly because of EP. As she no longer works at CocH, is that why Nurse T feels she can be more candid?

EP disliked Brearey & Ravi.
T basically says that EP has lied to the Inquiry re having debriefs after each child's death (murder)

T says EP made LL a clear favourite of hers. EP had earmarked LL for career fast tracking. ( starts around page 5) There's too much to summarise or screenshot

Nurse T gives an eloquent and heartfelt account of the dawning realisation that Letby was guilty. Rather like the parents, many of these nurses are only piecing together the past by looking at trial and Inquiry documents. I wouldn't be surprised if that jogs memories re any future prosecutions.

https://thirlwall.public-inquiry.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/Thirlwall-Inquiry-14-October-2024.pdf

 

[Baby baby Jane]

I see your points but you don't need a conviction to benefit from criminal injuries compensation. Any additional compensation can be dealt with via the usual methods of seeking it through the courts. Many of the families are already doing this and I'm sure it's going to cost the NHS many millions before this is all sorted.

As regards the bolded section; with the very greatest of respect - it isn't. Criminal cases are brought in the name of the Crown (the state/public/society at large) and are brought because there is a public benefit - because it is in the public interest to do so.

And there are disappointing issues like … statute of limitations in regards to various levels of assault and causing harm … very short time frames for reporting. Well past now.
(And lack of evidence as no autopsy)

 

[cottonweaver]

Looking forward to hearing Gilby's evidence. She was so outspoken before CoCH dumped her.

It's not surprising to hear a year later that
' A judge has said he was "troubled" after the Countess of Chester Hospital NHS Trust deleted potentially important evidence ahead of an employment tribunal, including documents relevant to the Thirlwall Inquiry into the crimes of Lucy Letby.'

Lucy Letby hospital NHS trust deleted documents, tribunal told

The ex-chief executive of the hospital trust where Lucy Letby worked is suing it at a tribunal.

www.bbc.co.uk

regarding CoCH deleting emails - hence replying to self to bump up the October 2024 link and the judge's comments above

It appears that Nurse W also has had a case of disappearing emails.

Langdale KC obviously thinks the deletion is important enough to ask Nurse W for details.

On the next page of pdf, Nurse W also wants to make a public statement, as below

Page 33 of pdf https://thirlwall.public-inquiry.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/Thirlwall-Inquiry-14-October-2024.pdf

 

[cottonweaver]

Re the new reports about dislodged breathing tubes during Letby's training at Liverpool Women’s Hospital in 2012 and 2015.

Lucy Letby may have harmed more babies in her care, new evidence suggests

BBC Panorama sees documents which show a baby's blood sugar dropped soon after Letby came on duty.

www.bbc.co.uk

' In addition, a retrospective analysis showed that babies’ breathing tubes became dislodged on 40% of Letby’s shifts. The norm per nurse per baby was 1%...... In one case, from November 2012, a baby boy collapsed and water was subsequently discovered in his breathing tube – a highly irregular occurrence. The clinical notes confirm that the nurse looking after him was Letby.'

I notice that Nurse ZC says that LWH do audits on dislodgements , Coch never had such protocols.

Maybe Letby was unaware of LWH protocols?

https://thirlwall.public-inquiry.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/Thirlwall-Inquiry-14-October-2024.pdf

 

[cottonweaver]

very sad
Nurse ZC tried to raise the alarm with more senior staff, after the death of the three triplets.
Nurse ZC had already experienced blowback from speaking-up once before.

LH column, line 13, is ZC wondering why LL was so keen to go back to look after the next triplet, the next day

Nurse ZC has been further irritated by Nicola Lightfoot, last week, characterising this 1-1 ' whistleblowing' as gossiping.

Nurse ZC was fairly inexperienced, Band 5, she started at Coch the same day as Letby. ( The same first day on the job when Letby remarked to ZC that she ' couldn't wait to get her first death out of the way ' )

Reading her whole testimony, ZC seems a thoroughly decent person - just the kind of nurse the NHS needs to hold onto

Nurse ZC testimony starts around page 38 of the pdf

https://thirlwall.public-inquiry.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/Thirlwall-Inquiry-14-October-2024.pdf

after that happened - staff were threatened with disciplinary!

Page 45. ' The circle of trust' .......which you can't trust?...... if you see something, want to say something?

page

 

[Kittybunny]

Her parents weren't/aren't particularly wealthy or influential. Or at least nothing in the public domain suggests they were/are. Their house is nothing special, she didn't go to private school (and from what I can tell, if they'd been able to afford that then she definitely would have done), and I don't see any of the other trappings of wealth there. They certainly weren't poor, though.

We can only guess at why this was allowed but I'd imagine it's something to do with the whole you have to be nice and respectful to everyone these days regardless of how much of a total muppet they are. If you don't act like that then you get all sorts of claims for harassment and bullying levelled at you. It's the whole ..everyone's opinion is as valid and as worthy of respect as everyone else's.. when it clearly isn't!

I'd surmise that if she hadn't been allowed to involve her parents that the hospital would be worried that they'd be facing claims for unfair treatment or even a constructive dismissal case. And, let's face it - they lied to her about why she was moved to admin for starters so they're already on the wrong foot on that score. Hell, they even fabricated a bogus "secondment" system to make it look normal and that everyone was going to have to do it. They should have told her from the outset that certain concerns about her practice had been raised and that she was on garden leave until it was sorted.

The first sign of her wanting involve people from outside of work or a union rep/mediator should have resulted in a firm "no"* but they'd already messed things up by this point.

*My personal choice of terminology would have been markedly different were one of my staff to try that - a short phrase ending with "off", most likely.

Yes, this makes a lot of sense. Just generally a cultural shift, a union-environment, and a fear of calling people out on their own incompetency. Lalala, all is fine, nothing to see here, we're all so nice and would never call anyone out on not doing their job properly, that sort of thing isn't done! I also think Eiran Powell and LL were birds of a feather...EP didn't kill babies, at least not directly, but her attitude, favoritism, and what I suspect was a deep resentment and hatred of consultants/doctors led directly to babies' deaths that could have been prevented.

P.S. Also - I usually use my phone so don't ever see anyone's signatures, but on my laptop today and must say I LOVE that quote in your signature - one of my absolute favorite quotes! So appropriate for our forum!

 

[cottonweaver]

Can Thirlwall revelations get worse?

You bet

New report from today's hearing:

Letby ‘could have accessed baby death reports after removal from neonatal unit’ | BreakingNews.ie

The Thirlwall Inquiry heard from a former colleague who felt it was ‘not appropriate’ Letby was moved to the hospital’s patient safety office.

www.breakingnews.ie

So, as we know, LL gets removed from the NNU and is seconded to Patient Safety. In the office there she can gain access to patient records and notes. Mrs Lawrence worked in the same department, she was 'Risk & Safety Lead'


Mrs Lawrence recalled she made a complaint to a nursing boss in autumn 2016 over an incident in which Letby knew about a baby collapse before she did.

She said: “I was coming into work one morning and as I came up the stairs Lucy came out of her office on the corridor to greet me and she was very distressed.

“She almost jumped down my throat really and said ‘there’s been a collapse and a baby has been transferred out, does that mean somebody else is going to be under investigation and I can go back to work?’

“She bombarded me with a lot of questions and I didn’t know what she was talking about because I wasn’t aware of a collapse .. but she knew this information and it had not reached me.

“Lucy had access to information which she shouldn’t have and I wondered whether there was someone on the neonatal unit who is feeding her information but it concerns me that she knows something clinically that I don’t know as the risk lead.”

Asked if she knew if Letby had access to patient notes or baby death reports, she replied: “I think if she wanted to look at them she absolutely could have.”

also, same link, same Thirwall witness:
Mrs Lawrence added that “regular conversations” would take place along the corridor between Letby and some of her nursing managers about her “being made a scapegoat for poor medical care and a lack of teamworking”

 

[cottonweaver]

May 2016 , before the triplets deaths, before Letby was belatedly taken off NNU

Mrs Lawrence's testimony, Risk & Safety Lead.

Ruth Millward is still the Head of Risk & Patient Safety at Coch today ! Clueless on her safeguarding duties despite her seniority and her role

Letby ‘could have accessed baby death reports after removal from neonatal unit’ | BreakingNews.ie

The Thirlwall Inquiry heard from a former colleague who felt it was ‘not appropriate’ Letby was moved to the hospital’s patient safety office.

www.breakingnews.ie

Ruth Millward's statement to the Inquiry

https://thirlwall.public-inquiry.uk/wp-content/uploads/thirlwall-evidence/INQ0101332_56.pdf

 

[Kittybunny]

It's infuriating how so many of these people did not properly evaluate the risk and cost of inaction, and treated Letby getting upset and filing a grievance as the worst possible outcome of a "false positive" rather than considering that the cost of doing nothing was another dead baby. They should have had a real discussion about the risks of taking action vs not! SO WHAT IF SHE WOULD HAVE QUIT OR FILED A COMPLAINT??? Babies were dying! Better to err on the side of saving a baby's life and upsetting poor old LL! Seriously!