If you were previously on the fence about Lucy Letby’s guilt, have the Thirlwall findings swayed you either way?

If they felt it was neglect, they could have all resigned, but they didn’t!

This sounds realistic and not at all counterproductive 😐

I don't think trust management denied the need for more medical cover - they just - just! - didn't prioritise it. Nurses and consultants were both pushing for more staffing - ten more registered nurses and two more consultants. I agree that it would have been hard and not necessarily productive for the consultants to resign. Slowing down admissions might have been a wise move. Chester didn't close to new admissions when it was over ratios, unlike some other hospitals in the network.

If Lucy Letby murdered infants, she is to blame, obviously, but if not and failings in care were responsible, I don't think it can be pinned just on the consultants - much more complex than that.

I feel it was the consultants decision to defend themselves when their time could have been used in a much more productive manner.

The enquiry, given all of the information, should have highlighted this, and not defended people that lied and sat on a drawer of "evidence".

Even the whistleblowers charity has siad that they didn't act like whistleblowers.

What were they doing with the rest of their time that was so unproductive in your view? Looking after the paeds?

They were productive enough to force the hospital to go to the police. If they used the same focus they could have used that same energy to force more rounds.
If the hospital was responsible for them doing so few.

Do you believe that two rounds a week was enough?

You’re conflating two very different scenarios here, each with very different amounts of precedent, benchmarking, established process (or lack of), risk assessment and appetites/thresholds, as well as potential interfaces with completely different bodies and systems (NHSE/CQC vs the police).

The consultants used the levers available to them to try and address the resourcing issues, however suspicions about a colleague causing harm and the approach to raising those suspicions, were a wholly different and mainly unchartered ball game (as would have been the case at pretty much any trust at that time).

If she harmed the babies, which many people still believe she did, then of course they were absolutely right to be so dogged about it.

The enquiry was about how this could be prevented, (however flawed that premise is based on the shaky evidence of the conviction).

Part of that is the lack of consultant presence on the ward.
But even if the enquiry is happy to ignore that and make them into some sort of hero. I t also ignores that one sat on "evidence" and another lied about what he saw which was proven in his own email.

So even if they believed that she harmed the babies they could have done more sooner, including going to the police themselves.

I’ll say again, the lack of consultant presence on the ward was the trust’s issue, not the consultants’.

And what proof do you have that any of the consultants either sat on evidence or lied?

Also, anyone who thinks the consultants could realistically have gone to the police without the backing of the trust’s executive leadership is being quite naive, and has clearly never worked at that level in that sort of environment.

They could realistically have gone to the police.
It would have cost them.
But they could have gone if they truly believed that LL was murdering babies.

I will say again, the enquiry was about how to prevent this from happening again.

Part of that would have been a greater presense of consultants on the ward.

As for the consultants lying.
In court one said that LL did nothing yet in his emails he said that she did.

Another soid that they had a drawer of evidence that they sat on for a year and did nothing.

If you had been following the case you would know this.

Sure, and when the police speak to the CEO or Medical Director and they say there’s some beef around a grievance, we’ve done our own investigations and we’re happy there’s nothing to see here?

I’m really not convinced the police wouldn’t have left it there, and I imagine that was in the consultants’ minds too.

So you are saying that the consultants could have gone directly to the police.

Of course they could have - I think we all know the number!

Whether they should have in that set of circumstances (ie without the backing of the trust’s exec, and preferably the whole board) is a completely different matter though.

You’re going to need to be more specific. Exactly what evidence did Stephen Brearley withhold? And what proof do you have that Ravi Jayaram lied?

If you already know the answer why are you pushing for the details?

They don't need the backing of the board to report an inciodent to the police.

I don’t know the answer - I’m not aware that any proof exists of either of those two assertions so would be grateful if you could point me towards it.

I honestly can’t decide if you’re being deliberately obtuse about this or if you genuinely don’t get it.

This wasn’t an ‘incident’ like someone kicking off in ED on a Saturday night. It was something far more complex and nuanced, that the consultants themselves didn’t even know was a thing or not. To call in the police without the backing of the exec would have risked any proper external investigation ever getting off the ground, and would have essentially shut down any further avenues for stopping someone who they suspected was harming patients.

I have already told you about the drawer of evidence that was claimed and the email that contradicted the testimony, feel free to look it up.

My point is that if they truly believed that there was an incident and that they had proof tehn they could have gone to the police.

This isn't being "obtuse" it is pointing out that they had nothing.
Just a feeling, and they did nothing.

They are just covering their own backs.

Did any of you who are on the fence actually listen to the trial? If not, there are plenty of podcasts about it which might make you more informed.

I feel for the babies families. Who have had to grieve and are facing reading such a lot of ill informed twaddle.

They didn't do nothing, they flagged it numerous times, and were thwarted and lied to by those who were rightly lynched in the enquiry.

Exactly! It's like blaming Letby for the nurses being (supposedly) short-staffed. I mean she could've resigned couldn't she as well in protest if she cared about the welfare of her patients. But then she wouldn't get to be around all those dying babies would she.

I know exactly what Letby’s supporters say about it, but you clearly still don’t have any actual evidence to back up your claims that Stephen Brearley withheld evidence or that Ravi Jayaram lied (because there isn’t any).

Why do you think it’s okay to just say these things?