Merged Concerns over baby killer ignored? / Nurse Lucy Letby killed babies in her care

angrysoba said:
Sorry, could you back up and explain what this is supposed to prove?

Are we now saying that there is a conspiracy going on to destroy evidence now thatDr. Brearey contacted her, as the new Medical Officer tothe case is crumbling apart?
Click to expand...

The Thirlwall Inquiry has been set up to establish the facts of how Letby was able to get away with so many murders and attempted murders. Nothing to do with ridiculous conspiracy theories, as propagated by lightweight columnists and interference from abroad. As per Gilby's testimony, Dr. Brearey contacted her to say a whole swathe of his emails to Ian Harvey had gone missing. This is factual.

It is to do with patient safeguarding and how to take whistleblowing concerns seriously, in future. Dr. Gilby says she, too, was threatened with a GMC referral. Do you disagree with the aims of the Thirlwall Inquiry? If so, why?
 
angrysoba said:
By the way, Philip Hammond has another update on the Letby trial on the Private Eye podcast, beginning around 33 minutes.

I wonder if those who were so eager to dismiss him and the expert who he spoke to, Mike Hall, will now listen without prejudice...

podcasts.apple.com

Mega MAGA

Podcast Episode · Page 94: The Private Eye Podcast · 25/02/2025 · 50m
podcasts.apple.com podcasts.apple.com
Click to expand...

Do think about it. Dr. Mike Hall was not called, nor any other witness other than the plumber and Letby herself. Do you really believe Ben Myers KC - one of the best defence counsels in the land - and Letby on up to £2m retainers, via legal aid, didn't scout their own neonatal pathologists, radiographers, cardiologists, haemotologists and endocrinologists? Why do you think they were not called to the witness box? Think hard.

As for Dr. Hall, he had a similar theory to Dr. Richard Taylor, non-UK-registered, that Baby O [IIRC] died because of Dr. Brearey's resuscitation attempts. He wasn't called. Why do you think this might be? Have a think and get back us as to your theory why all these eminent and available experts were not called.

Whilst you are pondering on that, perhaps then think about Bar Standards and a barrister's first duty to the court. (Clue: a barrister is not allowed to knowingly mislead a court.)

Then consider how come Mark McDonald is allowed to aver Letby as innocent when the courts have ruled otherwise? The only feasible explanation is that Letby's solicitor hasn't handed over client privilege (the bundles relating to the case), hence McDonald has no duty in that respect, as what the eye doesn't see, the heart doesn't grieve. For example, if he knew that Letby had confessed to any part of it, he would be professionally debarred from purveying the opposite. Think about why Myers had his hands tied.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
Do think about it. Dr. Mike Hall was not called, nor any other witness other than the plumber and Letby herself. Do you really believe Ben Myers KC - one of the best defence counsels in the land - and Letby on up to £2m retainers, via legal aid, didn't scout their own neonatal pathologists, radiographers, cardiologists, haemotologists and endocrinologists? Why do you think they were not called to the witness box? Think hard.

As for Dr. Hall, he had a similar theory to Dr. Richard Taylor, non-UK-registered, that Baby O [IIRC] died because of Dr. Brearey's resuscitation attempts. He wasn't called.
Why do you think this might be? Have a think and get back us as to your theory why all these eminent and available experts were not called.
Whilst you are pondering on that, perhaps then think about Bar Standards and a barrister's first duty to the court. (Clue: a barrister is not allowed to knowingly mislead a court.)

Then consider how come Mark McDonald is allowed to aver Letby as innocent when the courts have ruled otherwise? The only feasible explanation is that Letby's solicitor hasn't handed over client privilege (the bundles relating to the case), hence McDonald has no duty in that respect, as what the eye doesn't see, the heart doesn't grieve. For example, if he knew that Letby had confessed to any part of it, he would be professionally debarred from purveying the opposite. Think about why Myers had his hands tied.
Click to expand...
I don't know why they weren't called.

Don't keep us in suspense. You clearly know why. Fill us in.
 
Vixen said:
The Thirlwall Inquiry has been set up to establish the facts of how Letby was able to get away with so many murders and attempted murders. Nothing to do with ridiculous conspiracy theories, as propagated by lightweight columnists and interference from abroad.
As per Gilby's testimony, Dr. Brearey contacted her to say a whole swathe of his emails to Ian Harvey had gone missing. This is factual.
It is to do with patient safeguarding and how to take whistleblowing concerns seriously, in future. Dr. Gilby says she, too, was threatened with a GMC referral. Do you disagree with the aims of the Thirlwall Inquiry? If so, why?
Click to expand...
Right...

Except please note the phrasing...

Interestingly, Gilby claims Dr. Stephen Brearey's emails to Ian Harvey, Medical Director, CoCH, in which he claims to have brought up concerns have gone missing.
Click to expand...

Dr. Gilby says it was found as a fact at her Employment Tribunal that a whole load of her documents and emails had been deliberately destroyed, so she quite believes the same could have happened to Dr. Brearey's emails to Harvey.
Click to expand...

If this is the case, then there would appear to have been an active cover up by personnel with something to hide. The sheer fact that not only did they do absolutely nothing, but that they contributed to further baby deaths and harming. Yet, number one thought is to save one's own skin.
Click to expand...

This stuff is rather in the weeds, so could you tell us simply what this is supposed to mean in terms of the broader case?

Does it mean that they were warned there was a serial killer on the loose in the hospital, but the director had not believed her or had not answered the emails, and then had them scrubbed from the server so that even she and Dr Breary could not access them even though they had stored them?
 
angrysoba said:
I don't know why they weren't called.

Don't keep us in suspense. You clearly know why. Fill us in.
Click to expand...

No, I want you to think for yourself.

Consider the following scenario:

A pedestrian is mown down by a speeding car. A paramedic turns up and commences intense resuscitation for half an hour. Sadly the pedestrian dies.

The police arrest the driver of the car and he is charged with manslaughter by dangerous driving.

He pleads, 'Not guilty, M'Lud'. It goes to trial.

You are the defendant's appointed barrister.

The court appoints two or three medical experts to explain the nature of the deceased's injuries. The pathologist says cause of death is 'multiple injuries' owing to a strong impact.

So the prosecution has set out its case. Your turn. Will you (bearing in mind your first duty is to be honest with the court):

  1. Put a doctor you have accessed in the witness box to explain actually it was the paramedic who caused the death as he didn't do CPR properly.
  2. Advise your client to 'let the prosecution provide the proof'.
What option is the wisest course in your view, bearing in mind your professional reputation and professional duty no.1?

So, your client instructs you to put the alternative expert in the witness box. You now have two immediate options:

  1. You tell your client you can no longer represent him because you don't actually believe him.
  2. Go ahead.
So, if you picked no.1, you are allowed under court rules to still represent him but not put forward any evidence you know to be unsound. In other words, you let the proof of the case lie with the prosecution as there is still a good chance the jury will be on your client's side (as statistics show).

If you picked no. 2. OK, so your expert witness goes into the witness box. He sets out his expert opinion that the cause of death was caused by the paramedic, and what is more, there are not multiple injuries caused by a violent impact, the injuries were caused quite naturally and were not necessarily caused by your client.

Then comes the prosecution in cross examination. Here comes the killer questions: "Dr Expert Witness, do you agree this X-Ray [exhibit X] shows multiple fractured bones.?"

Defence Expert Medical Witness: Yes. I cannot lie.

Proescution Silk: Do you accept the ultimate cause of death was the defendant's dangerous driving?

DEM: Yes.

Silk: No more questions, m'Lud.

Now do you see why Ben Myers didn't call Dr. Michael Hall?
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
Now do you see why Ben Myers didn't call Dr. Michael Hall?
Click to expand...
If this is a roundabout way of you saying that you think the KC thought he knew better than Mike Hall how the babies died, then I don't know what to say.

If you think that the KC thought that Mike Hall had some crackpot theory that the jury wouldn't believe then, well... the KC might not have done his client much of a favour given that she ended up with 15 life sentences with no parole.

Otherwise these are just leading questions.

I remain of the opinion that I do not know why the KC did not call Mike Hall as a witness.

ETA: Okay, read your long-winded analogy again.

So, you think that even after Mike Hall had seen the medical records and decided that the babies had not been murdered but had died of natural causes, you think the prosecutor would have asked, "Come on, look at this. This is obvious signs of murder right?" and so Mike Hall would have said yes, it is murder.

Or perhaps the KC believed his client was guilty and that Mike Hall would too.

But all this does is go back to the idea that you seem to have that guilt and innocence does not exist independently of the court verdicts.

Is this seriously what you believe?

I have seen you make arguments before which seem to rely on legalistic processes but for most of us that is irrelevant. What is relevant is whether or not Letby actually murdered the babies, not what the court ruling is.

It is seriously weird to me if you think only the latter matters.
 
Last edited:
angrysoba said:
Right...

Except please note the phrasing...







This stuff is rather in the weeds, so could you tell us simply what this is supposed to mean in terms of the broader case?

Does it mean that they were warned there was a serial killer on the loose in the hospital, but the director had not believed her or had not answered the emails, and then had them scrubbed from the server so that even she and Dr Breary could not access them even though they had stored them?
Click to expand...

Let's look at the correct response first. Under the PDA 2014, 2022) Protected Disclosures Act, and Health & Safety Acts, any employee is allowed to bring to management's attention issues that represent a risk to the safety of persons or the environment and, in addition, it is unlawful to subject that whistleblower to any detriment.

So, when Dr. Brearey brought his issues re patient safety in the neonatal unit at CoCH, this should have been put on the various risk register/s, safeguarding officer's records and minuted to the executive level, who may not actually do ward rounds and are office bound.

This did not happen. Instead, immediate line manager Karen Rees took it as an affront and refused to make any record whatsoever. Brearey took it up with Eiriann Powell, next level up. Again, Powell refused to lodge any of his claims nor pass them upline. So Brearey went to Kelly, the official Safeguarding Officer (this is a neonatal ward, remember). By now Brearey and Jayaram, plus five other doctors are now demanding action. So, Kelly arranges a CQC visit but omits to tell the inspectors of the doctors specific complaints. So CQC does a non-specific inspection and reports all well and good. Next, in comes RCPCH, headed by Meena [iirc] Modi, who has had Dr. Brearey directly in touch with her. Again they are not told of the doctors' concerns; again a generic inspection. All hunky dory.

In the interim, Brearey and Jayaram give the management an ultimatum. The pair are threatened with being reported to GMC (note the unlawful detriment) by Tony Chambers. Jayaram by now is a nervous wreck at the thought of being referred to GMC.

Letby takes out a grievance because she could hear whispers of her being 'Nurse Death'. She and her colleagues are told by Kelly, Powell or Rees that she is being put on secondment in the risk office with no loss of pay or benefits. In fact, it is presented as a promotion and Letby is still sent off for sought-after training courses at other nearby hospitals (still in contact with neonates).

In the civil service at management entry level, you are put in various different departments as part of your training, so this secondment was not seen by Letby's colleagues as any kind of detriment at all. Letby even exchanged >700 Whatsapp messages between her, Rees and the Occupatiional Therapist bod, who also took :Letby's side unquestioningly.

Letby won her grievance, with the full active backing of the management plus Chambers, Gibbs and Harvey. Jayaram and Brearey were forced to apologise to not only Letby but also her father.

So, the governance faults at CoCH:

  • it failed to record the complaints of at least seven doctors.
  • It unlawfully caused those doctors a detriment by threatening to refer them to GMC instead.
  • It actively failed to inform either the CQC or the RCPCH of the doctor's concerns.
  • It failed to notify the nursing register, so Letby was still registered as a nurse even after arrest.
  • It put Letby in the risks office where Letby had access to confidential information about risks to patients.
  • It effectively promoted Letby instead of putting her on garden leave or in a neutral temporary position.
  • The higher executives after Letby's arrest, and the appointment of Dr. Gilby in place of Harvey seem to have panicked and wilfully destroyed any evidence of Brearey, et al's complaints, including Gilby's, who took the doctors' side.
This is what the Thirlwall Inquiry is leading up to. Possible corporate manslaughter or professional gross negligence manslaughter charges against those concerned in the active cover up.
 
Last edited:
angrysoba said:
If this is a roundabout way of you saying that you think the KC thought he knew better than Mike Hall how the babies died, then I don't know what to say.

If you think that the KC thought that Mike Hall had some crackpot theory that the jury wouldn't believe then, well... the KC might not have done his client much of a favour given that she ended up with 15 life sentences with no parole.

Otherwise these are just leading questions.

I remain of the opinion that I do not know why the KC did not call Mike Hall as a witness.

ETA: Okay, read your long-winded analogy again.

So, you think that even after Mike Hall had seen the medical records and decided that the babies had not been murdered but had died of natural causes, you think the prosecutor would have asked, "Come on, look at this. This is obvious signs of murder right?" and so Mike Hall would have said yes, it is murder.

Or perhaps the KC believed his client was guilty and that Mike Hall would too.

But all this does is go back to the idea that you seem to have that guilt and innocence does not exist independently of the court verdicts.

Is this seriously what you believe?

I have seen you make arguments before which seem to rely on legalistic processes but for most of us that is irrelevant. What is relevant is whether or not Letby actually murdered the babies, not what the court ruling is.

It is seriously weird to me if you think only the latter matters.
Click to expand...

Let's try again, specific to the Letby case. Bear in mind, Letby was given the best possible legal counsel (actually four barristers on her team) via legal aid. The court and the CPS are highly conscious that fairness of process and safeness of verdicts are of essence. Justice Goss was appointed as one of the most expert in the country, as was Johnson for the prosecution and Myers for the defence. These guys understand legal process standing on their heads. Of course Myers sought out medical experts. Not one was able to contradict the seven main court medical experts. Alternatively, and I believe this is what happened, Myers became aware of various incriminating issues re Letby and that is why his tactic was to 'let the proof of the case lie with the prosecution'. In other words, there was no defence for Letby that would not at the same time ruin his reputation as being dishonest or misleading. Myers couldn't risk having Dr. Hall admitting under oath that actually the other seven experts were factually correct and that it was irrelevant that he thought Dr. Brearey somehow failed in his resuscitation attempts as that did not actually change the crux of the matter of someone having wilfully harmed the baby in the first place to need emergency resuscitation.
 
Darat said:
And then the undercover police psychic appeared and said "she did it".
Click to expand...


It is a matter of fact that the said person did claim to be a psychic and he did find the body. In fact, he stood over it and guided the police helicopters and the team of tactical police officers to the exact spot, thanks to professional meteorologists and River Wyre experts knowing exactly scientifically when said body would turn up and where. So I was right about that, too!
 
I can't claim to have any real idea why it is that eminent and experienced advocates do bizarre things and fail to present glaringly obvious exculpatory material that should have cleared their client, but the fact is, this seems to be a factor in a surprisingly large number of miscarriages of justice.
 
So, Dr. Shoo Lee's claims at the recent press conference has now been compared to the original court transcripts. In summary, Dr Lee claims that Child A, whom he has re-labelled, Child 1, was passed on a syndrome from its mother which gave rise to thrombi, which causes tiny blood clots which can be missed at postmortem and could not have been an air embolism because such a venous (i.e., via the vein) injection as per, for example, via a catheter tube would always go to the lungs and any airbubble would be dispersed there. The court transcript shows that Dr. Kinsey, who is a haemotologist, categorically said neither of the twins, Childs A and B had their mother's syndrome passed on, and in addition, 99.5% of new born babies have a small slit in the PFO - a heart valve - via which air interchanges without going via the lungs, so Dr. Lees claim this is not possible, is also incorrect.

You can watch the comparison here on youtube (you are safe to skip straight to 10:00 as it is a repetition of what Dr. Lee says in the first ten minutes, put in writing).


What The Expert Panel Missed: Shoo Lee's Defence of Lucy Letby​

Summary: An investigation by a panel of 14 international experts into the cause of injury and death of the babies Lucy Letby is convicted of murdering or attempting to murder has claimed that there is “no medical evidence to support malfeasance” and that they were the result of “either natural causes or bad medical care.” In this video we explore what was omitted from the public during this press conference in relation to Lucy Letby's criminal trial.The transcripts utilized in the making of this video were legally purchased through the British court system and authorized for use in creating factual media content.
Click to expand...


Testimony of Dr. Kinsey for the Court at Letby's trial re whether Baby A /Child 1, had its mother's syndrome:

1740593180665.png



How the PFO in a newborn baby works:

1740593260782.png

And it was not just the presence of a rarely seen skin rash or the haemotologist's view as to whether there was any underlying condition or thrombosis (answer: 'No') there is the evidence of radiologist Professor Owen Arthurs, who took an X-Ray of the air bubbles.

1740593960685.png
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
Letby takes out a grievance because she could hear whispers of her being 'Nurse Death'. She and her colleagues are told by Kelly, Powell or Rees that she is being put on secondment in the risk office with no loss of pay or benefits. In fact, it is presented as a promotion and Letby is still sent off for sought-after training courses at other nearby hospitals (still in contact with neonates).

In the civil service at management entry level, you are put in various different departments as part of your training, so this secondment was not seen by Letby's colleagues as any kind of detriment at all. Letby even exchanged >700 Whatsapp messages between her, Rees and the Occupatiional Therapist bod, who also took :Letby's side unquestioningly.
Click to expand...

Letby was a nurse, not a civil service management trainee, so that kind of secondment is not normal. It happens for a reason, such as getting someone out of department for disciplinary reasons, breaches of T&Cs below disciplinary level but worrying enough to want someone out of a specific unit, pending investigation for disciplinary action, at other times as an agreed part of a personal development programme through KSF appraisal, for specific staffing reasons such as a temporary tranfer to sort out short staffing somewhere else (nurses have a contract with the trust which ends with a phrase like "and anything else we want you to do" , meaning you can be shifted somewhere else 'Cos Reasons).

Please don't equate NHS trust T&Cs and the rest with the civil service, as they are not at all the same.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
Let's try again, specific to the Letby case. Bear in mind, Letby was given the best possible legal counsel (actually four barristers on her team) via legal aid. The court and the CPS are highly conscious that fairness of process and safeness of verdicts are of essence. Justice Goss was appointed as one of the most expert in the country, as was Johnson for the prosecution and Myers for the defence. These guys understand legal process standing on their heads. Of course Myers sought out medical experts. Not one was able to contradict the seven main court medical experts. Alternatively, and I believe this is what happened, Myers became aware of various incriminating issues re Letby and that is why his tactic was to 'let the proof of the case lie with the prosecution'. In other words, there was no defence for Letby that would not at the same time ruin his reputation as being dishonest or misleading. Myers couldn't risk having Dr. Hall admitting under oath that actually the other seven experts were factually correct and that it was irrelevant that he thought Dr. Brearey somehow failed in his resuscitation attempts as that did not actually change the crux of the matter of someone having wilfully harmed the baby in the first place to need emergency resuscitation.
Click to expand...
So it is pure supposition.
 
Carrot Flower King said:
Letby was a nurse, not a civil service management trainee, so that kind of secondment is not normal. It happens for a reason, such as getting someone out of department for disciplinary reasons, breaches of T&Cs below disciplinary level but worrying enough to want someone out of a specific unit, pending investigation for disciplinary action, at other times as an agreed part of a personal development programme through KSF appraisal, for specific staffing reasons such as a temporary tranfer to sort out short staffing somewhere else (nurses have a contract with the trust which ends with a phrase like "and anything else we want you to do" , meaning you can be shifted somewhere else 'Cos Reasons).

Please don't equate NHS trust T&Cs and the rest with the civil service, as they are not at all the same.
Click to expand...


I take your point but 'secondment' was how Eiriann Powell spun it to other staff.

The court was told that in the weeks that followed Child Q's collapse, Ms Letby was taken off front-line duties and placed on a three-month "secondment" to the hospital's risk and patient safety office.

The jury heard she was also told that as part of a unit-wide review, she would be placed under "clinical supervision".
Eirian Powell, who was the neonatal manager, said in an email to all neonatal unit staff that the review and supervision was "not meant to be a blame or competency issue" but "a way forward to ensure our practice is safe".
In a message to a colleague, Ms Letby said she was "fuming" about being placed on secondment and commented that the email announcing the move "makes it sound like it's my choice". BBC News
Click to expand...



Secondment is is generally seen as positive. See here, for example: https://www.indeed.com/career-advice/career-development/what-is-secondment.

As for the difference between NHS and the civil service, of course they are not the same, However, when I worked at Brompton Heart & Lung Hospital, one of the high up - perhaps even the chief - executives had been on 'garden leave' for something like six years, which is how it was described - fully paid, going through some kind of legal battle. (Details pertaining to before my time there.)
 
angrysoba said:
So it is pure supposition.
Click to expand...

We could say it's all supposition. If I said it is supposition Ian Huntley killed Jessica and Holly, I am sure you would shrug your shoulders and point to his fair trial. Why would it matter if someone is 'not convinced'?
 
Vixen said:
We could say it's all supposition. If I said it is supposition Ian Huntley killed Jessica and Holly, I am sure you would shrug your shoulders and point to his fair trial. Why would it matter if someone is 'not convinced'?
Click to expand...
This is just question-begging again.

We are looking at whether or not the conviction was sound.
Your answer is to point out that she was convicted.

When we see that some expert neonatalogists were not convinced of her culpability, you point out that the barrister wasn't convinced his testimony would persuade the jury. OR you surmise that the expert witness would either have to choose between agreeing it was murder or perjuring himself.

But again, those are things that are being disputed.
 
angrysoba said:
This is just question-begging again.

We are looking at whether or not the conviction was sound.
Your answer is to point out that she was convicted.

When we see that some expert neonatalogists were not convinced of her culpability, you point out that the barrister wasn't convinced his testimony would persuade the jury. OR you surmise that the expert witness would either have to choose between agreeing it was murder or perjuring himself.

But again, those are things that are being disputed.
Click to expand...

You need to particularise why it is being disputed. Simply saying you have a funny feeling doesn't cut the mustard. I have already demonstrated that Dr. Shoo Lee's claims about Baby A are misconceived and factually incorrect. For example, he claims twins Baby A and B inherited or had passed on a syndrome that gives rise to blood clots. One of UK's leading specialist haemotologist testified in the witness box and was cross examined that (a) neither baby had the condition and (b) nor did they have any infection. A completely separate specialist in radiology, again one of the UK's leading medics confirmed the X-Ray for Baby A showed unexpected air bubbles all along its spine, which he had never in his profession seen before. Taken together with the circumstantial evidence of Letby having been by Baby A's cot immediately before the baby's collapse and as soon as the mother had popped out to collect her kids from school, with no forewarning symptoms.

The jury decided this evidence was compelling.


What do you dispute?
 
Good grief, this is making the shroud thread seem a paragon of reasoned debate.
 
Manslaughter probe at Letby hospital expanded

A police investigation at the hospital where nurse Lucy Letby murdered seven babies and attempted to kill seven others has been expanded to consider whether there was evidence of gross negligence manslaughter.

Cheshire Police said it opened a corporate manslaughter investigation at the Countess of Chester Hospital in October 2023.

Det Supt Paul Hughes said: "As our enquiries have continued, the scope of the investigation has now widened to also include gross negligence manslaughter."

An undisclosed number of suspects have been notified by the force, he added, before stressing that "no arrests or charges have yet been made".

www.bbc.co.uk

Lucy Letby: Manslaughter probe at Countess of Chester Hospital widened

Cheshire Police expands its investigation into what happened at the Countess of Chester Hospital.
www.bbc.co.uk www.bbc.co.uk
 
The persons being investigated are likely to be IMV Ian Harvey, Tony Chambers and the Gibbs guy. This is because since the news of the arrest, there has been a news blackout on these three and they appeared at Thirlwall Inquiry under legal caution. The Cheshire Police say investigation into this issue was opened in October 2023. Before then, there were all kinds of lurid headlines in the tabloids, with Harvey claimed to have been heard bragging to the effect, 'they won't catch me as I am out of here, off to France and with my million pound NHS pension', alleged to have been a golf buddy of Letby's father, who in turn, according to Chambers' testimony to Thirlwall recently claimed Mr. Letby, 'held a gun to my head' [figuratively, I am sure] plus Chambers was seen to have met up with Letby socially. I do doubt anything much will come of it, probably get a slap on the wrist and a desultory sentence, if found guilty. Rees and Modi have been touting their rather manipulative views of Letby's 'innocence' to the press - covering their own backs - so it'd be nice to see their comeuppance, although in Rees' case, I suspect stupidity plays a bigger part than criminality.

The ridiculous Dr. Phil Hammond has been tweeting that it is the consultants who are under investigation and that this somehow will cancel out Letby's convictions. What a twit.
 
Last edited:
Andy_Ross said:
Manslaughter probe at Letby hospital expanded

A police investigation at the hospital where nurse Lucy Letby murdered seven babies and attempted to kill seven others has been expanded to consider whether there was evidence of gross negligence manslaughter.

Cheshire Police said it opened a corporate manslaughter investigation at the Countess of Chester Hospital in October 2023.

Det Supt Paul Hughes said: "As our enquiries have continued, the scope of the investigation has now widened to also include gross negligence manslaughter."

An undisclosed number of suspects have been notified by the force, he added, before stressing that "no arrests or charges have yet been made".

www.bbc.co.uk

Lucy Letby: Manslaughter probe at Countess of Chester Hospital widened

Cheshire Police expands its investigation into what happened at the Countess of Chester Hospital.
www.bbc.co.uk www.bbc.co.uk
Click to expand...

That's extremely interesting. It could be exactly as Vixen claims Phil Hammond is saying.
 
Vixen said:
Phil Hammond thinks child murder is a comic strip.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1900314714774593790
Click to expand...

I don't see what comic strips have to do with this.

The following tweet says that it's hospital administrators who are being investigated, presumably for not noticing that Letby was doing something I suspect she wasn't actually doing. So it's situation as you were, it seems.
 
Rolfe said:
I don't see what comic strips have to do with this.

The following tweet says that it's hospital administrators who are being investigated, presumably for not noticing that Letby was doing something I suspect she wasn't actually doing. So it's situation as you were, it seems.
Click to expand...

The doctors whistle blew and under the Safeguarding guidelines it should have been registered and also as a risk. Insted they were threatened with GMC so it is clear the executives were well aware of the issue, especially as Brearey carried out a thematic review and went to see people face to face, as did Jayaram. Under the PDA it would have been illegal for the executives to have threatened the doctors with detriment. So it is not quite true that nobody noticed what Letby was up to (proven in a criminal court of law).
 
McDonald, Letby advocate, is whinging that Cheshire Police have put out that statement on the eve of the Thirlwall final submissions, due to be heard 17 Mar. Thirlwall has called for legal submissions from the lawyers as to whether the Inquiry should be paused as a result of McDonald's claim the CCRC are now looking into it. Seems very unlikely to me that'll be paused as the Inquiry is to do with hospital management and what went wrong, not Letby's convictions and appeals. McDonald is trying to frame it as police suppression because of their timing.
 
Vixen said:
The doctors whistle blew and under the Safeguarding guidelines it should have been registered and also as a risk. Insted they were threatened with GMC so it is clear the executives were well aware of the issue, especially as Brearey carried out a thematic review and went to see people face to face, as did Jayaram. Under the PDA it would have been illegal for the executives to have threatened the doctors with detriment. So it is not quite true that nobody noticed what Letby was up to (proven in a criminal court of law).
Click to expand...

Comic strips?
 
I suspect it's all about investigating people for  not dobbing her in. They have the narrative that she is a serial killer and they're not going to entertain anything that might contradict that.

It's a bit like the announcements that they were re-opening the investigation into the Lockerbie bombing. Nothing to do with the mounting evidence that the original investigation was up a gum tree. It was all about hunting down Megrahi's alleged "accomplices" to shore up the original narrative in which he did something that didn't happen.
 
www.bbc.co.uk

Lucy Letby: Former hospital bosses call for Thirlwall Inquiry to be suspended

The inquiry's chair says she has had similar requests from Letby's legal team and Tory MP David Davis.
www.bbc.co.uk

Lawyers for former bosses of the hospital where killer nurse Lucy Letby murdered babies have asked for the public inquiry into the events surrounding her crimes to be suspended.

Lady Justice Thirlwall said that lawyers for the former hospital executives - chief executive Tony Chambers, medical director Ian Harvey, director of nursing Alison Kelly and HR director Sue Hodkinson - had also written to the secretary of state for health to seek a suspension of the inquiry.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom