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

[Dotta]

I can totally understand why they've gone through this, though. It's simply the case that if they hadn't then she wouldn't have been legally struck off.

No other way of doing it.

True.
It is a legal procedure in a law-abiding state.

 

[iamshadow21]

True.
It is a legal procedure in a law-abiding state.

Everyone is entitled to due process. It's important to do it right, even when the result seems a foregone conclusion.

MOO

 

[musicaljoke]

An absolute waste of time and money to go through this charade. She should have been automatically struck off. She's already cost the British taxpayer millions and dragged this out to the detriment of the parents. Enough already!

We must never underestimate the value of the legal process in our society. People in many countries don't have access to justice.

 

[Anxala]

Everyone is entitled to due process. It's important to do it right, even when the result seems a foregone conclusion.

MOO

Absolutely.

And it's not, let's face it, in the very very (very) unlikely event that her appeal down the line results in the charges against her being overturned, that she'd likely, subsequently, think about pursuing a nursing career.

Whatever else, her 'nursing' days are well and truly over.

 

[katydid23]

A former Pennsylvania nurse who, in May, had been accused of killing two patients with doses of insulin now faces more murder charges and has confessed to trying to kill 19 additional people at several locations, authorities said Thursday.

Heather Pressdee, 41, is accused of administering excessive amounts of insulin to patients in her care, some of whom were diabetic and required insulin, and some of whom were not, according to the Pennsylvania Attorney General's Office.

In total, 17 patients died who had been cared for by Pressdee.

Pressdee has admitted to trying to kill 19 other patients with insulin at five different rehabilitation centers across the state as far back as 2020, and as recently as this year, the Pennsylvania Attorney General's Office said.

Former Pennsylvania nurse now linked to 17 nursing home deaths

A former nurse who had been accused of killing two patients with doses of insulin now faces more murder charges and has confessed to trying to kill 19 additional people.

abc7chicago.com

This nurse was being called 'a killer nurse' since 2018, when she was 1st suspected of poisoning patients with insulin. She ended up killing 17 patients, attempting to kill 5 others, in various nursing homes. She moved around from job to job so it took awhile to get caught.

 

[Tortoise]

EVERY death will be probed under huge reform

In a major overhaul to how deaths are certified, medical examiners will now scrutinise any that does not involve a coroner. Officials say the move will 'protect the public' and 'strengthen safeguards'.

www.dailymail.co.uk

 

[Marantz4250b]

EVERY death will be probed under huge reform

In a major overhaul to how deaths are certified, medical examiners will now scrutinise any that does not involve a coroner. Officials say the move will 'protect the public' and 'strengthen safeguards'.

www.dailymail.co.uk

I'm not convinced that something like that would have made much difference as far as this case is concerned. Concerns were raised about her multiple times. PM's were done in multiple cases so I don't think it's as easy as saying that things weren't checked in regards to these deaths and injuries.

The fact is that that every concern relating to her was ignored by management and doctors were even threatened to shut them up. They had to threaten going to the police before anything was done.

A system of requiring NHS managers to be professionally qualified and subject to a code of practise, which has been suggested, would go much further to preventing this kind of thing, IMO. It seems to me that currently there is simply no accountability.

I'm very interested in where the Corporate Manslaughter investigation might go too. Quite honestly, people other than LL need to be held accountable, IMHO. My opinion only but she was clearly enabled by superiors who not only did nothing to stop her but who actively decided to prevent her being stopped. It's a disgraceful situation, quite frankly.

 

[mrC]

i couldent see why they bothered with another murder chardge when she was allready doing a full life tarrif anyway unless of course the orginal conviction was strong engough not to be overturned

 

[Marantz4250b]

i couldent see why they bothered with another murder chardge when she was allready doing a full life tarrif anyway unless of course the orginal conviction was strong engough not to be overturned

It's actually an attempted murder charge she's being retried on; all of the attempted murder charges failed originally as the jury couldn't reach a decision. It surprised me that they charged attempt murder in these circumstances as it's extremely difficult to prove to the relevant standard. GBH would have been sufficient given the actual murder charges which are easier to prove so if they failed on the murder charges they would never have got the AM ones. Even one of those being successful would have got her a very long sentence and, possibly, even a whole life order.

I tend to agree that I don't really think I see the point of pursuing this sole attempted murder charge when she's never getting out in any event. It can't make any difference.

The factors that the CPS must base their decision to prosecute on are that there is a) A realistic prospect of a conviction and, b) the prosecution must be "in the public interest". Obviously none of us are privy to the facts which swung the decision but from what we have seen so far it's difficult to see that those criteria are met.

She has already been given a very long and detailed trial which failed to reach a verdict in this particular case so what factors do the CPS think have changed to bring about a conviction months later? And, secondly, how does it meet the "public interest" hurdle? Whether she's convicted or not makes no difference to her, or society at large, because nothing will change. That being the case, then, it appears, on the face of it, to be positively contrary the public interest because it will be yet more money spent on something the outcome of which is entirely irrelevant to anyone and more clogging up of the court system for no obvious benefit to the public interest.

I can only think that there may be some very specific legal point relating to this individual case that they want to meet but even that seems a bit thin as far as I can see.

All MOO, obvs.

 

[Dotta]

"Lucy Letby £160k-a-year hospital boss accused of ignoring warnings about the child serial killer is named as 'core participant' for inquiry into scandal.​

A hospital chief who was accused of ignoring concerns about Lucy Letby has been given a formal role at the inquiry into her murder spree.

Tony Chambers, who is the former chief executive of the Countess of Chester Hospital,
has been named as a 'core participant' at the upcoming Thirlwall Inquiry.

The full list of core participants also includes the Royal Collage of Paediatrics and Child Health, the NHS, the Department for Health and Social Care, the Nursing and Midwifery Council and the Care Quality Commision.

A core participant is someone with a significant interest in an inquiry.
As part of this they are given the opportunity to make opening and closing statements via legal representatives, suggest lines of questioning at oral hearings, apply to ask questions of witnesses and be provided with advance copies of reports.

It means that Mr Chambers, who was said to have been forced out of his role as chief of Countess of Chester Hospital following a vote of no confidence after six years in charge,
will have access to the final report by Lady Justice Thirlwall before it is released to the public."

Lucy Letby hospital boss named as 'core participant' for inquiry

Tony Chambers (pictured), who is the former chief executive of the Countess of Chester Hospital, has been named as a 'core participant' at the upcoming Thirlwall Inquiry.

www.dailymail.co.uk

 

[Parker Knoll]

Lucy Letby public inquiry names hospital bosses as core participants Lucy Letby public inquiry names hospital bosses as core participants

 

[Parker Knoll]

Not entirely unexpected !

 

[Parker Knoll]

Sorry we crossed @Dotta !

 

[Marantz4250b]

Not entirely unexpected !

From what we've heard during the trial, I'm pretty amazed he's a "core participant" rather than a witness, to be totally honest!

This bloke had a personal relationship with LL - which was proved through her text messages presented in court where she said to Dr Choc that "Tony" had phoned her regarding her change of duties and suchlike.

Didn't she also met him at a coffee shop or something as witnessed by others?

A person holding very senior rank - the top boss, no less - who coincidentally personally knew a "lowly" nurse (no offence to nurses) who must have been one of hundreds, if not thousands under his remit; a nurse who turned out to be the most prolific child murderer of modern times and to whom he gave counsel when she was under sanction on suspicion of harming babies, would seem like a person you'd want to be investigating as part of any inquiry rather than allowing them to be involved with conducting said inquiry, surely?

All my own opinion but something just doesn't sit right here, I don't think.

All MOO, obvs.

 

[Dotta]

Sorry we crossed @Dotta !

It means we are both on top of things
But I'm quicker by a minute

Ooops 2 minutes hehehe

 

[Marantz4250b]

Lucy Letby public inquiry names hospital bosses as core participants

Former executives at the hospital where Lucy Letby murdered babies are given roles at the inquiry.

www.bbc.co.uk

Tony Chambers, former chief executive of the Countess of Chester Hospital, has been named as a "core participant".

He is joined by former medical director Ian Harvey, former director of nursing Alison Kelly and former HR director Sue Hodkinson.

It goes on to say;

The inquiry will focus on "three broad areas", first the experiences of all of the parents, secondly the conduct of those working at the hospital, and finally the effectiveness of NHS management and governance structures.

How can an inquiry be in any way impartial or fair, or arrive at meaningful conclusions, when one of its key areas of investigation is investigating people who are "core participants" in said inquiry?

This seems utterly perverse to me. Unless I'm missing something significant here?

 

[iamshadow21]

Lucy Letby public inquiry names hospital bosses as core participants

Former executives at the hospital where Lucy Letby murdered babies are given roles at the inquiry.

www.bbc.co.uk

Tony Chambers, former chief executive of the Countess of Chester Hospital, has been named as a "core participant".

He is joined by former medical director Ian Harvey, former director of nursing Alison Kelly and former HR director Sue Hodkinson.

It goes on to say;

The inquiry will focus on "three broad areas", first the experiences of all of the parents, secondly the conduct of those working at the hospital, and finally the effectiveness of NHS management and governance structures.

How can an inquiry be in any way impartial or fair, or arrive at meaningful conclusions, when one of its key areas of investigation is investigating people who are "core participants" in said inquiry?

This seems utterly perverse to me. Unless I'm missing something significant here?

Sounds more like he's being called onto the carpet to explain himself to me, but that is IMO.

 

[Marantz4250b]

Sounds more like he's being called onto the carpet to explain himself to me, but that is IMO.

From the Mail report in post 30 of this thread;

A core participant is someone with a significant interest in an inquiry. As part of this they are given the opportunity to make opening and closing statements via legal representatives, suggest lines of questioning at oral hearings, apply to ask questions of witnesses and be provided with advance copies of reports.

It means that Mr Chambers, who was said to have been forced out of his role as chief of Countess of Chester Hospital following a vote of no confidence after six years in charge, will have access to the final report by Lady Justice Thirlwall before it is released to the public.

You don't get called onto the carpet and allowed to sit behind the desk asking the questions at the same time.

The remit of the inquiry is quite clear; to investigate some key areas to find out how this happened and to see what might be done to prevent it in the future. Investigating management of the hospital is one of its key areas of work. You cannot have the people being investigated doing the investigating, surely?

 

[cottonweaver]

deleted
( was reading the thread backwards and was posting the same comments that others have already made on ' core participants.' Pointless duplication)

 

[iamshadow21]

From the Mail report in post 30 of this thread;

A core participant is someone with a significant interest in an inquiry. As part of this they are given the opportunity to make opening and closing statements via legal representatives, suggest lines of questioning at oral hearings, apply to ask questions of witnesses and be provided with advance copies of reports.

It means that Mr Chambers, who was said to have been forced out of his role as chief of Countess of Chester Hospital following a vote of no confidence after six years in charge, will have access to the final report by Lady Justice Thirlwall before it is released to the public.

You don't get called onto the carpet and allowed to sit behind the desk asking the questions at the same time.

The remit of the inquiry is quite clear; to investigate some key areas to find out how this happened and to see what might be done to prevent it in the future. Investigating management of the hospital is one of its key areas of work. You cannot have the people being investigated doing the investigating, surely?

A defendant in a criminal case can do those things. I still think he's going to be bricking it.