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

[Marantz4250b]

the prosecution had pr campaign why shouldn't the defence

Do you have a link to their publicity campaign?

 

[Marantz4250b]

a pr firm organising a press conference its hardly sinister thats all they did orgnise a press conference they dident set up the thirwel inquiry wich is one of the major reasons to doubt the conviction

Sorry but that just doesn't make sense. Am I missing something?

 

[Ruthbullock]

there was allot of chatter amongst the workforce about lucy letby. this from the junior docs

Junior doctors referred to Lucy Letby as "Nurse Death", a public inquiry has heard.

Junior doctors called Lucy Letby 'Nurse Death', inquiry told

The NHS's response to serial killer Lucy Letby's crimes is being examined in a public inquiry.

www.bbc.co.uk

lets also not forget that the nurses and docs did seem too have a big division amongst them so the docs wouldnt see allot of the "not nice lucy"

I read all the junior doctors statements first (they also got uploaded), honestly I haven’t read all the nurses yet. There is one mention of nurse death by a junior doctor- and it doesn’t read the way it has been portrayed in the press previously- in general it was a conversation between a senior nurse and someone else and it seemed to make the doctor uncomfortable

 

[Marantz4250b]

I read all the junior doctors statements first (they also got uploaded), honestly I haven’t read all the nurses yet. There is one mention of nurse death by a junior doctor- and it doesn’t read the way it has been portrayed in the press previously- in general it was a conversation between a senior nurse and someone else and it seemed to make the doctor uncomfortable

The whole point though, the bigger picture, is that she initially came to prominence because several consultants were concerned that she was intentionally harming patients (or at the very least was incompetent) and brought those concerns up with management.

Her crimes were not suddenly discovered after an investigation - she was the subject of the investigation/concerns from the outset.

The doctors arrived at the point that they threatened to go to the police if something wasn't done about her.

 

[Ruthbullock]

The whole point though, the bigger picture, is that she initially came to prominence because several consultants were concerned that she was intentionally harming patients (or at the very least was incompetent) and brought those concerns up with management.

Her crimes were not suddenly discovered after an investigation - she was the subject of the investigation/concerns from the outset.

The doctors arrived at the point that they threatened to go to the police if something wasn't done about her.

Which they did and were told by the police there wasn’t any evidence. It wasn’t just the senior management who originally dismissed the doctors, but also the police.- I shared the police documents a few pages back from the inquiry. People changed their opinions over time due to evidence submitted at a much later date. The witness statements that have been uploaded are all from 2024, with the privilege of re reading their original interview statements and a whole lot of other documentation presented since, that is now also part of the bigger picture.

 

[Sweeper2000]

I read all the junior doctors statements first (they also got uploaded), honestly I haven’t read all the nurses yet. There is one mention of nurse death by a junior doctor- and it doesn’t read the way it has been portrayed in the press previously- in general it was a conversation between a senior nurse and someone else and it seemed to make the doctor uncomfortable

thats interesting. was easy to think the place must have been rife with chatter. they were a couple of very very unusual years for the coch nnu even without LL.

 

[Tortoise]

Which they did and were told by the police there wasn’t any evidence. It wasn’t just the senior management who originally dismissed the doctors, but also the police.- I shared the police documents a few pages back from the inquiry. People changed their opinions over time due to evidence submitted at a much later date. The witness statements that have been uploaded are all from 2024, with the privilege of re reading their original interview statements and a whole lot of other documentation presented since, that is now also part of the bigger picture.

Which police documents did you share a few pages back please? Was it the email written by Ian Harvey dated 12th May 2017 claiming the police "don't feel that there is evidence of criminal activity?"

Detective Chief Superintendent Nigel Wenham gave evidence to the Inquiry that police met with the Executives on 5th May 2017, and were told by the Executives there was no evidence.

Q. So we see attending at the meeting Tony Chambers, Stephen Cross, Ian Harvey. At that time, this is solely Executives. Is there a reason for going just to the Executives at this point, is that because they are the decision-makers or why -- why is it that we see no doctors or Execs at this meeting?

A. I suppose the best way to describe this is post the CDOP. The Constabulary was on a sort of a journey to gather information and the ultimate goal was to lead to a decision and to get to that point of decision-making was meeting with some individuals who had relevant information. And I think from my recollection certainly with the assistant chief constable who chaired and led the meeting, it would have been around the Constabulary to meet with those involved at an Executive level from the Countess and I think it was the right thing to do.

So those I am going to say I am reasonably confident that at that point those documents would have been in the Constabulary but not the Letby -- not the one with reference to Letby. I never seen that, never.

Q. You see further down it says: "A criminal QC was instructed by the Trust who after consideration of the relevant papers advised that there was no evidence to suggest criminal activity." What weight would that have, what weight would you have given that at the time if you are being told a criminal QC has looked at the relevant papers and said no evidence to suggest criminal activity?

A. I think it's relevant information for those to have shared to the Constabulary. In terms of the weight, we would make our own decision and I would suggest not be influenced by that specific piece of information. I would emphasise that I think there was an -- still an element of caution in terms of the Constabulary. It was a case of let's just slowly, slowly gather this information. And when I say "slowly, slowly" let's get the information at the Constabulary so we can make this decision. Because again if you look below that there is a reference to drafting a Terms of Reference for an investigation. Now we wouldn't be drafting a Terms of Reference for an investigation if we were thinking there isn't going to be an investigation because my view is we were very much moving in that direction and that was the direction we were -- we were going.

Dr Jayaram then wrote directly to the police with the consultant body's concerns on 10th May, (https://thirlwall.public-inquiry.uk/wp-content/uploads/thirlwall-evidence/INQ0102300_03-04.pdf) bypassing the Executives, and a meeting was held between police and the consultants on 15th May.

Q. And there's a second meeting that takes place on 12 May with the Executives again. Do you know again why you had only the Executives at this meeting? I know what happened subsequently and you arrange a meeting with Dr Jayaram, but you only have Executives at this 12 May meeting.

A. I -- I can't recall why that was decision was made just to keep it at Executive level.

Q. So if we go to --

A. But -- sorry, but I think we had, I think we had the premeet and we had already had -- I think there was a plan already to meet with the paediatricians who had written the email and the letter so we had gone into that meeting with that plan.

[...]

A. It's interesting now, sitting here looking back at the minutes as you have pointed out and identified and highlighted because when I was in the middle of this, I genuinely -- my mindset was this was on a path to an investigation and there was a lot of external noise going on round here but I felt this was where it was going and that was where we would end up but when you read some of the comments now it's like indeed doors are trying to be shut, that is the way I feel as though it's presented, if that makes sense.

Q. It does. If you look at page 6, the last but one paragraph, this is an officer -- assistant chief constable clarifying: "... there was nothing new that had come out of the email that [Countess of Chester] were not already aware of, and nothing contained in email that makes specific allegation, which would cause COCH to believe that potential criminal offences have been committed. [Mr Chambers] and [Mr Harvey] both agreed there was nothing to suggest this and nothing new within email." If we go to page 7, and look at the last three paragraphs, please: "[Mr Chambers] stated it would become a wider GMC issue as there becomes a point where a group of clinicians who are not prepared to take the recommendation of the RCPCH are blocking the ability to move forward which creates a more difficult and dangerous environment for sick babies." Next, he says: "[He] added the Consultants have made their points and they have been seen and not judged as sufficient to warrant a police-led investigation, looking at how close it constitutes as a criminal act. There was a need to explore to ensure Countess of Chester have not missed anything but there is also a need to move on. It will become a GMC issue, likewise if the media are involved. This is for the Countess of Chester to manage appropriately. The Assistant Chief Constable replies: "If Countess of Chester's position is that they are satisfied where they are and there is nothing of anything that would cause to believe potentially criminal offences have been committed which may warrant a police investigation, then this needs to be placed in writing." So that's what the Assistant Chief Constable says, "it needs to be placed in writing". And over the page he asks that: "The [Countess of Chester] need to be clear what their expectations are of Cheshire Constabulary if a criminal investigation is required, and equally [the Assistant Chief Constable] needs to document back to the Countess of Chester what Cheshire Constabulary's position is. This is to ensure a clear audit trail of what the information was, the decision-making and the grounds for those decisions, should anything arise in the future." You further down in the last five paragraphs say: "NW added an observation that Dr Jayaram has sent the email directly to the police and bypassed the Countess of Chester Executive Team. Cheshire Constabulary are duty-bound to respond to Dr Jayaram on behalf of the clinician team. It might be appropriate to have a conversation with Dr Jayaram around the content of the letter and gain a feel of anything else that they may wish to disclose, which would add some value to the contents of the letter." Again two paragraphs down, the assistant chief constable clarified what you are articulating: "That there could potentially be allegations of bullying, intimidation on the part of the Countess of Chester. It seems reasonable as they have written to have a conversation with Dr Jayaram to clarify there is nothing else sat behind the letter which has not been disclosed." [...]

Q. You agreed with your colleague that Cheshire Constabulary should speak to Dr Jayaram to give the clinicians an independent voice?

A. Yes.

Q. Mr Chambers clarified whether it's possible to have a conversation with the clinicians without involving the Families as the clinicians would value the conversation with a police officer. So recognition by Mr Chambers there that the clinicians might like to speak or would like to speak with a police officer?

A. Yes, I mean, I was quite clear that we needed to go and meet with those doctors and make sure that they were able to speak freely without any external influences and we had actually given them a voice so they were listened to.

Q. You then -- or it is documented, rather, on page 9 of the bullet points under: "DM reiterated what has been agreed ... "Crucially a meeting will be held on 15 May with Dr Jayaram to bring a couple of people with him if he would like to and I think it's Dr Holt and Dr Brearey who attend?

A. (Nods)

Q. You tell us at paragraph 90 of your statement, Mr Wenham: "This meeting was in my view the most critical and important event following the CDOP meeting on 24 March 2017." You say: "I can still recall how these clinicians presented. They were completely professional in their presentation and they were knowledgeable and passion in that about their work with the neonatal unit. There was some degree of frustration in where they felt this situation had reached and I felt that they were relieved that they could speak to the police about their concerns." Following this meeting, my own personal assessment was that this further reinforced my view that this was now going to progress to a criminal investigation. It was my responsibility to communicate this to the chief officer level ... to inform future decisions." So if we could go, please, to the notes of that meeting, INQ0102309, page 2, and we see at page 3 at the top, Dr Jayaram in that second paragraph, specifically mentions forensic review and the fact is these babies would not be the ones you would have expected at the point they collapsed and they did not respond physiologically to the treatment as expected. [...] He says: "Nobody's talked to junior doctors who have been involved. We appreciate that a lot of time has passed since these" events, presumably. "We at the end of the day are responsible for patient safety on the ward, the buck stops with us." Of course when the investigation did take place all of the junior doctors were spoken to, weren't they, and the evidence was collated?

A. Yes. [...]

A. The meeting was -- I can't describe how powerful it was. They were knowledgeable, they spoke from the points of view whereby they were dealing with these things real-time and the -- they have had -- they have had -- they have lived and are breathed these events for the last several years and I just felt for those professionals there, they had an opportunity now to just speak to someone and be listened to and believed what they were saying. And it felt as though that we weren't just going to push them away like they had been in the past or threatened or intimidated, which is what the perception is they had. They were just very powerful in what they were saying and committed and, you know, I think we all owe them a great deal for coming forward and speaking out the way they did.

Q. That document can come down now. At paragraph 94 of your statement, you say on 15 May, telephone meeting with the Executive Team. You had made the decision to launch the criminal investigation, a telephone meeting arranged with the Executives from the Countess of Chester and Cheshire Police.

https://thirlwall.public-inquiry.uk...024/11/Thirlwall-Inquiry-20-November-2024.pdf

What is the "over time" and "much later date" you are referring to please?

 

[Ruthbullock]

Which police documents did you share a few pages back please? Was it the email written by Ian Harvey dated 12th May 2017 claiming the police "don't feel that there is evidence of criminal activity?"

Detective Chief Superintendent Nigel Wenham gave evidence to the Inquiry that police met with the Executives on 5th May 2017, and were told by the Executives there was no evidence.



Dr Jayaram then wrote directly to the police with the consultant body's concerns on 10th May, (https://thirlwall.public-inquiry.uk/wp-content/uploads/thirlwall-evidence/INQ0102300_03-04.pdf) bypassing the Executives, and a meeting was held between police and the consultants on 15th May.



https://thirlwall.public-inquiry.uk...024/11/Thirlwall-Inquiry-20-November-2024.pdf

What is the "over time" and "much later date" you are referring to please?

Not sure what you are trying to say in your post, but October 2015 when they raised the issue to 25 May 2017 is a fairly long time span, then evidence gathering until she is arrested and charged in November 2020 is over time and includes much later dates- although you missed the point of my post- the 40 witness statements from staff who worked with LL were written with all that information, confirming they have re looked at their original interviews and statements, plus having lived and worked through the trial- I was surprised at a lot of the information shared within them. There is far too much information included to summarise into a post- but they are worth reading through

 

[Ruthbullock]

Which police documents did you share a few pages back please? Was it the email written by Ian Harvey dated 12th May 2017 claiming the police "don't feel that there is evidence of criminal activity?"

Detective Chief Superintendent Nigel Wenham gave evidence to the Inquiry that police met with the Executives on 5th May 2017, and were told by the Executives there was no evidence.



Dr Jayaram then wrote directly to the police with the consultant body's concerns on 10th May, (https://thirlwall.public-inquiry.uk/wp-content/uploads/thirlwall-evidence/INQ0102300_03-04.pdf) bypassing the Executives, and a meeting was held between police and the consultants on 15th May.



https://thirlwall.public-inquiry.uk...024/11/Thirlwall-Inquiry-20-November-2024.pdf

What is the "over time" and "much later date" you are referring to please?

Here’s the statement from the horses mouth so to speak:
In early May 2017, The Countess of Chester Hospital Foundation Trust contacted Cheshire Constabulary regarding neonatal services at the hospital. This was in relation to a greater number of baby deaths and non-fatal collapses than normally expected during the period of June 2015 and June 2016.

As a result, Cheshire Constabulary launched an investigation called Operation Hummingbird. As time went on and further information came to light the scope of the investigation widened and further cases were reviewed.

As work continued behind the scenes to gather evidence, a suspect was formally identified and on 3 July 2018 Letby was arrested at her home in Chester.

https://www.cheshire.police.uk/news/cheshire/news/articles/2024/7/nurse-found-guilty-of-attempting-to-murder-premature-baby/#:~:text=This%20was%20in%20relation%20to,an%20investigation%20called%20Operation%20Hummingbird.

https://thirlwall.public-inquiry.uk/wp-content/uploads/thirlwall-evidence/INQ0003076.pdf

 

[Tortoise]

Which they did and were told by the police there wasn’t any evidence. It wasn’t just the senior management who originally dismissed the doctors, but also the police.- I shared the police documents a few pages back from the inquiry. People changed their opinions over time due to evidence submitted at a much later date. The witness statements that have been uploaded are all from 2024, with the privilege of re reading their original interview statements and a whole lot of other documentation presented since, that is now also part of the bigger picture.

Not sure what you are trying to say in your post, but October 2015 when they raised the issue to 25 May 2017 is a fairly long time span, then evidence gathering until she is arrested and charged in November 2020 is over time and includes much later dates- although you missed the point of my post- the 40 witness statements from staff who worked with LL were written with all that information, confirming they have re looked at their original interviews and statements, plus having lived and worked through the trial- I was surprised at a lot of the information shared within them. There is far too much information included to summarise into a post- but they are worth reading through

I am asking -

a/ which police documents you shared a few pages back, and
b/ where is the information that police told the doctors there wasn't any evidence, and dismissed the doctors, and refused to proceed.

 

[Ruthbullock]

I am asking -

a/ which police documents you shared a few pages back, and
b/ where is the information that police told the doctors there wasn't any evidence, and dismissed the doctors, and refused to proceed.

I have shared it above- the meeting minutes are underneath-

Meeting minutes of Operation Hummingbird, dated 12/05/2017.​

 

[Tortoise]

I have shared it above- the meeting minutes are underneath-

Meeting minutes of Operation Hummingbird, dated 12/05/2017.​

So none of that was correct. They hadn't met the doctors until 15th May, and they didn't dismiss them or refuse to proceed and they were told there was no evidence by the Executives.

 

[Ruthbullock]

So none of that was correct. They hadn't met the doctors until 15th May, and they didn't dismiss them or refuse to proceed and they were told there was no evidence by the Executives.

Sorry which bit is incorrect? It’s the police minutes from operation hummingbird submitted to the Thirwall inquiry- are you now saying the police fabricated their documents?

Shared a screenshot from after their next meeting below- an invited police investigation is a request from COCH Trust, not the other way round- it was not, even after meeting Dr J, a criminal investigation.

 

[imstilla.grandma]

The next phase of the Inquiry is the preparation and submission by the Core Participants of their written closing submissions. They will be permitted to supplement them in oral submissions on 17 and 18 March in this building. I have directed that the written documents be submitted to the Inquiry legal team on or before 28 February and the timetable for the hearings will be set once we know how many people wish to speak and how long they expect to take.

The arrangements will be largely the same in March as they have been since September and there will be live links in accordance with the ruling that I gave in May of last year.

Transcript of the Chair’s closing statement | The Thirlwall Inquiry

A full transcript of Lady Justice Thirlwall's closing statement, made at the end of the Inquiry's oral evidence hearings.

thirlwall.public-inquiry.uk

 

[Tortoise]

Sorry which bit is incorrect? It’s the police minutes from operation hummingbird submitted to the Thirwall inquiry- are you now saying the police fabricated their documents?

Shared a screenshot from after their next meeting below- an invited police investigation is a request from COCH Trust, not the other way round- it was not, even after meeting Dr J, a criminal investigation.

I don't know where you get from my post that I'm saying the police fabricated anything. I've said the police did not dismiss the doctors, or refuse to proceed, or say to the doctors there was no evidence. Yes, they agreed to investigate the doctors' concerns after meeting the doctors, and therefore establish through a forensic investigation whether criminal activity had occurred.

 

[Ruthbullock]

I don't know where you get from my post that I'm saying the police fabricated anything. I've said the police did not dismiss the doctors, or refuse to proceed, or say to the doctors there was no evidence. Yes, they agreed to investigate the doctors' concerns after meeting the doctors, and therefore establish through a forensic investigation whether criminal activity had occurred.

The trust asked the police to proceed, after initially being reluctant, the police did say there was no evidence following the email being sent to them, the police following further evidence then also changed their minds after I’m not sure why you feel the need to twist my original words, it feels quite argumentative.

This was my original comment:
Ruthbullock said:
Which they did and were told by the police there wasn’t any evidence. It wasn’t just the senior management who originally dismissed the doctors, but also the police.-

In reply to:
Marantz4250b said:
The doctors arrived at the point that they threatened to go to the police if something wasn't done about her.

 

[Ruthbullock]

https://archive.ph/2025.02.21-174906/https://www.nursingtimes.net/midwifery-and-neonatal/thirlwall-inquiry-documents-show-former-colleagues-backed-letby-21-02-2025/

 

[katydid23]

https://archive.ph/2025.02.21-174906/https://www.nursingtimes.net/midwifery-and-neonatal/thirlwall-inquiry-documents-show-former-colleagues-backed-letby-21-02-2025/

They didn't all back her. Some testified against her.

 

[Ruthbullock]

They didn't all back her. Some testified against her.

Don’t shoot the messanger - I didn’t write the headline- it talks about both sides in the article

 

[May72031]

Don’t shoot the messanger - I didn’t write the headline- it talks about both sides in the article

Why is the fact that some former colleagues, some of whom were friends, backed her - at least initially - relevant?