| View previous topic :: View next topic |
Wile E. Coyote
In: Arizona
|
|
 |
|
| At Dr Brearey’s request, Letby was removed from clinical duties the following month. |
Keep in mind that Letby was told all staff were being removed one by one to retake competencies (not because they were all serial killers but because of the poor stats), she agreed only to find that the other staff were not. Realising, after she had gone, that something was afoot she initiated a grievance against the Trust, asking why this had occurred and if there was any information that she had done something wrong which would prevent her coming back. She won this grievance and the consultants were told to apologise.
She then told her nursing colleagues that she was coming back to the ward, but was arrested before this occurred. The police had in the interim spoken to the consultants.
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
It does occur to me that these doctors are not just in line for some professional criticism, not just liable to be struck off, but actually facing long spells in prison for willfully--in the legal sense--causing somebody to be serving a long spell in prison.
Of course none of this will come to pass. The professions not only protect their own, they protect each other's professions. Still, no harm in taking out an Interpol arrest warrant. It'll complicate their foreign holidays if nothing else.
It also occurs to me that Lucy Letby would have been executed by this time, if it had been another time.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wile E. Coyote
In: Arizona
|
|
|
|
| It does occur to me that these doctors are not just in line for some professional criticism, not just liable to be struck off, but actually facing long spells in prison for willfully--in the legal sense--causing somebody to be serving a long spell in prison. |
I think it is more likely that a consultant might eventually face possible prosecution for covering up for Letby.
The problem is that as the police investigate more, on the presumption of guilt (she has been convicted), but are now switching to those that covered this up, they could find anomalies, ie incidents when the consultants who have been helping them, appear to have covered up Lucy's crimes.
So for example an email by one consultant to his colleagues (which is now in the possession of the police) following the death of a neo- natal is that Letby raised the alarm and the consultant intervened, yet by the time of the trial, and given under oath, this had turned into Letby had not raised the alarm.......
This could easily lead to the possible prosection of a consultant, as it will appear to the police that the consultant either wittingly or unwittingly has changed their story and by doing so has enabled Letby (a convicted serial killer) to escape their earlier prosecution.
The consultants should be considered innocent until proven guilty so this might not be a problem, but it's difficult to see that the Police would not present this to the CPS as a possible crime, say gross negligence manslaughter on the part of the consultant, as it allowed Letby (and the police must continue to believe she is guilty) to carry on, and to kill again.
If only the consultant had done his job and correctly reported Letby's actions at the time, rather than fabricating the bit about her raising the alarm, this could have stopped Letby earlier (e.g. he could have reported she did not raise the alarm, and then she would have been suspended pending a full investigation by the Trust and the police most likely called) will likely be their view?
What legal defence would the consultant be able to put forward?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
| I think it is more likely that a consultant might eventually face possible prosecution for covering up for Letby. |
Surely not. How many cans of worms can one state apparat open?
| Wiley wrote: | | So for example an email by one consultant to his colleagues (which is in the possession of the police) following the death of a neo- natal is that Letby raised the alarm and the consultant intervened, yet by the time of the trial, and given under oath, this had turned into Letby had not raised the alarm....... |
Yes, this was the chief Panorama smoking gun during the pro-Letby section of the programme. Not just the consultant but the hospital administrators, the prosecutory authorities and the appeal bodies should be walking the plank on this shocker. But won't even get a written warning.
| This could easily lead to the possible prosecution of a consultant, as it will appear to the police that the consultant either wittingly or unwittingly has changed their story and by doing so has enabled Letby (a convicted serial killer) to escape their earlier prosecution. |
You are assuming the police are main actors in this drama. They never were. They were set in train, they were led by the nose, they did their duty as they saw it, but all the big decisions were in the hands of others. The Thin Blue Line want out of this one and to stay out.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wile E. Coyote
In: Arizona
|
|
|
|
The police are clever enough to know that they don't want to end up taking the blame for any miscarriage of justice.
NB It was the police that have disclosed (better late than never!) the consultant's email to Letby's new defence team, and the consultant, who was very vocal at first, is now declining all press requests to clarify.
Innocent until proven guilty is of course the way to go, but as you say media folks will not want to wait and leave this alone when they can keep the frenzy going.
The media is so fickle, one moment you are a paraded hero, the next moment you are declining to comment on the basis of legal advice, or are forced to shell out for highly paid consultants to restore your reputation, or at least try to get over your side of the story.
What total bastards.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wile E. Coyote
In: Arizona
|
|
|
|
One part of the story not well known is the consultant who was granted anonymity when testifying against Letby.
Whether they will be able to keep this anonymity going forward during further trials of managers will be interesting.
I suggest that the defence will want to call them, and will contest this?
You would surely think so.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
| Wiley wrote: | | The police are clever enough to know that they don't want to end up taking the blame for any miscarriage of justice. |
I wonder if they have reflected on why they did this time. It is clearly different from say the Birmingham Six or the Rillington Place One. Which were crimes for all to see, they had no choice. Are they clever enough to spend as much manpower on discovering whether there is a crime as they do in finding out whodunnit?
| NB It was the police that have disclosed (better late than never!) the consultant's email to Letby's new defence team, and the consultant, who was very vocal at first, is now declining all press requests to clarify. |
It would be interesting to follow the provenance of this (as well as the amended report you mentioned before). 'Disclosure' usually refers to what the prosecution hands over to the defence (officially, everything). This sounds more like the police disclosing evidence to the defence (unheard of?).
| One part of the story not well known is the consultant who was granted anonymity when testifying against Letby. |
This is pretty unusual. Can you provide more details?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wile E. Coyote
In: Arizona
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wile E. Coyote
In: Arizona
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
| Wiley wrote: | | You might want to take a look at this on Consultant B. |
Stunning. There might not have been a completely different serial killer working at the Countess of Chester but there might have been a completely different serial manslaughterer.
A whole new direction has opened up. For me, anyway. I can't tell how widespread these suspicions are but if John Sweeney is on the case it can only get wider.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wile E. Coyote
In: Arizona
|
|
|
|
| BBC wrote: | | A corporate manslaughter investigation has been opened into failings that led to hundreds of babies dying or being injured at maternity units in Nottingham. |
This is appalling
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/clyvg0vlkk0o
| BBC wrote: |
The trust is at the centre of the largest maternity inquiry in the history of the NHS, with about 2,500 cases of neonatal deaths, stillbirths and harm to mothers and babies being examined by independent midwife Donna Ockenden.
|
The Police "Operation Perth" are involved. It appears staff might have tried to cover things up.
Parents have appealed for NHS staff to come forward after a police investigation found a file containing maternity data was "most likely" intentionally deleted.
Police confirmed on Tuesday an inquiry into the temporarily lost data - which was later recovered - at Nottingham University Hospitals (NUH) NHS Trust was likely to be the "action of an individual".
Police could not determine who was behind the data deletion but Sarah and Jack Hawkins, whose daughter was stillborn in 2016 after staff failings, have called on the person responsible to explain why they did it.
NUH chief executive Anthony May said he was considering options as to "further examine what happened".
Families were told in a letter from Deputy Chief Constable Rob Griffin, seen by the BBC, that the deletion of the file - which contained details of hundreds of maternity cases - was "most likely to have been done intentionally/maliciously rather than accidentally". |
This is a massive scandal, the Trust has already been fined £1.6m for "avoidable failings" connected to the deaths of three babies in 2021.
One is tempted to compare with what happened at Chester, where a very different explanation for neonatal deaths has been put forward.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
As I have said before, this is all evidence of a complete system breakdown. It is not money, it is structural. The NHS is just too big. When the barrel is rotten, the apples have to be bad apples just to get the job done.
What's the betting that, when the person who deleted the files is unmasked. they will be charged with 'computer hacking' and fined £500? After all, it is better that babies have somewhere to be born than nowhere at all.
PS Fining a publicly-funded hospital trust £1.6 million when it is drowning in debt doesn't seem to me a terribly good idea.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wile E. Coyote
In: Arizona
|
|
|
|
The BBC have now lauched a internal review into the Lucy Letby documentary
They were alerted to the serious errors ahead of the programme airing, but still chose to air it unchanged, and it was transmitted to 1.4 million people.
The latest explanation is that they were confident in the original material, due to running it through trusted people who understood the data but later, through their own diligence, uncovered significant errors themselves. Having realised their errors ("spotted by the programme team alone") they then re-edited the programme.
Still, credit where it is due for spotting their own errors, they don't need our or anyone else's help.
Probably explains why they opted for an internal rather than external review.
They are way better at spotting errors.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
|
I'm not sure whether saying it is in the best possible taste, but the BBC is suffering from all the ills of the NHS. Too big, paid for out of the national purse, too much a national treasure to dismantle.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wile E. Coyote
In: Arizona
|
|
|
|
Not sure, it just appears like many other mainstream services to me, I really can't spot any distintive national bit at all (they get exclusivity on some sporting events, so maybe that's something?) within its content.
BBC is paid for by licence, and watched mainly by UK folks, on average their age will be 60. Slightly older for BBC 2. They really don't successfully cater for younger folks.
Unlike health, it's a highly competitave market, so they really need to up their game.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
The Library Index 
FAQ 
Search
Register
Profile 
Log in to check your private messages 
Log in 
