Lucy Letby: have you changed your mind - thread 3

[Typicalwave]

New thread for those following or wishing to comment - originally started by @kittybythelighthouse.

The idea of a hospital cover up never worked here even without the wacky Freemason angle. A serial killer nurse is obviously awful, but it’s a one-off lightning strike that could happen anywhere. It’s not nearly as bad for the hospital as serious failings leading to a number of babies dying. The latter is a complex systemic issue which needs to be addressed urgently. The former is an extremely rare event which the hospital itself can hardly be held accountable for. If anyone is accountable for that (aside from the killer) it would be the consultants who “knew” about the killer but did piss all about it except send emails for over a year.

A serial killer nurse is not the hospital’s fault. It’s not like the argument is that these were obviously murders and the hospital is so shit that it didn’t notice. The argument is that the murders were devious enough to look exactly like natural deaths of the kind one sees in other neonatal units, especially the poorer run ones.The consultants are at fault for not flagging the deaths to the coroner, which was their duty if they suspected harm. Why didn’t they do it? Because they didn’t suspect harm at all, not until ages later when Dr Brearey mistakenly thought that the number of deaths that year was a sure sign of nurse murder, rather than it being a normal statistical event - a random cluster of the sort one can statistically expect every year somewhere in the NHS.

The hospital cover up angle doesn’t work no matter which way you slice it. It’s utterly nonsensical.

How does that make sense? Why would the hospital do this? Are we to think that an extremely rare serial killer nurse is somehow the hospital’s fault when the consultants didn’t even bother to flag deaths to the coroner?

Massive failings leading to deaths = systemic issues with the hospital and/or wider NHS e.g. to some extent the hospital’s fault.

Serial killer nurse = not the hospital’s fault.

P.s: not firing a nurse instantly on the mere say so of a doctor who refuses to provide any evidence is the very lowest level of employee protection I would expect for any nurse.

If it’s true that Letby’s father is a Freemason (I can’t find anything) then that wouod be more plausible and I can see why he’d claim it.

Her father did behave very inappropriately by calling up various members of the hospital demanding that people be held to account for her being removed to ither duties.

It would make more sense if Letby had a family member who was a Freemason…

It still wouldn’t. The Freemasons are a silly bunch of men who help each other with planning applications and do nonsense pantomimes with one trouser leg pulled up. I’m not a fan, but they aren’t the illuminati. They aren’t clubbing together to cover up for a serial killer nurse even if she is the daughter of a retired former furniture shop manager who happens to be a member. It’s nonsense on stilts.

Besides, the consultants are as likely, or more so, to be members with any sort of sway than John Letby. Brearey is former military after all. Not that I want to get into discussing that either, because the idea of Freemason involvement here is beyond silly.

I don’t think he did behave very inappropriately. Was it advisable? Probably not. Would I be hitting the roof if my daughter was being accused of being a literal serial killer?! Of course I would. Whether or not she’s guilty her dad certainly didn’t think she was. He was just trying to protect his daughter.

I think, anyway, that the idea that he was phoning anyone at the hospital was exposed as untrue at Thirlwall. He was alleged to have phoned someone and been aggressive - when she was asked, she said that they never spoke at all.

He did accompany Lucy Letby to meetings, with the hospital's consent, and he was, naturally, furious that consultants were accusing his daughter of murder. Being accused of murder is not exactly your everyday HR dispute, so allowing him and Mrs Letby to attend with Lucy makes as much sense as anything in that scenario.

There were some ridiculous headlines reporting Ian Harvey saying Mr Letby was "holding a gun to his head" when the expression was obviously, obviously, obviously meant metaphorically.

I find it very unfair to blame Mr or Mrs Letby for any of this.

I think this is the first time we’ve disagreed.

I can understand being incredibly worried, upset, blindsided and angry etc, but calling up various members of the hospital management team, making threats and demands, was inappropriate. I’d never dream of doing that, no matter what. There were other far more reasonable ways to support Lucy. It’s a really bad look. And smacked if a sense of entitlement, for me anyway.

What various members is he supposed to have called? As far as I know it was Tony Chambers and that’s all. Was there actually anyone else?

He didn’t “make threats”. He’s a former furniture shop manager nearing 80 years of age from a cul de sac in Hereford, he’s not Tony Soprano. Chambers said he was “holding a gun to my head”. That is just a figure of speech that TC has used elsewhere. It probably meant something like “he’s threatening to sue me” it didn’t mean “he’s threatening to kill me”.

They were accusing his daughter of murdering babies! I’d threaten to sue too. It wasn’t a disagreement over holiday leave.

Exactly this.

In my experience, if someone has the manager's phone number in this kind of situation, it's because the manager is aware it's a sensitive issue and wants them coming directly to them so they can keep a handle on things.

The hospital took legal advice from day 1 on suspending Letby from ward duty. They were told she'd have a case for constructive dismissal and went ahead anyway. Then she finds out consultants are describing her as a murderer. This wasn't a normal situation.

I think Letby's parents have been criticised by journalists invested in the "something weird about her - over-protective parents" narrative. But the hospital put Letby in a dreadful position and it's hardly surprising her father expressed his alarm and discontent.

Kathryn De Berger, Cross and Chambers.

Sue Hopkinson felt she had to step in because Kathryn felt under increasing pressure from John.

We’re going to have to disagree on this one - I do not think it was appropriate and think there were better ways to support Lucy.

I get the anger. I don’t get not going through the proper channels - maybe that’s because of personal experience and hindsight that he would not have had.

I totally agree. Her parents are only “weird” if you’ve bought the serial killer narrative and are assuming she must have had a weird homelife.

Everything we know of the Letbys says they are normal people. She had a normal upbringing and it’s normal to give a shit if your daughter is being accused of murdering babies.

I agree that having a killer nurse work for you is bad luck, but potentially then conspiring to protect that nurse once it has been flagged to you that she may be a killer is another matter entirely.

I think what we are disagreeing on is what actually happened. Not whether or not that thing is right.

My understanding is that he did something like threaten to sue Chambers - that’s understandable from his pov.

If what you’re saying actually happened (literally threatening multiple people - do you mean with violence?) then I would agree with you. I don’t think that’s acceptable, but is it actually what happened? Not as far as I’m aware. I have vague memories of conversation with someone else but not in any way a suggestion of violence. The only suggestion of violence I know of is the silly “gun to my head” tabloid misrepresentation of what Tony Chambers (not John Letby) said.

Why would the hospital conspire to protect a killer nurse though? What’s the rationale here?

@Typicalwave did you get that from the below article?

Because at Thirlwall De Beger denies that she had any phone calls with Mr Letby at all:

Q. Is it right that you also had contact on the phone directly with Letby's father?

A. I do not recall any telephone calls with Letby's father.

Q. I think you may have seen that there's a witness who suggests that there was pressure being put on you that you were in effect being harassed by Letby's father. Is that incorrect, then; is that what you're saying?

A. I have no recollection of any telephone calls. I have no recollection of being harassed.

https://thirlwall.public-inquiry.uk/transcript/09-10-2024-transcript-of-week-5-day-3/ , 56

So it's possible that Hodkinson was misremembering or misrepresenting it. Why would John Letby put pressure on De Berger anyway? She was occupational therapy. She had no power over anything.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cly23k40m2eo

No not threatening violence (I agree the at gun to the head quote could well have been meant in the metaphorical way)

We’re still not going to agree - if a parent were to call up multiple people on multiple occasions threatening legal action, asking for people to be dismissed etc in the sector I work in, where an employee had been removed on a temporary basis due to safeguarding (to protect everyone) due to allegations, they would be given short shrift and it would be not considered appropriate.

I don’t think the parents are weird - I do this it was entitled of him. And unhelpful for Lucy.

I get you don’t think so and that’s fine, but I can’t be persuaded otherwise.

I got it from a similar article.

That’s really interesting tgat De Berger denies it.

Why would Hodkinson make it up?

Or why would De Berger deny it?

That’s quite a thing for either of them to kid remember, particularly Hodkinson as she felt she’d needed to step in to protect De Berger.

That’s a bit of a leap isn’t it? Conspiring to protect a killer to continue to kill in your hospital? That’s certainly one way to end up in prison.

I think it's quite important to establish the actual facts regardless of it's considered "appropriate" behaviour or not.

If it's not true that Mr Letby made multiple threatening calls to multiple people, that's important as the incorrect version was allowed to proliferate and add fuel to the "Weird Letby(s)" narrative, and could possibly be considered prejudicial.

Heck, on the appropriate front, even though I'm 56 I'd probably be getting my Mum on board for something like this if she was still alive. The need for a responsible grown up whose got your back and isn't afraid to go into bat for you is something that never leaves completely I think,even if you don't actually go that route.

When my case was on, my Mum actually became party to the proceedings, which drew side eye and judgement from SS. However, as a new Mum, who do you look to for support if you've got a good relationship - your own Mum.

I know I'm digressing a bit, sorry, but ultimately details like this are important.

A parent becoming a party to family court proceedings in a case involving social services (I am sorry) is a bit different to a parent calling up a child’s employer.

It is extraordinary. But so is the situation, surely? If I saw a loved one under such stress, being accused of such horrific things, I might not be able to stop myself from intervening.

My impression was that Letby was a little immature, although I may be wrong. My parents were very involved in my older sisters life until the end of mums - because my sister operates on the level of an adolescent, even though she is much older.

I agree, I'm not saying it was appropriate, but if it was one possible heated and incredulous call, that's markedly different from what was presented as a pattern of threats / harrassment.

And the instinct to defend / protect your distressed child never goes away, and yes, can probably make you act like a tit in the right circumstances.

I think you misunderstood me. I’m not trying to persuade you of anything. I’m saying that we don’t seem to be on the page as regards what actually happened. I will agree with you if what you think happened, did happen. But did it?

• I think he had a heated phone call with Chambers.

• You think he went on a frenzy phoning multiple people and making threats. Obviously that would be bad. Did this actually happen though?

That’s what we disagree on. I’m totally open to being persuaded by you if you’re right about that.

”if a parent were to call up multiple people on multiple occasions threatening legal action, asking for people to be dismissed etc in the sector I work in…they would be given short shrift and it would be not considered appropriate.”

I still don’t think he called up multiple people on multiple occasions (I’m happy to be shown that he did). But to address the rest of this comment - under normal circumstances of course it isn’t appropriate. None of this is appropriate. Nobody has training that would help them handle this. This clearly wasn’t anything like a normal HR dispute.

She was being accused of murdering babies! Her whole future was at stake. She was suicidal. She was facing utter destruction. The stakes for the Letbys were extremely high. The situation was as extreme as it gets on all sides. At that point it goes way beyond HR niceties and enters into the strongest and most primal life and death human emotions.

Would you really sit quietly by and prioritise HR etiquette if your daughter was being hounded into total and utter destruction by colleagues? You wouldn’t lose your temper at all? If so you may be more stoical than John Letby when he phoned Tony Chambers, but you’d also be a literal saint. This is why I say the call to Chambers might have been ill advised, but I get it from a human pov and I’ll always care more about human beings than HR protocol.

P.s: the “gun at the head” quote was never said to have come from John Letby. It was always Tony chambers that said it. If you read Chambers Thirlwall pages that’s clear. It was warped in tabloid press to insinuate that John Letby had threatened to put a gun to his head. Chambers never said that.