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 #37

[Tortoise]

if jane hattan is so clueless why did the police contact her in the first place and there is also the matter of failing to disclose it to the defence

Disclosure​

The prosecutor must first consider whether the information is relevant i.e. whether it has any bearing on the case. Only if the information is considered relevant will it need to be considered for disclosure to the defence.

Disclosure Manual: Chapter 36 - Expert Witnesses - Prosecution Disclosure Obligations | The Crown Prosecution Service

www.cps.gov.uk

 

[mrC]

but that is highly relvant

 

[Tortoise]

but that is highly relvant

The prosecution led no expert evidence of the statistical probability of coincidence of Letby being on duty during all the deaths and collapses she was charged with.

They proved she was present at them all, full stop. Therefore statistical probability had no relevance to the case.

 

[Highlandspring]

if jane hattan is so clueless why did the police contact her in the first place and there is also the matter of failing to disclose it to the defence

<modsnip - rude, personalizing>

Six or however many years later in a 2024 interview, Hutton showed herself to be spectacularly ignorant of anything relevant to the case. So she was no loss to anyone.

<modsnip - attacking another member

 

[Ruthbullock]

In fairness have worked with children in medical settings for 18 years and not heard of this - would go through safeguarding for the trust. n=1 ofc!

This document came out in 2013 and is still in use today section 3.5.6 tells you to refer to your LADO any concerns about other staff members and safeguarding of children- they are employed by all local councils, it’s not a new thing and it’s impartial- they also involve the police if they deem it necessary

https://www.england.nhs.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/safeguarding-children-young-people-adults-at-risk-saaf.pdf

 

[Ruthbullock]

you need to post a page reference, big document.

Sorry scroll to the section operation hummingbird- although it is all worth a read as it goes through the various internal investigations that happened as well

https://thirlwall.public-inquiry.uk/wp-content/uploads/thirlwall-evidence/INQ0107036.pdf

 

[Ruthbullock]

Yes you are correct. I was thinking of the email they sent to the police once the investigation had been opened.

I'm curious- what do you think happened at the CoCh from 2015 to 2017? Not what should the consultants have done but what do you think happened that explains both the collapses and everyone's behavior?

I think there was a culmination of poor sanitation, poor note keeping, failures to want to know answers to deaths through post mortems for fear of it coming back on themselves, poor staffing ratios and people being overworked- and I wish this had all been looked into prior to the trial. If you could have removed any single one of those general failures it would have made for a more secure conviction.

 

[Ruthbullock]

Allegations against staff​

Involving the abuse of children – Local Authority Designated Officer​

Working Together to Safeguard Children stipulates that information must be shared with the Local Authority Designated Officer (LADO) where it is considered that a member of health staff poses a risk to children or might have committed a criminal offence against one or more children.

Allegations against staff - NHS Safeguarding

safeguarding-guide.nhs.uk

 

[Ruthbullock]

A referral was finally made way down the line in March 2018- the referral is here

https://thirlwall.public-inquiry.uk/wp-content/uploads/thirlwall-evidence/INQ0013064_1,2,3.pdf

 

[Ruthbullock]

The thing is you can also phone LADO to discuss whether your concern is valid and needs actioning. This is from another councils website- ours offer a specific session a week for anonymous general non named queries this council allow it any time

If you are wanting to discuss a case but don’t think there is necessarily evidence of harm you do not have to share the practitioners name and we may decide there is no need for LADO involvement at all.
You may find it helpful to ask these questions in relation to the concern:

Managing Allegations | Leeds Safeguarding Children Partnership

In order to manage allegations against child care professionals, every Local Authority appoints a Local Authority Designated Officer (LADO).

www.leedsscp.org.uk

 

[Ruthbullock]

Why do I keep going back to the fact that other referral avenues were available to the doctors?
They are professionals and in court they testified that they had these suspicions from much earlier on and it was the trust blocking them, but I’m not sure they did. I think they had retrospective concerns as did the trust.
They don’t seem to present much evidence of action, and once the trust were alerted they seemed to move quite quickly. This is from reading the inquiry documents and is a complete turn around for me from following the trial where I believed the doctors weren’t listened to.

 

[mrC]

so there ethere perjures or accomplices after the fact doesn't look very good ethere way

 

[Ruthbullock]

so there ethere perjures or accomplices after the fact doesn't look very good ethere way

I wouldn’t go as far as perjury- more that they acted confident in their recollections, where others were more honest , a lot of time had passed and as was once said by a man we all know - recollections may vary

 

[Marantz4250b]

The prosecution led no expert evidence of the statistical probability of coincidence of Letby being on duty during all the deaths and collapses she was charged with.

They proved she was present at them all, full stop. Therefore statistical probability had no relevance to the case.

This is one of the ridiculous fallacies that just about everyone - the media included - constantly repeats about this case. It is implied time and time again that one of the main pieces of evidence against her was the "statistical" probability that she did it (or vice-versa) given how often she was present.

The prosecution never once made that assertion nor did they imply it.

It's the same as ...suspicions were raised after a rise in deaths was noticed... which implies it was after the fact - complete rubbish.

 

[Marantz4250b]

Why do I keep going back to the fact that other referral avenues were available to the doctors?
They are professionals and in court they testified that they had these suspicions from much earlier on and it was the trust blocking them, but I’m not sure they did. I think they had retrospective concerns as did the trust.
They don’t seem to present much evidence of action, and once the trust were alerted they seemed to move quite quickly. This is from reading the inquiry documents and is a complete turn around for me from following the trial where I believed the doctors weren’t listened to.

That simply isn't true. There was plenty of documented evidence that they raised their concerns well before the police investigation started.

You seem to be implying that these doctors are guilty of conspiracy to commit perjury.

 

[Ruthbullock]

That simply isn't true. There was plenty of documented evidence that they raised their concerns well before the police investigation started.

You seem to be implying that these doctors are guilty of conspiracy to commit perjury.

I would really appreciate you sharing what they did as I have read almost all the inquiry documents now as well as following the trial- they sent an email to the trust 27 June 2016, 6 July 2016 the unit was downgraded and in May 2017 they were asked to speak to the police (and send their evidence via email) after the trust reported LL to them- if you have documents to evidence other action prior to the email to the trust (which was acted on a couple of weeks later) please share as I realise that was what was suggested throughout the trial via the press- but we now have numerous official documents stating the opposite (all shared previously with comments relating to each one)
ETA- there is a lot of muttering and emails between the 7 doctors- that is not taking action, its workplace gossip- being used to imply they acted on their suspicions

 

[magikarpmagikarp]

I think there was a culmination of poor sanitation, poor note keeping, failures to want to know answers to deaths through post mortems for fear of it coming back on themselves, poor staffing ratios and people being overworked- and I wish this had all been looked into prior to the trial. If you could have removed any single one of those general failures it would have made for a more secure conviction.

Thanks for taking the time to reply. Do you think it's a case of both/and- that there were both unit/hospital failings AND a murderer who was facilitated by those failings, or do you believe that there was no murder and all the deaths were due to incompetence?

 

[WaneLyrical]

This is one of the ridiculous fallacies that just about everyone - the media included - constantly repeats about this case. It is implied time and time again that one of the main pieces of evidence against her was the "statistical" probability that she did it (or vice-versa) given how often she was present.

The prosecution never once made that assertion nor did they imply it.

It's the same as ...suspicions were raised after a rise in deaths was noticed... which implies it was after the fact - complete rubbish.

How do you disregard the statistics so easily? Nobody is saying the prosecution spent a day outlining statistical arguments (the ridiculous shift chart aside).

The whole argument comes down to: was it coincidence or wasn’t it. Either you believe there are too many coincidences that it’s simply not possible she’s not guilty, or you believe it’s a series of coincidences where things have been twisted to point the finger of deliberate harm by an individual. The medical evidence is evidently up for debate, so what’s left if not statistical arguments?

 

[May72031]

How do you disregard the statistics so easily? Nobody is saying the prosecution spent a day outlining statistical arguments (the ridiculous shift chart aside).

What was ridiculous about the shift chart?

 

[WaneLyrical]

What was ridiculous about the shift chart?

Its only purpose was to show Letby was present at each of the events she was being charged for (minus the one where it transpired she was not on shift). Which we didn’t really need a chart for.