UK - Lucy Letby - Post-Conviction Statutory Inquiry

  • #781
All of these non-consultants seem so rehearsed, their words so carefully crafted, certainly by the lawyers hired by their unions or insurance to avoid liability.
It’s annoying … wish they would tell the truth in their own words.

When Kelly should have said “Yes” she said

“looking back we should have perhaps mentioned that as well at the time. However we were really keen to fully understand what was going on but perhaps those consultant concerns should have been mentioned in the beginning.”

I agree re them coming across as rehearsed, but OMG, so badly and deviously and tellingly rehearsed, where writ large in every skin-saving, self-serving line of theirs are the visible from the moon outright lies they're trying to distract and hide from. The lawyers advising them are clearly as ignorantly amoral, as self-serving and deficient as they themselves are.

No one is swallowing what they're trying to sell. That's at least the one big plus here. And I hope it's continuing to give some small comfort to those families whose lives have been so greviously impacted and destroyed by such egregiously amoral people.
 
Last edited:
  • #782

Concerns raised about Letby in 2016​

10:49​


Alison Kelly has accepted that concerns about Lucy Letby were first raised with her in March 2016.


'I didn’t take the hearsay of consultants as evidence,' Kelly says​

10:55​


Questioned about these concerns, Kelly says: "I didn’t take the hearsay of consultants as evidence at that time."

Counsel to the inquiry De la Poer says: "It may not be proof but it is information which suggests that they may be telling the truth isn’t it?"

Kelly replies: "Information to suggest that, yes."

De la Poer asks if that is just another name for evidence, and Kelly responds saying: "At the time I didn’t take that as evidence."


Kelly accepts safeguarding referral 'wasn't detailed enough'​

10:59​


Alison Kelly accepts that when she made a referral about Lucy Letby to the local safeguarding board in March 2018, it wasn’t detailed enough.

"Is it because you had a feeling of hostility towards the consultants and you didn’t think the police investigation was going anywhere?" Counsel to the inquiry De la Poer asks.

Kelly replies "that’s not true".

De la Poer asks in relation to the safeguarding referral of March 2018: "Do you think this is a misleading and highly defensiive document?"

Kelly replied: "I would not say it’s defensive or misleading, I think it lacks detail and on reflection I should have put more detail in there."


Formalised whistleblowing process wasn't 'fully embedded', Kelly says​

11:15​


Kelly is asked about a scheme called ‘Speak Out Safely’, which was a formalised whistleblowing process within the NHS in 2016.

She says: “The Speak Out Safely processes weren’t fully embedded in the organisation [the Countess of Chester Hospital] at the time."

Kelly says she accepts that “on reflection” consultants’ concerns should have been logged under that whistleblowing scheme.

"I think we were a little bit bewildered at some of the things that were being said, and it took a while to get that straight in our minds really to get actions underway. And there was so much going on in a short space of time," she says.

Counsel to the inquiry De la Poer puts it to her that it's important for a person raising concerns that the policy is properly managed and that it gives people reassurance that they will be protected, and Kelly agrees.

It's put to her that the process ensures people "don't get silenced".

"Yes," Kelly says.

Questions on whistleblowing process continue​

11:24​


A wider view of the inquiry room
Image source,Thirwall Inquiry

At a meeting in January 2017, the hospital’s chief executive, Tony Chambers, told the paediatric consultants that their concerns were “being professionally managed” under the Speak Out Safely scheme.

Alison Kelly was at this meeting and knew this wasn’t true but didn’t correct him.

Counsel to the inquiry De la Poer asks: “That was a false statement wasn’t it?”

Kelly replies: “I think that because it had been talked about so many times there was an impression that it was being dealt with under the Speak Out Safely policy.”

This lady will be completely decimated in the final report. She should be fired from her current job. She is a disaster.
 
  • #783
I agree re them coming across as rehearsed, but OMG, so badly and deviously and tellingly rehearsed, where writ large in every skin-saving, self-serving line of theirs are the visible from the moon outright lies they're trying to distract and hide from. The lawyers advising them are clearly as ignorantly amoral, as self-serving and deficient as they themselves are.

No one is swallowing what they're trying to sell. That's at least the one big plus here. And I hope it's continuing to give some small comfort to those families whose lives have been so greviously impacted and destroyed by such egregiously amoral people.
They may not be swallowing it, but for me, it's hard to tell a lot of times, because jeez... they are so darn polite! Maybe it's just the unfailingly gracious way British English speakers come across to my shall we say, less refined American ear, and it might also sound different if I were actually hearing their voices, instead of reading it, but in their genteel way of putting everything, it can sound like they're letting them totally skate.
 
  • #784

Tony Chambers takes seat in the witness box
10:03​


Judith Moritz
Special correspondent, reporting from the inquiry

The chair, Lady Justice Thirlwall, has entered.

Former Countess of Chester Hospital CEO Tony Chambers is called to the witness box.

He will be questioned by Counsel to the Inquiry Nicholas de la Poer KC.


10:06
Chambers says he is 'truly sorry' to impacted families as he begins​


Judith Moritz
Special correspondent, reporting from the inquiry

Chambers says that he wants to say something before his evidence begins.

He takes a long, deep, breath and says: “So… right at the outset I just want to offer my heartfelt condolences to all of the families whose babies are at the heart of this inquiry."

"I can only imagine… well, I can’t imagine, the impact that this has had on your lives, and I am truly sorry for the pain that may have been prolonged by any decisions or actions that I took in good faith," he says.

"I am very grateful to have this opportunity to take part, openly and honestly in this inquiry and hope that answers can be arrived at and recommendations made.”


Chambers says 'difficult' to deny personal failing in handling concerns
10:16​


Judith Moritz
Special correspondent, reporting from the inquiry

Inquiry counsel Nicholas de la Poer KC begins by saying he wants to give Chambers "the opportunity ….to identify" his most significant failure.

Chambers says that "it was not a personal failing. I’ve reflected long and hard as to why the board wasn’t aware of the unexplained increase in mortality in 2015 and 2016".

He says as CEO, it was his responsibility to deliver "safe care within the hospital" but adds that "the processes that we had in place weren’t being used properly, and I think I must take some responsibility for that".

De la Poer asks if Chambers believes he had any personal failing.

"It’s difficult to say otherwise. My witness statement has acknowledged that," Chambers says.


Chambers says he became aware of concerns with Letby after death of Baby P
10:26​


Judith Moritz
Special correspondent, reporting from the inquiry

Chambers says that the first time he became aware of concerns with Letby was on 29 June 2016.

That was five days after the death of Baby P, the last of the babies Letby has been convicted of murdering and attempting to murder.

On 24 June 2016, the day that Baby P died, two senior consultants told Director of Nursing Alison Kelly that they believed Letby was causing deliberate harm.

Letby was able to carry on working for another four days.

De la Poer asks Chambers if Letby's ability to keep working at the hospital mean that the issue wasn't being taken seriously enough.

"All I can say for certain is that I knew on the 29th - I was not aware of Letby’s name at that time. I was not aware specifically of the nature of the concerns," Chambers says.


Allegations about Lucy Letby were 'shocking things to hear'
10:30​


Judith Moritz
Special correspondent, reporting from the inquiry

Tony Chambers met with paediatric consultants on 29 June 2016.

At that time, they explained to Chambers why they believed Lucy Letby was causing deliberate harm to babies.

Chambers is asked if he accepts that this was borne out of expert knowledge and experience. He says: "This was the first time that I’d been made aware of these matters. These were very shocking things to hear. I listened and heard their concerns."

Chambers agrees with de la Poer's suggestion that the consultants were experts. "I was a layperson in context of this so these were concerns that were being relayed to us by the doctors on our unit," he says.

De la Poer puts it to Chambers that the paediatric consultants were looking for leadership.

"I think that's absolutely right," Chambers says.


'We wouldn't jump to criminality as a causal factor'
10:39​


Judith Moritz
Special correspondent, reporting from the inquiry

Chambers says that typically "we wouldn't jump to criminality as a causal factor" in the deaths and would "want to explore a broader set of answers" to questions about the deaths.

De la Poer says that in his testimony, Dr Ravi Jayaram gave evidence saying he raised concerns of deliberate harm being caused to the babies.

"You said: 'I can see how that would be a convenient explanation for you, but there must be something else.'"

Chambers says he doesn't recall making that comment.

A note from the meeting between Chambers and the consultants is recorded as reading: "Nurse cannot be excluded". Chambers accepts that this must have been said by one of the executives at the meeting.

Concerns over Letby's role in deaths presented 'significant safety concern' - Chambers
10:51​


Judith Moritz
Special correspondent, reporting from the inquiry

Counsel to the Inquiry Nicholas de la Poer KC asks former Countess of Chester Hospital chief executive Tony Chambers if steps should have been taken to remove Letby from the staffing rota after hearing the concerns of consultants on 29 June 2016.

"What I was hearing was that there were concerns being raised, there was some hypothesis of what those causes of harm might be and there was a suggestion that there was a member of staff who was on duty more times than another member of staff," Chambers says.

De la Poer asks if the allegations about Letby were a safeguarding concern.

"It's a significant safety concern," Chambers says.

He adds that what de la Poer is "presenting is a very emphatic, descriptive description of harm and a very subjective link to one individual.

"(But) there was strong rebuttal to the proposition that this one nurse was deliberately causing harm … There was a very strong level of support for this individual."

 
  • #785

Letby annual leave was an opportunity to 'test the hypothesis' of removal from unit
10:59​


Judith Moritz
Special correspondent, reporting from the inquiry

Nicholas de la Poer KC now moves on to ask Tony Chambers about a meeting held on 30 June 2016 - a meeting attended by execs and the chairman of the board.

Letby was about to go on annual leave for a fortnight, and this was said to have given the execs "an opportunity to test the hypothesis" of Letby being removed from the unit.

Chambers is asked what’s meant by "testing the hypothesis".

He says: "I was very clear that we would test all thoughts around how to manage these matters, but in my mind Letby was going to be removed."


Hospital bosses decided to escalate to police in March 2017
11:06​


Judith Moritz
Special correspondent, reporting from the inquiry

Counsel to the Inquiry Nicholas de la Poer KC is asking Tony Chambers specifics about when people within the trust were talking about getting the police involved.

De la Poer jumps forward in the timeline to a meeting in March 2017, where the lead neonatal consultant Dr Steve Brearey said that the matter needed to be escalated to the police.

Chambers says "it’s important that the inquiry understands the matters which led up to this meeting … It was the first meeting where there was a decision that we would formally go to the police."

He accepts that his position by the end of this meeting was that the police needed to be called.


Chambers agreed police should be involved - but didn't contact them for five weeks
11:14​


Judith Moritz
Special correspondent, reporting from the inquiry

The day after this meeting - 28 March 2017 - Letby was due to return to work, but executives and the board chairman agreed the police would be called on 31 March.

Rather than calling the police as agreed on 31 March, they instead instructed a criminal barrister to advise them on what to do.

Chambers says "there was never any intention not to go to the police. We sought some independent advice around that."

Chambers eventually wrote to Cheshire Police's chief constable on 2 May - over a month later - with the first meeting with the police after that was on 5 May.

This was the beginning of Cheshire Police's Operation Hummingbird criminal investigation.


Chambers pressed on if consultants' concerns were fully shared with police
11:19​


Judith Moritz
Special correspondent, reporting from the inquiry

Nicholas de la Poer KC puts it to Chambers that when the trust contacted the police, the consultants’ concerns weren’t presented fully to them.

Chambers says he takes issue with that.

He says that the various reviews which had previously been carried out, including by the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, contained these concerns.

De la Poer asks Chambers if he agrees that he "did not state the case for a police investigation at its highest".

Chambers says that is an "unfair proposition".

"We shared with police very openly and candidly what we genuinely believed to be the position as we understood it at the time," he says.


Chambers denies he discouraged police investigation
11:24​


Judith Moritz
Special correspondent, reporting from the inquiry

The inquiry sees minutes of a meeting between hospital executives and police from 12 May 2017. In the minutes, it’s recorded that "there is nothing that could potentially be evidence of a criminal investigation".

De la Poer presses Chambers on this. "This wasn’t an investigation you were encouraging, it was an investigation that you were discouraging?" he says.

"Absolutely not," Chambers replies.

De la Poer continues, saying that executives at the trust didn't think there should be a police investigation because they didn't believe a crime had been committed.

"No, that’s not right," Chambers says, "we were saying we couldn’t find any evidence of criminality" and asking for help.


Chambers agrees press release about police investigation was 'disrespectful'
11:38​


Judith Moritz
Special correspondent, reporting from the inquiry

Tony Chambers is taken to a press release which was put out by the hospital in 2018 after he had done an newspaper interview about police involvement.

Chambers is quoted explaining why police were brought in. In the release, he said: "We have had various enquiries including the Royal College of Paediatrics review and there were just a few things that our clinicians said, 'look we think we have got 90% of the answers but there are still bits that we need to do to ensure we’ve not missed anything'".

De la Poer puts to him that this was not an accurate characterisation of the consultants position before he went to the police.

Chambers is asked about the likely effect of this statement on the families of the babies, who would have read it in the papers.

He says: “It was clumsy, it was disrespectful, and I’m terribly sorry."

 
  • #786
I'm so SICK of all the self-serving attitudes. The non-admission of personal failings. The blaming on others.

If you took on a leading role, and the fat pay cheque, and you didn't do what you should have been doing, stand up and say it. COWARDS the lot of them.

I can't think of an orginisation this bunch of FAILURES were less suited to.

And if you are going to apologise, don't put in any caveats. No buts, or excuses. How offensive are these people.

As if the families didn't already have a murderer to cope with.

:mad:
 
  • #787


Hearing from Tony Chambers is a big moment for this inquiry
11:53​

Judith Moritz
Special correspondent, reporting from the inquiry

Tony Chambers giving evidence
Image source,Crown Copyright
Image caption,
Tony Chambers giving evidence


Tony Chambers hasn’t spoken publicly about Letby before, and this is a big moment at the inquiry.

He has multiple questions to answer about how he handled things. Several times he’s given very long answers which depart from the question he’s been asked.

On one occasion, when the questions moved on, he asked to be allowed to continue to talk about the previous topic.

Nicholas de la Poer KC has reminded him on a few occasions to answer the specific question that he is being asked. At one point, Lady Justice Thirlwall intervened to tell Chambers that the barrister was asking fair questions and she would intervene again if she felt that Chambers wasn’t being given due opportunity to answer fully.

 
  • #788

Why the timeline is jumping around​

12:03​


Judith Moritz
Special correspondent, reporting from the inquiry

We are jumping around the timeline quite a bit, in terms of the order of questioning.

That’s because the questions being put to Tony Chambers are being broken down into topics, for example "contact with the police" - rather than him being taken through details chronologically.


Key dates to help you navigate the details of today's hearing​

12:16​


Judith Moritz
Special correspondent, reporting from the inquiry

It may be helpful for me to remind readers of some basic dates, to be able to keep track of the evidence as it jumps around.

Lucy Letby has been convicted of murdering seven babies and attempting to murder another seven between 8 June 2015 and 24 June 2016.

Tony Chambers says that he was first aware of the fact consultants suspected her of causing deliberate harm on 29 June 2016. Letby worked on the unit 30 June. A series of reviews - internal and external - were carried out after this point.

One which is often referred to was an invited review by the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health - the inspection visit for which took place in Sept 2016.

  • Also in Sept 2016, Letby raised a grievance complaint at having been taken off duty and moved to a clerical role. This was upheld in her favour in December 2016
  • In January 2017, the consultants were ordered by Tony Chambers to apologise to Letby
  • Letby was posed to return to work on the unit at the end of March 2017, though this did not happen
  • In April 2017, the Trust instructed a criminal barrister to advise them on what to do
  • On 2 May 2017, Tony Chambers wrote to the Chief Constable of Cheshire to invite a police investigation. On 5 May 2017, the police investigation began
  • On 3 July 2017, Letby is arrested
  • On 11 November 2020, Letby is charged

Review found four deaths remained unexplained​

12:25​


Judith Moritz
Special correspondent, reporting from the inquiry

Chambers is currently being taken through the detail of a string of reviews which happened in late 2016.

The Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health (RCPCH) review recommended a further detailed case note review of the baby deaths.

This was carried out by an external paediatrician - Dr Jane Hawdon - who found that four of the deaths remained unexplained, and recommended them for further investigation.


Hospital leadership was trying to 'resolve' issues in neonatal unit
12:31​


Judith Moritz
Special correspondent, reporting from the inquiry

The RCPCH produced two reports as a result of its review - one public, and the other confidential and kept by executives.

Chambers is asked about what the public, or "dissemination", copy said about leadership on the neonatal unit where Letby worked.

"We had some brilliant doctors working there who worked really hard. We also had some wonderful nurses working there who too worked hard," he says.

"The relationships between the two could change by a shift. This was a unit that was under significant pressure. This was a unit that had gaps in the nursing rotas and these were things that we were seeking to resolve."

 
  • #789

Review found staffing levels didn't explain rise in deaths
12:40​


Judith Moritz
Special correspondent, reporting from the inquiry

Nicholas de la Poer KC presses Chambers to answer a question about what the document says about the department's leadership.

Chambers accepts that it’s not unreasonable to say that the thrust of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health (RCPCH) report was that the neonatal unit was well led.

He also accepts that the review did not say that staffing levels were an explanation for the rise in mortality levels - the number of deaths - on the neonatal unit.

 
  • #790
They may not be swallowing it, but for me, it's hard to tell a lot of times, because jeez... they are so darn polite! Maybe it's just the unfailingly gracious way British English speakers come across to my shall we say, less refined American ear, and it might also sound different if I were actually hearing their voices, instead of reading it, but in their genteel way of putting everything, it can sound like they're letting them totally skate.
what I’m reading, is British-style excuse-ism liar language. Using a lot of extra polite sounding words striving to appear like a decent well meaning trying so hard in a difficult confusion situation …. the extra words seeking to minimize responsibility and to make facts difficult for the listener to tease out of the fluff.
The situation, including the hear-say, wasn’t difficult if you didn’t have huge chip on shoulder or sad-nurse bias. Hear-say is 🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬, she was thinking “those arrogant consultants blaming the trying so hard nurses again.. we’ll show them we won’t be bullied … we will just ignore them. And throw a party for Lucy .. yay!”

Seriously, IMO the only adults who say “really keen” when addressing other adults probably work in a primary school or as in this case, in trouble and trying hard to appear innocent. (Like in a parent-teacher meeting … Katy is a really keen reader …”)

“looking back we should have perhaps mentioned that as well at the time. However we were really keen to fully understand what was going on but perhaps those consultant concerns should have been mentioned in the beginning.”

I too am interested to know if these clowns still have jobs … sadly, prob in a Union, getting raises and promotions, and waiting on pensions. Because there are civil lawsuits out there waiting ….prob in hospital (nhs) and union best interests to keep them happy. IMO.
 
  • #791

12:51
Nothing in RCPCH review pointed to anything suspicious - Chambers​


Judith Moritz
Special correspondent, reporting from the inquiry

Chambers is asked whether the hospital trust's executive directors should have gone back to Dr Jane Hawdon - who led the RCPCH review - to ask what the significance of her findings were after the review said that four of the baby deaths were unexplained.

In response, Chambers says that nothing at all within the review pointed to anything suspicious.

(my note - I think this is wrong - I'm not sure Dr Hawdon led the RCPCH review - I thought she was appointed subsequently to do an independent review of the case notes on the recommendation of the RCPCH?)

Chambers denies that he made false statement to hospital board
12:59​

Judith Moritz
Special correspondent, reporting from the inquiry

The inquiry is now moving on to a hospital board meeting on 10 January 2017.

The RCPCH report was handed out there. It contained six points under the heading "immediate recommendations".

In the minutes for that board meeting, Chambers is recorded as saying the report made "a number of recommendations although nothing immediate".

Asked by Nicholas de la Poer KC whether this was a false statement, Chambers disagrees.

"It’s important to understand that an immediate recommendation is one that you take action on that day, where there is an immediate patient safety risk. There was nothing in the RCPCH review that I felt into that category," he says.

De la Poer challenges this: "So although there was a heading ‘immediate recommendations’ you didn’t think there were immediate recommendations?"

Chambers restates his previous answer, adding that "its almost one where, for example, the Care Quality Commission come in and they see something and they almost press the stop button. … I didn’t read those recommendations in that way."


Confidential review report wasn't shown to consultants for months
13:01​


Judith Moritz
Special correspondent, reporting from the inquiry

The second, confidential, version of the RCPCH report was not shown to consultants until the start of February 2017 - but was provided to the hospital trust executives in November of the previous year.

Chambers is asked if he agrees that delaying its publication until then put patients at risk.

He does not agree with this.

 
  • #792
blood pressure meds please
 
  • #793

'I didn't get the communications right' Chambers says of meeting with Letby and her parents
13:09​


Judith Moritz
Special correspondent, reporting from the inquiry

Chambers is now being questioned about a meeting he had with Lucy Letby and her parents on 22 December 2016.

He is recorded as telling the nurse at this meeting that she would be going back to work on the neonatal unit - after a grievance complaint from Letby at having been taken off duty was upheld in her favour.

Chambers says "this was one area where perhaps I didn’t get the communications right".

"Letby’s family, it’s fair to say were very upset and very angry about how they felt she’d been treated unfairly by the trust," he says.

"I’m prepared to accept that we had not been open and honest with her at the time."


Letby's father 'threatened guns to my head' at December 2016 meeting
13:11​


Judith Moritz
Special correspondent, reporting from the inquiry

Chambers says that Letby's father was "very angry" and "he was making threats" at their meeting in December 2016. He adds that "he was threatening guns to my head."

Chambers acknowledges that he might not have gotten the handling of the meeting right, adding that he was just trying to "take the heat out of the situation" with Letby's father.

At this meeting, Chambers is recorded as twice saying "for your resilience Lucy, you astound me", and he accepts that he said this.



(partial) Meeting minutes with Chambers, Letby and her parents and others, if anyone wants to read

 
  • #794

13:20
Chambers questioned about praising Letby's resilience​


Nicholas de la Poer asks Chambers about his comments that Letby's resilience "astounded" him.

"Have you ever made such a statement in relation to the consultants for the bravery that they showed when trying to speak out to keep babies safe?" he asks.

Chambers says: "Yes, in many of the meetings that took place in June and July 2016.

"All of the meetings then I was thanking everybody for their contributions."

The inquiry now heads on a lunch break.

 
  • #795
“Guns to his head” … I would think if anyone did this level of threat, they would call security. End of meeting, all future meetings include security or similar.
And threats from Daddy provide job security?

But maybe working at the NHS …. This happens all the time so, wouldn’t call for security of take further action to block these people from premises or have them escorted.
 
  • #796

Letby said in 2017 she expected 'four apologies'
14:20​


Judith Moritz
Special correspondent, reporting from the inquiry

The inquiry has resumed. Tony Chambers is asked about another meeting that he held with Lucy Letby on 6 February, 2017.

He told Letby that she would be getting an apology from consultants who had raised concerns about her.

She responded: "I expect four apologies."

Counsel to the inquiry Nicholas de la Poer KC asks: "Did you feel in this meeting that Letby was trying to take control of what was going on?"

Chambers replies: "I think that was an attempt on her behalf, yes. I think there was no doubt that she felt incredibly aggrieved and perhaps this was her moment to have her matters of grievance properly aired."

De La Poer asks if he agrees that Letby's behaviour was "manipulative".

Chambers replies: "I didn’t feel that I was being manipulated at the time... it was the father who seemed to be pulling the strings rather than Letby herself."


Letby said she didn't want her removal from duty to stay on personnel record
14:26​


Judith Moritz
Special correspondent, reporting from the inquiry

Letby told executives that she didn’t want anything on her personnel record about having been taken off duty.

De la Poer asks Chambers whether "this something that struck you as being her inappropriately trying to control the situation?”

Chambers says he didn't see anything problematic about it and it didn’t strike him as unreasonable at the time.


Chambers told Letby 'we've got your back'
14:30​


Judith Moritz
Special correspondent, reporting from the inquiry

At the same meeting, Chambers told the nurse: "Lucy, don't worry. We've got your back".

When asked by de la Poer, he says that the language he used was "clumsy".

"Eight years on, with what we know now and we look at this, these are the kind of things that you know you didn’t get right," he adds.

Minutes from the meeting note that Chambers told Letby that the RCPCH review had "vindicated her", but he accepts to the inquiry that it didn't, because it didn't investigate her.

He adds, though, that the RCPCH review "also didn’t point to any unnatural causes" for the deaths of the babies.

He adds that he wasn't taking the approach at that time that Letby had been vindicated by the review.

"I was very conscious to try as much as possible to avoid further escalation - particularly from her father. Her father wasn’t at this meeting, but I was very aware of his presence," he says.

 
  • #797

Letby said in 2017 she expected 'four apologies'​

14:20​


Judith Moritz
Special correspondent, reporting from the inquiry

The inquiry has resumed. Tony Chambers is asked about another meeting that he held with Lucy Letby on 6 February, 2017.

He told Letby that she would be getting an apology from consultants who had raised concerns about her.

She responded: "I expect four apologies."

Counsel to the inquiry Nicholas de la Poer KC asks: "Did you feel in this meeting that Letby was trying to take control of what was going on?"

Chambers replies: "I think that was an attempt on her behalf, yes. I think there was no doubt that she felt incredibly aggrieved and perhaps this was her moment to have her matters of grievance properly aired."

De La Poer asks if he agrees that Letby's behaviour was "manipulative".

Chambers replies: "I didn’t feel that I was being manipulated at the time... it was the father who seemed to be pulling the strings rather than Letby herself."


Letby said she didn't want her removal from duty to stay on personnel record​

14:26​


Judith Moritz
Special correspondent, reporting from the inquiry

Letby told executives that she didn’t want anything on her personnel record about having been taken off duty.

De la Poer asks Chambers whether "this something that struck you as being her inappropriately trying to control the situation?”

Chambers says he didn't see anything problematic about it and it didn’t strike him as unreasonable at the time.


Chambers told Letby 'we've got your back'​

14:30​


Judith Moritz
Special correspondent, reporting from the inquiry

At the same meeting, Chambers told the nurse: "Lucy, don't worry. We've got your back".

When asked by de la Poer, he says that the language he used was "clumsy".

"Eight years on, with what we know now and we look at this, these are the kind of things that you know you didn’t get right," he adds.

Minutes from the meeting note that Chambers told Letby that the RCPCH review had "vindicated her", but he accepts to the inquiry that it didn't, because it didn't investigate her.

He adds, though, that the RCPCH review "also didn’t point to any unnatural causes" for the deaths of the babies.

He adds that he wasn't taking the approach at that time that Letby had been vindicated by the review.

"I was very conscious to try as much as possible to avoid further escalation - particularly from her father. Her father wasn’t at this meeting, but I was very aware of his presence," he says.

It's amazing how frightened this man, head of a hospital with presumably an army of lawyers, is of one working class man from Hereford.
 
  • #798
I think there was no doubt that she felt incredibly aggrieved and perhaps this was her moment to have her matters of grievance properly aired.
It's not appropriate to comment on how she felt. He should only be observing how she behaved.

I'm guessing she was probably secretly gleeful to have gained control over everyone.

IMO
 
  • #799

Hospital exec denies being taken in by Letby's cause​

14:34​


Judith Moritz
Special correspondent, reporting from the inquiry

De la Poer asks that if this was an attempt by Letby to take control and get what she wanted, and go on the offensive. Did Letby succeed in recruiting Chambers to her goals?

He says "no, I don’t think so at all."

"My take on this was the only thing that Lucy Letby wanted was something that acknowledged that she had been treated unfairly and she sought no other redress other than to get back to her job that she really loved."


Doesn't want to admit he was just a pawn to her haha
 
  • #800

Hospital exec denies being taken in by Letby's cause​

14:34​


Judith Moritz
Special correspondent, reporting from the inquiry

De la Poer asks that if this was an attempt by Letby to take control and get what she wanted, and go on the offensive. Did Letby succeed in recruiting Chambers to her goals?

He says "no, I don’t think so at all."

"My take on this was the only thing that Lucy Letby wanted was something that acknowledged that she had been treated unfairly and she sought no other redress other than to get back to her job that she really loved."

Of course she did.

Do what you love, you never work a day in your life.

She loved manipulating and controlling her coworkers and torturing and killing babies and tormenting their families.

MOO
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
114
Guests online
2,541
Total visitors
2,655

Forum statistics

Threads
633,450
Messages
18,642,419
Members
243,542
Latest member
TrueCjunk
Back
Top