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

[May72031]

I’m guessing they were withheld from the public as they were being used in an ongoing police investigation. The downside of these documents being leaked is that it will have a negative impact on the future possibility of a fair investigation and destroy any chances of charging someone.

You mean Lucy Letby?

 

[May72031]

guilty verdicts + 2 failed appeals + no new evidence /a regurgitation of old evidence the juries and the appeal court rejected + biased and ill-informed individuals ignoring the trial records and totality of the evidence = Letby and management bad. Letby staying in prison.

Yeah but, but, but, there has been "another bombshell" apparently, which means Letby is to be released any second now... Apparently. Just as any day now, it will be proved that Elvis is still alive.

 

[WaneLyrical]

So, after a huge spike in deaths, the management would bear no responsibility? That's absurd.

This is the thing with Letbyists - they HAVE TO blame everybody else except the serial killer, and the management, or else their conspiracy theories make no sense whatsoever.

What are you talking about? If the babies deteriorated because the unit was on its backside, it’s systemic failure, by everyone. The years of losing experience and institutional memory, until it gets to a point where consultants are rounding twice a week and a nurse 3 years qualified is somehow considered senior.

<modsnip>

 

[May72031]

What are you talking about? If the babies deteriorated because the unit was on its backside, it’s systemic failure, by everyone. The years of losing experience and institutional memory, until it gets to a point where consultants are rounding twice a week and a nurse 3 years qualified is somehow considered senior.

<modsnip>

There is no evidence the "babies deteriorated because the unit was on its backside".

And if it was, that would be the fault of the management, not the doctors.

So again - WHY are Letbyists spitting venom at the doctors, and not the management (who would be responsible if babies were deteriorating because of a failing unit)?

I know the answer - it is because the doctors implicated and blew the whistle on their saviour - Lucy Letby.

 

[Ruthbullock]

Mr Myers says at this stage, 'you've got her'?

Dr Jayaram says at the moment he walked in, Child K was desaturating, and that could be due to a dislodged tube, or a tube blockage. Up to that point, she had been stable, and the alarms had not sounded, and no-one had called for help.

He said at the time, the important thing was to deal with the baby.

BM: "You were presented with the fact the tube had been dislodged deliberately?"

Dr Jayaram: "That was one of the possibilities..."

Dr Jayaram: "I was extremely uncomfortable... I didn't see the tube being dislodged."
2:53pm
Mr Myers says it is known Dr Jayaram was on the telephone at 3.41am to the transport team, as shown by a transport team record.

Mr Myers says it is also known Joanne Williams returns to the neonatal unit at 3.47am.

Recap: Lucy Letby trial, Wednesday, June 19 - prosecution continues case

The retrial of Lucy Letby, who stands accused of attempting to murder baby girl Child K, continues at Manchester Crown Court today (Wednesday, June…

www.chesterstandard.co.uk

MAY 4, 2017, 13.23 Memo from Dr Jayaram to consultants at Countess of Chester
Hospital, referencing Baby K.
'At time of deterioration... Letby at incubator and called Dr Jayaram to inform of low saturations

Bombshell email that could free Lucy Letby

SPECIAL REPORT: The memo, revealed yesterday, is a significant boost to the nurse's legal fight to overturn her convictions.

www.dailymail.co.uk

A link to Dr J’s testimony- he does get grilled in the inquiry over his lack of action with regards Child K when he later stated this was when he first realised she was harming babies (around page 50)

https://thirlwall.public-inquiry.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/Thirlwall-Inquiry-13-November-2024.pdf

 

[Ruthbullock]

As I said before: it is revealing which people seem to want to spit venom at the doctors who tried to raise concerns about Letby, rather than the management who protected by Letby, or indeed, the convicted serial killer Letby herself.

Have you read Dr J’s testimony about how little action he took that was actually part of his role (scroll around page 50), where he is asked at every stage why he didn’t do what he was supposed to do and just relied on Dr Breaery reporting it. He even attended an interview with the CQC-later the same day he had seen Lucy with child K and failed to mention any concerns or the thematic review they were doing. Is there actually any evidence he did anything other than have a coffee room chat and send a few emails to Dr Breaery? Remember he was employed as the clinical director of children’s services at this time.

https://thirlwall.public-inquiry.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/Thirlwall-Inquiry-13-November-2024.pdf

 

[Ruthbullock]

You mean Lucy Letby?

It’s unlikely this document that has been leaked would have any impact on investigations into Lucy, some of them well could though.
In the context of the leaking of the email - I was talking about the gross negligence and corporate manslaughter investigations, not Lucy

 

[May72031]

It’s unlikely this document that has been leaked would have any impact on investigations into Lucy, some of them well could though.
In the context of the leaking of the email - I was talking about the gross negligence and corporate manslaughter investigations, not Lucy

So - members of the management, then.

 

[WaneLyrical]

<modsnip: Quoted post was removed> .. I’m not alleging anyone was consciously trying to collude or stitch someone one. That would be ridiculous. I’m talking about their unconscious bias, they are interested parties in this.

And yes I think Chester police relied way too heavily on the consultants pulling together a dossier to ‘pique’ their interest. The police, in my mind, should have done what police do, investigate. Not send the consultants away to dig through things and further back up their worries.

I think the consultants got it in their heads that this was deliberate harm, and it was a runaway train. Add in Evans who says he spotted foul play in 10 minutes and offered himself to the police. And here we are, a conviction where more and more people are coming forward saying it’s not safe. I don’t know if she’s guilty or not, only she does. But this case is ludicrous.

 

[Tortoise]

Have you read Dr J’s testimony about how little action he took that was actually part of his role (scroll around page 50), where he is asked at every stage why he didn’t do what he was supposed to do and just relied on Dr Breaery reporting it. He even attended an interview with the CQC-later the same day he had seen Lucy with child K and failed to mention any concerns or the thematic review they were doing. Is there actually any evidence he did anything other than have a coffee room chat and send a few emails to Dr Breaery? Remember he was employed as the clinical director of children’s services at this time.

https://thirlwall.public-inquiry.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/Thirlwall-Inquiry-13-November-2024.pdf

(8) The route by which the paediatricians raised their concerns

255 CoCH submits that in the extraordinary circumstances of 2015/16, it was appropriate for the paediatricians to escalate their concerns direct to those at the highest levels of the Trust outside of the established governance systems.

256 The concerns they were raising from February 2016 onwards were of the upmost seriousness. Far from being inappropriate, it was if anything entirely appropriate that they were escalated directly to those at the top of the organisation. Doing so was the clearest and quickest way to highlight the concern.

https://thirlwall.public-inquiry.uk...ospital-NHS-Foundation-Trust-4-March-2025.pdf

another extract:

(12) CoCH’s engagement and transparency with the CQC

269 CoCH accepts that there was a failure to be fully open and transparent with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) prior to and after the inspection undertaken in February 2016.

270 First, it is clear that by the time of the inspection in February 2016 and their meetings with the CQC as part of it, both Alison Kelly and Ian Harvey were aware of the increase in mortality on the NNU since the previous June. Whilst Mr Harvey appears to accept this [INQ0107653 §121], Ms Kelly’s evidence to the contrary simply cannot stand [Kelly/week11/25Nov/74/4]. That remains the case regardless of whether Ms Kelly had actually read the thematic review when it was forwarded to her by Mr Harvey in the context of the CQC’s visit [Kelly/week11/25Nov/72/19 and 75/6].

271 Second, the Trust accepts that it should have provided the thematic review to the CQC prior to the commencement of the inspection. That proposition appears to have been tacitly accepted by Ian Harvey in his oral evidence [Harvey/week11/28Nov/105/8, 29Nov/221/1]. Whilst Dr Brigham’s review may have been provided to the CQC, there is no evidence before the Inquiry that the thematic review was indeed disclosed at this time. Given the limited inspection records available, CoCH does not comment on what information may have been forthcoming during interviews between its staff and the CQC inspection team nor whether the questions asked in those interviews should have resulted in the issue of increased neonatal mortality being discussed.

272 Third, there were further failures to update the CQC as to concerns in the spring of 2016. Obvious opportunities to do so include:

(i) the dissemination of the final version of the thematic review on 2 March 2016; and

(ii) following the meeting between Ian Harvey, Alison Kelly, Dr Brearey, EirianPowell and Anne Murphy on 11 May 2016 at which concerns about Letby were raised.

273 Fourth, when the CQC was ultimately informed of the increase in neonatal mortality in June 2016, key information was still omitted. Ann Ford does not appear to have been given any details of the nature of the paediatrician’s concerns or that it was those concerns which had precipitated the Trust’s extensive actions in June/July 2016. Alison Kelly’s otherwise detailed email to Ms Ford dated 30 June 2016 is remarkably silent on that point [INQ0017411]. Further, insofar as her email implied that the thematic review had been shared with the CQC as part of the inspection datapack when it had not, that email was misleading [Kelly/week11/25Nov/89/8]. Ms Kelly’s duty was to keep the CQC, one of the Trust’s principal regulators, properly informed.

274 Fifth, there was then an ongoing failure to update the CQC as to concerns about Letby, and the need for both Dr Hawdon and Dr McPartland’s investigations in light of the findings of the RCPCH review. The update provided by executives during the CQC engagement meeting of 17 February 2017 was, if the note of the meeting is accurate, woefully deficient INQ0014405_0001].

275 A separate issue arises as to the engagement between CoCH’s paediatric and nursing staff and the CQC’s inspection team. CoCH makes the following submissions in that regard:

(a) CoCH accepts it is likely that Dr ZA did not, in 2016, raise concerns with the CQC about patient safety issues given she was away from work at the time of the inspection [ZA/week5/7Oct/47/15];

(b) the evidence suggests that the issue of neonatal mortality did not arise in the course of interviews held with paediatricians and nurses by the CQC’s inspectors during the February 2016 inspection. On any analysis, the evidence is inconsistent as to whether questions which would have elicited their concerns would have been asked by the CQC’s inspection team [Cain/week9/14Nov/62/4-65/3, Odeka/week9/14Nov/101/4, Potter/week9/14Nov/130/13-130/24]. That position is perhaps unsurprising given that the purpose of the inspection appears to have been to assess the Trust’s processes for monitoring and investigating incidents, rather than to interrogate the details of those incidents [Cain/week9/14Nov/61/21,Odeka/week9/14Nov/100/20, 101/4, 103/16, 106/25]. Whether that approach is correct is something other Core Participants are better placed to comment on than CoCH;

(c) Dr Brearey explained in evidence that he was conflicted at the time of the meeting with the CQC, having only recently escalated his concerns to the Executive Team [Brearey/week10/19Nov/104/14]. That hesitancy is, in CoCH’s submission, understandable, and should be seen in the context of his understanding that a meeting to discuss how to proceed in light of the thematic review was soon to be arranged with Ian Harvey;

(d) further, CoCH submits that bearing in mind Mr Harvey’s request for a copy of the thematic review, Dr Brearey was entitled to rely on the Trust to share it (and any other relevant data or documents) with the CQC inspection team. Put simply, if CQC inspections are to be conducted in a practical and efficient manner, it cannot be that every individual doctor or nurse is required to separately satisfy themselves that their Trust has fulfilled its obligations to the CQC as part of the inspection. In CoCH’s view, staff are entitled to expect that their Trust will have provided the inspection team with all necessary documentation.

 

[Ruthbullock]

So - members of the management, then.

Yes including middle management- that would be Dr Breaery and Dr Jayaram as well as a few others in the group of 7 at that level. If you really want to push your argument that it had nothing to do with the people reporting it, and was only down to senior management- you need to find some evidence. The senior managers were not unit based, they acted on the information they were given- which at this point seems to lack conviction, alongside evidence. They shouldn’t need concrete evidence, but why would you not fill in a DATIX every time, report as a SUDIC, why would you not refer for a post mortems every time. Why would you not bother to follow your own safe guarding procedures, why would you just gather as a group informally over and over again and appoint one spokesperson, instead of highlighting a problem through multiple avenues from multiple people?

 

[Tortoise]

<modsnip: Quoted post was removed> .. I’m not alleging anyone was consciously trying to collude or stitch someone one. That would be ridiculous. I’m talking about their unconscious bias, they are interested parties in this.

And yes I think Chester police relied way too heavily on the consultants pulling together a dossier to ‘pique’ their interest. The police, in my mind, should have done what police do, investigate. Not send the consultants away to dig through things and further back up their worries.

I think the consultants got it in their heads that this was deliberate harm, and it was a runaway train. Add in Evans who says he spotted foul play in 10 minutes and offered himself to the police. And here we are, a conviction where more and more people are coming forward saying it’s not safe. I don’t know if she’s guilty or not, only she does. But this case is ludicrous.

The consultants were the ones with concerns and they were the ones who had to explain those concerns so that police knew whether an investigation was warranted initially.

How were police supposed to assess whether an investigation was required? Were the consultants supposed to hide their valid suspicions?

There is no evidence whatsoever that the consultants had anything to do with the police investigation beyond giving witness interviews and statements, as all the doctors and nurses did.

If you'd read the minutes of the initial meeting between police and the consultants you would know that it was not at all the case you have described. The consultants were concerned for the safety of their patients.

You continue to criticise Dr Evans, a career paediatrician, expert witness, for spotting that a crushed liver, the like of which only happens in serious road accidents, shouldn't have happened on a neonatal unit. That's what is ludicrous, IMO. And so is anyone bringing up the fact over and over again that he was once criticised by another judge. The jury knew about it and the court of appeal found he was more than suitably qualified and experienced in his field, to act as an expert.

 

[Ruthbullock]

IMO Dr J in his own effort to protect his career has caused multiple problems in this case- he sat right in the middle and never attempted to flag the dangers because he was cowardly. Lucy Letby is guilty- I was right I told Dr Breaery, Lucy Letby wasn’t guilty- I was right, I never reported her. Whether you are convinced Lucy is guilty, believe there isn’t enough evidence, or believe she is innocent- it doesn’t matter, his own actions make him questionable over his reliability- so to not believe he is to some degree at fault is bizarre. Whichever opinion you hold- he is not helping your case and my biggest fear is he will cause it all to collapse and the truth will never really be known (and I am not that invested in Lucy that it’s even about her being innocent or not anymore, it’s about the parents actually knowing the full truth of what was happening to their children)

 

[Sillybilly]

Hey folks,

It's fine to disagree but if you can't post without snark, and with total respect toward fellow members, don't post !!

Members who continue to disrespect others will be removed from this discussion.

 

[Parker Knoll]

Thank you.

 

[marynnu]

What are you talking about? If the babies deteriorated because the unit was on its backside, it’s systemic failure, by everyone. The years of losing experience and institutional memory, until it gets to a point where consultants are rounding twice a week and a nurse 3 years qualified is somehow considered senior.

<modsnip>

What nurse are you talking about? Letby? She wasn't considered senior in 2015, she had only just done her specialist course & was a Band 5. Babies don't just deteriorate because of staffing or skill mix, or twice weekly consultant rounds. Not that either were a factor here, shift by shift CoC was pretty good by NNU standards.

 

[mrC]

and sewage on the ward

 

[WaneLyrical]

What nurse are you talking about? Letby? She wasn't considered senior in 2015, she had only just done her specialist course & was a Band 5. Babies don't just deteriorate because of staffing or skill mix, or twice weekly consultant rounds. Not that either were a factor here, shift by shift CoC was pretty good by NNU standards.

Senior was the wrong word, she was seen as being experienced though (eg the time nurses phoned her for help starting an infusion). For a nurse of 3 years to be the one being phoned, honestly it blows my mind. Where were all the old timers? The ones who pass their knowledge onto the next generation?

Can I ask you please Mary, on the Baby A situation, where Lee etc is alleging a potential clot in the long line because of antibodies passed from the mother’s anti phospholipid syndrome. Is heightened clotting risk something that would be known by nurses once the baby is admitted, or would it be expected to be flagged to nurses? Would it still be normal to leave the line in for a few hours without flushing? Or would extra care be taken? I’m aware of Lee’s probable bias here, and just trying to get a feel for whether what he’s alleged is reasonable or not.

 

[marynnu]

Senior was the wrong word, she was seen as being experienced though (eg the time nurses phoned her for help starting an infusion). For a nurse of 3 years to be the one being phoned, honestly it blows my mind. Where were all the old timers? The ones who pass their knowledge onto the next generation?

Can I ask you please Mary, on the Baby A situation, where Lee etc is alleging a potential clot in the long line because of antibodies passed from the mother’s anti phospholipid syndrome. Is heightened clotting risk something that would be known by nurses once the baby is admitted, or would it be expected to be flagged to nurses? Would it still be normal to leave the line in for a few hours without flushing? Or would extra care be taken? I’m aware of Lee’s probable bias here, and just trying to get a feel for whether what he’s alleged is reasonable or not.

The telephone call was about sonething they rarely did. They called her as she had given this particular infusion earlier, so presumably had been given instructions about how to do so.
Re. the clotting, as I understand it Baby A did not inherit Mom's condition. Generally speaking nurses would know about significant conditions & risks with any baby.ng
The standard pricedure is to flush any line regularly if there is no infusion in situ.

 

[Ruthbullock]

What nurse are you talking about? Letby? She wasn't considered senior in 2015, she had only just done her specialist course & was a Band 5. Babies don't just deteriorate because of staffing or skill mix, or twice weekly consultant rounds. Not that either were a factor here, shift by shift CoC was pretty good by NNU standards.

But the CQC still to this day rate it as requires improvement, as they also did in 2018, 2022 and 2023 where they inspected the trust and had specific inspections on the maternity and neonatal areas included in the reports and they now only have 13 beds for babies born at 32 weeks and above.
If you want the highlights of the nursing levels, scroll to the highlighted line on the bottom of page 12- but I would recommend reading the whole document- but they certainly aren’t arguing they are comparable.

https://thirlwall.public-inquiry.uk/wp-content/uploads/thirlwall-evidence/INQ0003829.pdf