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 #36

Status
Not open for further replies.
  • #761
Dr Harkness and Dr Woods were the 2 doctors on shift- moving between both the ward where mum was and the ward where the baby was, it strikes me as strange for them to even attempt to claim they were unaware of the situation and that LL delayed informing them was the cause for any delay in treatment. If they were both on the other ward with mum- then they would be aware, as the midwife was, that mum was upset about the bleeding she witnessed, if they were down on the ward with the babies, then they would surely be checking the babies themselves regardless, especially if they heard one in such distress. These comments are not about me disputing the role LL played or didn't play, but as I have always believed there were also serious alternative failings.
 
  • #762
People need to remember here that the Thirlwell inquiry is not a rehash of the trial nor is it an inquiry into the evidence she was convicted on. It is not a criminal court and the evidence given before it is not given to the criminal standard.

It is inappropriate to start picking apart the original ten month trial based on what is said at the inquiry.
Why is it inappropriate? A trial is selected evidence used to argue either side to consolidate their points. The inquiry is looking at the bigger picture, and discussed evidence at the trial alongside information and statements not presented at the trial. Until I started looking through the inquiry statements, I did not realise the police originally refused to proceed with the matter as there was not enough evidence and it wouldn't meet the threshold.

ETA: I'm still not at the point I feel LL should be cleared, but I do worry that some of her convictions did not account for all the evidence about other failings in the department. It also concerns me as a parent that even if I was 100% assured she was guilty of everything and there was a smoking gun for conviction in each case- something else was seriously wrong with the whole department and that could surely happen again unless it is nit picked and hashed over to the point that some clarity is actually gained. Next time it may not be a serial killer, just someone really poor at their job under the same processes and same supervisors- but the outcome would be just as tragic for the parents.
 
Last edited:
  • #763
1739890171508.png
I have only looked in depth ( and limited at that to the evidence available) at child e- but how deep has Dr H been investigated
 
  • #764
I'm still waiting for someone - anyone - to put forth a "scapegoat" explanation that makes any sense.
I dont think its possible and the reason why it can be put forward is simply that it would be very very difficult to prove otherwise. the greatest proof that it wasn't true is that numerous external agencies have checked, double checked and triple checked to see what was happening. I think the external agencies also remove any potential for ingroup self protectionism which would be necessary in a cover up situation. the docs could cover eachother but as soon as it goes external that dynamic changes.
 
  • #765
1739890941796.png
 
  • #766
Thanks for sharing that, its a shame it doesn't include all the babies - but my concerns from the very start are absolutely enforced in the report
COUNTESS OF CHESTER HOSPITAL FINDINGS
To summarize, we found numerous problems in medical care related to the 17 cases, including:
1. Medical histories were incomplete
2. Failure to consider the obstetric history
3. Disregard for surveillance warnings about infectious bacterial colonization
4. Misdiagnosis of diseases
5. Caring for patients that were beyond their designated level of care
6. Unsafe delays in diagnosis and treatment of acutely ill patients
7. Poor skills at resuscitation and intubation
8. Poor supervision of junior doctors in procedures like intubation
9. Poor skills in basic medical procedures like insertion of chest tubes
10. Lack of understanding about respiratory physiology and basics of mechanical ventilation
11. Poor management of common neonatal conditions like hypoglycemia
12. Lack of knowledge about commonly used equipment in the NICU, e.g. Neopuff, capnograph
13. Failure to protect at risk patients (e.g. haemophilia) from trauma during intubation
14. Lack of teamwork and trust between the health professions

GENERAL FINDINGS
Statements given by witnesses point to serious resource and infrastructure deficiencies that impact on
general patient care at the Countess of Chester Hospital. Specific concerns expressed in witness
statements include:
1. Inadequate numbers of appropriately trained personnel
2. Lack of training for assigned nursing roles
3. Inadequate staffing
4. Work overload
5. Poor plumbing and drainage, resulting in need for intensive cleaning; this was a potential factor
in Stenotrophomonas maltophilia colonization and infection
6. Poor environmental temperature control in facility
7. Difficulty in finding a doctor when need arose
8. Congestion at medication cabinet and preparation trolley
9. Lack of appropriate facilities for sterile preparation, e.g. IV drugs prepared in corridor
10. Some high risk infants who should have been born and cared for at higher level institutions
were born and cared for in Countess of Chester Hospital because of a shortage of beds at
higher level facilities where they should have been admitted
11. There were delays in transfer of sick infants to higher level facilities when the need arose
 
  • #767
As I indicated earlier, we know that Mother E had substantial evidence to bring to the care of Baby E arriving as she did with expressed breast milk for her baby and seeing blood on his lips and realising when she saw the medical notes that Letby had covered her tracks with the timings on those notes.Reflecting there, this kind of review, did you think to speak to the parents or to see what they had to say about their understanding? And do you think that was an opportunity missed to do so, particularly with Baby E?
A. I think what I was doing at the time with these reviews was in line with what neonatal teams across the country would be doing for similar cases.I don't think the way we were doing it was -- was much different to any other hospitals and I think I --agree with you, it would have been really helpful to have the parents there but it just wasn't the process at the time.
Q. Other hospitals weren't having this rapidity of unexpected unexplained deaths. Did that cause you to pause and think: I need to speak to people around and see if they have got any relevant information?
A. It's quite difficult to pause in the job that we are doing actually and it -- it's an exceptionally busy job anyway at the best of times and -- and when you are getting these through, there is a rate you are talking about then obviously that adds another workload as well and obviously a clinical workload that I shared with all my colleagues.So the -- the capacity to even -- even do this in more detail including families takes time, more time,and obviously it's another sort of soft indicator that things were getting busier and harder to fulfil. But I -- I think with the -- with the resource that I had and the resource of time that I had at the time, it would have been very difficult to -- to spend enough time reviewing these cases adequately in the way that you suggest.


I am amazed at the people defending this man- these werent a daily occurrence and he didn't find the time to look into them
 
  • #768
Dr Harkness and Dr Woods were the 2 doctors on shift- moving between both the ward where mum was and the ward where the baby was, it strikes me as strange for them to even attempt to claim they were unaware of the situation and that LL delayed informing them was the cause for any delay in treatment. If they were both on the other ward with mum- then they would be aware, as the midwife was, that mum was upset about the bleeding she witnessed, if they were down on the ward with the babies, then they would surely be checking the babies themselves regardless, especially if they heard one in such distress. These comments are not about me disputing the role LL played or didn't play, but as I have always believed there were also serious alternative failings.

The Dr's cover more than just NICU and one post natal ward ...they also cover an antenatal ward ..A and E and paediatrics ..they could have been anywhere.

I can honestly say that baby E was one of the cases that proved she was lying to me.
That mum was 100% on that ward seeing blood at 9pm ..so much to prove that at trial.
I'm not so sure LL didn't call Dr for 40 min to delay treatment as such ..but ..because she was almost caught injuring the baby by mum and she wanted to move the time back away from that .
 
  • #769
  • #770
"I still think that waging a campaign in this way in the wake of these convictions is not the right thing to do."

BBC News - Streeting urges caution over 'clear Letby' campaign

 
  • #771
The Dr's cover more than just NICU and one post natal ward ...they also cover an antenatal ward ..A and E and paediatrics ..they could have been anywhere.

I can honestly say that baby E was one of the cases that proved she was lying to me.
That mum was 100% on that ward seeing blood at 9pm ..so much to prove that at trial.
I'm not so sure LL didn't call Dr for 40 min to delay treatment as such ..but ..because she was almost caught injuring the baby by mum and she wanted to move the time back away from that .
But she was found guilty of administering an air embolism- how does that feed in to the bleeding?
 
  • #772
"I still think that waging a campaign in this way in the wake of these convictions is not the right thing to do."

BBC News - Streeting urges caution over 'clear Letby' campaign

I can only stand on my own beliefs, I am neither and have never been convinced or otherwise either way- I followed the trial all the way through. LL can do no more harm, but there are others who can and are still working with neonates
 
  • #773
It also concerns me as a parent that even if I was 100% assured she was guilty of everything and there was a smoking gun for conviction in each case- something else was seriously wrong with the whole department and that could surely happen again unless it is nit picked and hashed over to the point that some clarity is actually gained.
When you say "something else was serious wrong on the whole department", are you referring to the management who didn't take the doctors' concerns seriously, and continued to protect Letby?
 
  • #774
When you say "something else was serious wrong on the whole department", are you referring to the management who didn't take the doctors' concerns seriously, and continued to protect Letby?
No
 
  • #775
  • #776
But she was found guilty of administering an air embolism- how does that feed in to the bleeding?

Who knows how her mind worked... it was still the prosecution case that she harmed the baby ..there were also other cases of bleeding from the throat.
Maybe she used two methods to try and hurt / kill the baby
 
  • #777
I can only stand on my own beliefs, I am neither and have never been convinced or otherwise either way- I followed the trial all the way through. LL can do no more harm, but there are others who can and are still working with neonates

I certainly agree that the NHS is a mess not only at the COCH ..everywhere...there are hundreds of departments where care and treatment is poor and even dangerous...and I hope the Thirlwall enquiry helps flags up these problems.
But LL imo was a different kettle of fish ..those collapses and the timings and frequency were over and above bad practice etc.
I'd imagine the decision as to whether an appeal is possible will go to the next level being such a hot potato...whether she gets her conviction overturned I can't see it myself but if the courts say its the right thing to do so be it
 
  • #778
What then, exactly?
There was always more than one nurse on the ward, plus doctors and consultants on call. The immediate life saving interventions are down to people who are on site. Sounds dramatic- but how many near misses were investigated and resolved. Im unconvinced the doctors had the medical expertise to deal with anything slightly off textbook.
 
  • #779
I do appreciate sometimes I divulge from the facts of the accused, to the fact that some of the babies should have been saved- but with the inquiry I feel it has all blurred into one
 
  • #780
There was always more than one nurse on the ward, plus doctors and consultants on call. The immediate life saving interventions are down to people who are on site. Sounds dramatic- but how many near misses were investigated and resolved. Im unconvinced the doctors had the medical expertise to deal with anything slightly off textbook.
I'm struggling to see anything here that would suggest "something else was serious wrong on the whole department". With you suggesting "how many near misses were investigated and resolved", it really does sound like an issue with the management.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Staff online

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
153
Guests online
2,915
Total visitors
3,068

Forum statistics

Threads
632,115
Messages
18,622,301
Members
243,026
Latest member
JC_MacLeod
Back
Top