UK - Lucy Letby - Post-Conviction Statutory Inquiry

[MrsAddick]

I have my English degree so I’m going to take media and communications then have a crack at running a hospital … can’t be that hard surely ?? :- )

Yeah but do you have a close personal and professional relationship with Sir Duncan?

 

[Parker Knoll]

Sadly not … I do read my emails and open attachments when required - will that do ?

 

[MrsAddick]

Sadly not … I do read my emails and open attachments when required - will that do ?

No, I suspect that disqualifies you entirely for the role. I’d look elsewhere.

 

[Tortoise]

I have my English degree so I’m going to take media and communications then have a crack at running a hospital … can’t be that hard surely ?? :- )

He even tried to over-state his degree.

LADY JUSTICE THIRLWALL: A student nurse, and then at some point you took a degree, was that -- but that wasn't a nursing degree?

A. No, it wasn't.

LADY JUSTICE THIRLWALL: What was that in?

A. It was essentially an English degree. It was a media and communications degree.

LADY JUSTICE THIRLWALL: Media and communications, thank you.

28/11/2024 – Transcript of Week 11 Day 4 | The Thirlwall Inquiry

Transcript of Part B Evidence: - Tony Chambers, Chief Executive Officer (continued) - Ian Harvey, Medical Director

thirlwall.public-inquiry.uk

 

[MrsAddick]

He even tried to over-state his degree.

LADY JUSTICE THIRLWALL: A student nurse, and then at some point you took a degree, was that -- but that wasn't a nursing degree?

A. No, it wasn't.

LADY JUSTICE THIRLWALL: What was that in?

A. It was essentially an English degree. It was a media and communications degree.

LADY JUSTICE THIRLWALL: Media and communications, thank you.

28/11/2024 – Transcript of Week 11 Day 4 | The Thirlwall Inquiry

Transcript of Part B Evidence: - Tony Chambers, Chief Executive Officer (continued) - Ian Harvey, Medical Director

thirlwall.public-inquiry.uk

This is why I’m fangirling over Justice Thirlwall so hard. The nuances and subtlety are just…mwah!

 

[Marantz4250b]

I think it's too simplistic, and I think it's wrong. You don't refer to someone who's given up a child to fostering or adoption as a 'single parent', that tends to be reserved for people actually raising that child.

I think the mail and the mirror and all the other rags would have been all over it if she had a child at home with her.

I don't think she's ever had a child. I think primarily, she's a narcissistic sadist, has been for a very long time, and she doesn't need a reason like giving up an infant to torture and kill babies.

MOO

Well......this whole thing was quite the revelation to wake up to this morning!!

I think you're correct and that it's most likely that it's wrong. It's a police report, though, and it's a significant thing to get wrong. The date of it is, I think, the day it was reported to police or the day the police first responded to the hospital so this is very "early doors" so maybe it's not 100% correct.

As to the papers being all over it - I'm not so sure for a couple of reasons; if it's true (and I'm far from convinced that it is) then it's clearly been very well hidden so there's no reason to think no one other than a tiny number of people knew.

Secondly, if they know about it then they would likely not have found out until quite late - she wasn't arrested until July 2018 and once she was there are restrictions on what can be reported.

In addition to that, again if true, it may be that there is an injunction in place preventing it being reported. Maybe this police report should have had that bit redacted but the inquiry people missed it?

People here are trying to fit in her giving birth with the timeline of the events from around 2017 onwards. If she really is a parent then it's entirely possible that the kid may have been yonks ago when LL was very young. In theory this child (is it exists) could be a teenager by now. Okay, it's a stretch but not impossible. LL is currently 34 - it's not beyond the realms of possibility that a child may be into their 20's by now! A disgusting thought but it's not impossible.

LL said she went into nursing because she had a difficult birth.....that could be looked at in more than one way! Perhaps she has a disabled child (twins?) somewhere? Does she have a severely disabled child/children that neither she or her parents were capable of looking after

Also, she and her parents have connections to Devon/Cornwall? If she had a kid very young then it's not impossible that they took her down there to have it so no one would notice. It that's the case it would perhaps go a long way to explaining the thrice yearly trips down there, would it not? I think she made a comment to Dr Choc that it would be a lovely place to raise kids?

Anyway, that's all very far-fetched and probably totally wrong but you never know. It's a significant thing for a police report to get wrong, though.

 

[Marantz4250b]

Who would she have said this to, though?

That is a very reasonable point of view. But, respectfully, it fails to take into account the possibility of LL herself having said that she is a single mother.

Who would she have said this to, though? This police report was in response to the hospital contacting them. LL hadn't been interviewed by them at this point so she certainly didn't tell them. The only places they could have got the information (if it's true) is from her employment file or similar - and lying about that seems a huge risk because it's not something you're ever going to get away with, or police have looked into her and found that information.

Alternatively it's simply wrong, which I think is the actual case.

 

[Marantz4250b]

PLOT TWIST !
She’s got a secret child stashed away that’s why she had one room decorated as a nursery/shredder room … it’s doc chocs and the crazy parents are bringing it up as their own in Torquay.
Somebody make it stop please !

If she does have a kid then you may not be too far away from the truth. Not Dr Choc's, though. If a child exists I think she had it very young and it was taken from her or similar.

 

[Marantz4250b]

It doesn't if she lied about it to police. Or if the police wrote it in error.

She hadn't been spoken to by the cops at this point, as far as I can tell.

 

[Sweeper2000]

What do you all think of this then

Page 2 of 2 - minutes of meeting with Cheshire Police 5th May 2017

"The nurse has been working at COCH for approximately 8 years full time, she is a Cheshire resident, and a single parent. The staff member has since placed a grievance against COCH. There has been no formal investigation of misconduct and no motive identified. There are no mental health issues known and nothing has been highlighted by occupational health. There are no management issues.

AP — IH to provide personal details of the nurse, and to look at safeguarding referral as single parent."

INQ0102298 Pages 3 – 4 of Meeting between Cheshire Constabulary, Tony Chambers, Stephen Cross and Ian Harvey, on 05/05/2017 | The Thirlwall Inquiry

Examining the events at the Countess of Chester Hospital and their implications following the trial, and subsequent convictions, of former neonatal nurse Lucy Letby of murder and attempted murder of babies at the hospital.

thirlwall.public-inquiry.uk

I think this is a clerical error. Look at the wording and it's so impersonal. "The nurse" "the staff member". Almost like someone else was writing the report. "No motive" makes me think its police staff writing it. Is it possible that whoever was writing it was following the contextual protocol and filled that in without prompting? It's certainly about her though 100%.

 

[Marantz4250b]

Surely this CAN'T be Letby, if she began working there in 2012 and was arrested 2018.

This is another thing that makes me think that this report is not correct; she hadn't been working there for eight years. She qualified in 2011, I think? Did she do some training there prior to qualifying?

The report is definitely about her, though. All the other stuff like the correlation with her shifts, being moved off clinical duties is clearly referring to her.

 

[MrsAddick]

If she does have a kid then you may not be too far away from the truth. Not Dr Choc's, though. If a child exists I think she had it very young and it was taken from her or similar.

I think this is a clerical error. Look at the wording and it's so impersonal. "The nurse" "the staff member". Almost like someone else was writing the report. "No motive" makes me think it’s police staff writing it. Is it possible that whoever was writing it was following the contextual protocol and filled that in without prompting? It's certainly about her though 100%.

Feels like an adminstrative error which probably indicates how little importance the matter was given…otherwise I can’t imagine there would be such callous recording of the facts

 

[Parker Knoll]

But she “ would never marry or have children “ ?
It’s a mistake ( a crazy one to make agreed ) as much as I love a good conspiracy theory I don’t think I have had enough coffee this morning to get on board with anything more sinister.
I don’t think the earth is flat either but I may be wrong !

 

[Marantz4250b]

But she “ would never marry or have children “ ?
It’s a mistake ( a crazy one to make agreed ) as much as I love a good conspiracy theory I don’t think I have had enough coffee this morning to get on board with anything more sinister.
I don’t think the earth is flat either but I may be wrong !

Yes, I agree that it's a mistake. And, yes, it's a crazy one. But.........

Literally nothing would surprise me about her, tbh, nothing at all!

Did we ever get to the bottom of the names she mentioned in her notes? She wrote something along the lines of .....don't deserve mum and dad and .....

Personally, I think that whomever wrote that police document has maybe confused her with someone else along the way. It's notable. however, that the fact is mentioned twice in the document so the writer seems pretty convinced that she's a parent.

 

[CS2C]

They are her cousins. I found that out recently now being in receipt of her evidence in chief.

 

[Sweeper2000]

Yes, I agree that it's a mistake. And, yes, it's a crazy one. But.........

Literally nothing would surprise me about her, tbh, nothing at all!

Did we ever get to the bottom of the names she mentioned in her notes? She wrote something along the lines of .....don't deserve mum and dad and *advertiser censored* *advertiser censored*.....

Personally, I think that whomever wrote that police document has maybe confused her with someone else along the way. It's notable. however, that the fact is mentioned twice in the document so the writer seems pretty convinced that she's a parent.

"It's notable. however, that the fact is mentioned twice in the document so the writer seems pretty convinced that she's a parent"

I'm not sure it is. If that's an administrative error they might just be ticking the boxes and so replicating the mistake. It makes sense if it's admin doing the notes.

 

[iamshadow21]

"It's notable. however, that the fact is mentioned twice in the document so the writer seems pretty convinced that she's a parent"

I'm not sure it is. If that's an administrative error they might just be ticking the boxes and so replicating the mistake. It makes sense if it's admin doing the notes.

The word single can be used to denote relationship status. Perhaps 'single' was morphed to 'single parent' at some point down the line of communication.

MOO

 

[Marantz4250b]

Does anyone know how these police operations are organised?

The police note is dated 5th May 2017 and is headed Operation HUmmingbird.

In the note itself is says ...If Cheshire Constabulary are involved, then it would be deemed an 'investigation'.

So, my question is - if they aren't currently involved and weren't investigating at that point then why does it have an operational title?

 

[Marantz4250b]

The word single can be used to denote relationship status. Perhaps 'single' was morphed to 'single parent' at some point down the line of communication.

MOO

That's probably the correct interpretation.

 

[Sweeper2000]

What do you all think of this then

Page 2 of 2 - minutes of meeting with Cheshire Police 5th May 2017

"The nurse has been working at COCH for approximately 8 years full time, she is a Cheshire resident, and a single parent. The staff member has since placed a grievance against COCH. There has been no formal investigation of misconduct and no motive identified. There are no mental health issues known and nothing has been highlighted by occupational health. There are no management issues.

AP — IH to provide personal details of the nurse, and to look at safeguarding referral as single parent."

INQ0102298 Pages 3 – 4 of Meeting between Cheshire Constabulary, Tony Chambers, Stephen Cross and Ian Harvey, on 05/05/2017 | The Thirlwall Inquiry

Examining the events at the Countess of Chester Hospital and their implications following the trial, and subsequent convictions, of former neonatal nurse Lucy Letby of murder and attempted murder of babies at the hospital.

thirlwall.public-inquiry.uk

Those words in red make me think that the people that wrote it have communicated with IH though and received confirmation of those details but I'm not sure on that. On the flip side I think this is the opening stages of coms between the hospital and police and so those details may be incorrect and it is assumed that IH will provide details and know the protocol without being told. I really think this is just an admin error. The referal due to being single would be a precaution about her MH but in the same paragraph her MH got the all clear.

Is anyone able to scan ahead of this meeting and see if there is any info that contradicts it? The single parent status that is as that would be logged. I'll do it later of I can.