Lucy Letby case - Rob Rinder and David Davies

[LimeFawn]

Going back to thread in summer about Lucy Letby case needing criminal case review- surely that has to happen now?

In the past couple of days, I have seen David Davis MP talking about this on Good morning - apparently senior neonatal doctors contacted him directly;

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=5HcW71BSGSM

Rob Rinder who is an expert in criminal law has also raised concerns- pic included below.

And article in guardian about her notes which was used a lot in this mumsnet thread as proof of guilt:

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/5115849-to-think-the-lucy-letby-case-needs-a-judicial-review

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/article/2024/sep/03/i-am-evil-i-did-this-lucy-letbys-so-called-confessions-were-written-on-advice-of-counsellors

Surely there is enough new information coming to light to justify a criminal case review - her conviction really doesn’t seem safe at all?

I've accompanied family members to hearings at work. I don't think that reflects any weakness on their part. She was being accused of serious stuff in a job with heavy responsibilities. I wouldn't describe that behaviour as infantile or as at the level of the behaviours you described for her in court.

I'm fairly sure the consultants were described as approaching the police with the original chart?

@BreatheAndFocus .
This is the documentary Cheshire Police made detailing their investigation. In case the link is deleted or you don’t wish to click on a strange link. It can be found if you search ‘operation hummingbird’ on YouTube. The author is Cheshire Police.

I’d like to hear from people who work in HR as to how normal it is for a parent to accompany a member of family to a disciplinary hearing, when that parent has no background in law/ Human Resources or any link to the company, especially in a heavily unionised workplace.

I know that I would immediately raise my eyebrows when the person accompanied by her dad was a woman in her mid twenties who had lived away from home for several years. It is the behaviour of someone much younger or extremely vulnerable and would not normally be allowed .

https://www.gov.uk/disciplinary-procedures-and-action-at-work/disciplinary-hearings, details exactly who can accompany you, family members are not on that list. A parent or family member is allowed only usually as a reasonable adjustment under the equality act ( when the person requested has a disability).

Her father did not just attend the meeting, but discussed the case several times with senior management via telephone. Is that also something you would usually do for your family members unless that family member was not specifically vulnerable in some way or a minor?

I think that documentary reflects well on the Cheshire Police as a unit who care about their work and the bereaved families.

It doesn't do much to explain where the files and chart came from, except to make it clear that they were relying on whoever raised concerns with them to define suspicious deaths in neonates, initially at least. And they openly admit to having been persuaded by statistics from the outset.

The documentary would certainly increase my concerns about the investigation and trial - many of the issues experts have raised about the trial seem to have been present from as soon as the police were involved.

HR need to consider before refusing whatever individual an employee is most comfortable with. They would certainly need to be prepared to make adjustments in case of disability, and they would be well advised to be flexible in cases where an aggravating factor like stress, bullying accusations etc could be seen to affect the employee.

Letby doesn't come across as a Strong Independent Woman in this scenario. That's okay. Presumably she was feeling vulnerable. Maybe she'd have gained confidence if she pushed past that vulnerability. Or maybe she would not have been listened to and a male voice was an advantage.

This is nothing like the behaviour you described at the trial, and while it's not particularly usual, I don't see it as a red flag. Immaturity, maybe. Vulnerability, maybe. Reasonable adjustment, maybe. Dealing with accusations from senior colleagues in a life and death situation isn't easy.

@Oftenaddled , The issue with Letby’s behaviour is that it shows a continuous desire to manipulate and control proceedings. Have a look at the text messages after Baby A and Baby B died when she’s angry because her supervisor isn’t doing what she wants. Within minutes of those text messages Baby C falls ill.
^^
Letby: 'I just keep thinking about Mon [death of Baby A]. Feel like I need to be in [nursery] one to overcome it... to get the image out of my head. It probably sounds odd but that's how I feel.'
Colleague: 'Well it's up to you but don't think it's going to help. It sounds very odd and I would be complete opposite. Can understand [shift leader] she's trying to look after you all.'
Letby: 'Well that's how I feel, from when I've experienced it at the Women's I needed to go straight back and have a sick baby otherwise the image of the one you lost never goes.
'Don't expect people to understand but I know how I feel... Anyway forget it. I can only talk about it properly with those who knew him... I'll overcome it myself. You get some sleep x'.
Colleague: That's a bit mean isn't it. Don't have to know him to understand we've all been there. Yep off to bed now x.'
Letby: 'I don't mean it like that, just that only those who saw him know what image I have in my head X. Forget it. I'm obviously making more of it than I should.'
'Sleep well xx',

She’s talking about Baby A here, a baby for whom she knew for 90 minutes before he died. Colleagues also questioned how appropriate her thinking and behaviour was from the very start. Not in hindsight as suggested. The immaturity ran from the very beginning of the case and just got worse in her behaviour at trial.

.
^^
^^

The first part of that documentary actually shows the problems people have with the case is a nutshell.

You have the police officer who says (paraphrasing)

They told us even these very sick babies don't die unexpectedly without explanation

[dozens of babies a year have this as official cause of death. Only one of Letby's cases did]

But when they do, that's not necessarily a worry at the time.

[Why not? Because unexpected deaths do happen in premature infants. And many can be explained by natural causes]

It's only a problem when you look back and see a pattern of deaths.

[No. With the number of deaths on the number of similar wards across the UK, you will eventually find a Letby style pattern attached to a number of nurses - that's how random distribution of events works. There was no proof of a problem here.]

And they already knew Letby had been suspended in association with the deaths. So they had their what (crimes) and who (Letby) handed to them on a plate, and set off to find out how.

Very disturbing stuff.

Before that chart was made it was Lucy Letby and only Lucy Letby who was under suspicion. The expert who identified which deaths were deemed “suspicious” had specifically written to the police and offered his services. The police were investigating allegations made by doctors against Lucy Letby.

There was nothing “coincidental” about any of this.

Yes - that's clear in the Hummingbird documentary.

I’m actually quite surprised that people are so wilfully ignorant about the chart. The police listed the suspicious deaths and collapses on the ward. Some deaths weren’t included because they weren’t considered suspicious. THEN they looked at who was on shift for these occurrences. These were all incidents where the CPS considered there was sufficient evidence to charge for murder/attempted murder. Only one person was there for all of them. Yes there were some deaths on the ward that weren’t on the chart because they were not considered to be murder but even if they were added on, LL would still stand out as being there for much much more of the deaths than any other staff member.
I mean Baby I collapsed 4 times before dying. On different dates and she was there for all of them. Nobody else was out of 38 staff. Nobody was there for any more than about 7 incidents. Even if you added an additional 9 deaths, it’s still out of the ordinary and very unlikely that just one staff member should be there for that many incidents. Even if someone else was there for all 9 additional deaths (highly unlikely) and LL was not, that’s still a big big gap and LL is there for a disproportionate number and it just happens to be all of them where there is sufficient evidence that it was suspicious.

As the complaints she was making were about fellow colleagues, I'd imagine few of her other workmates would feel comfortable attending alongside her. I think her Father attending to give support was not unduly unreasonable.

That's classic exposure therapy think from Letby, @Notmyfirstusername And sure, she comes across a bit melodramatic and petulant. In texts to a colleague, and while already starting to recalibrate and try to get more of a grip. She's reacting to the death of a baby in her care. She's not a robot. These deaths weren't frequent as we keep being told. This just isn't substantial evidence of anything apart from an understandable show of emotion.

Her father did not just attend, he talked for Lucy during the meeting and during previous telephone calls. How usual is that in reality for people without some form of disability or a minor?

I wouldn't think it is usual, but that's not to say it was unreasonable.

What the Hummingbird documentary suggests, @Nobodywouldknow , is that the police were told which incidents were suspicious by the consultants who had approached them. They were given associated files. The consultants had already become convinced that Letby was the cause of these incidents. So the cases they raised with the police were presumably the ones associated with Letby.

It's all circular.

Highlighting this.

That’s certainly not what I read. Moreover, if it were true (that they started off by looking at Letby and then only put babies that died when she was on duty), they wouldn’t have needed to plot the other staff, would they? They plotted the other staff on duty against the baby deaths.

Look - it’s common sense. Nurse X is suspected of being involved with deaths over a period of time; you list all the deaths; you cross out unsuspicious ones; and then you plot nurse shifts against those remaining deaths to see who was on duty.

But the deaths weren't deemed to be individually suspicious when examined on their own merits at the time (eg the autopsies). How do you review a list of deaths that have already decided to be non-suspicious, and decide which ones are actually suspicious? What criteria do you then use to sort the suspicious and non-suspicious, and why weren't you using that criteria before?

Also the doctors didn't go to the police because they thought there was a murderer but they just didn't know who it was, they went to the police because they thought Lucy specifically was killing babies. It's fanciful to think that the police started from an entirely neutral context.

Forty years in HR ending as Senior HR manager, only once have I had a request for a parent to attend a disciplinary hearing and it didn't happen, it wasn't appropriate and the employees union rep attended.

Once I had the child of the employee attend, they were a solicitor and deemed appropriate.

I'm 55 and widowed, considered capable and relatively independent. I've been under extreme stress after being widowed 2.5 tears ago. I have lost the love of my life, my business and the home we shared, plus been supporting my sick elderly parents through their separation.

When I've had to deal with the millionth bureaucratic fubar with the council, UC etc, I have drafted in a friend to speak for me on phone calls and in meetings who has extensive knowledge of the system. It's stuff I can "learn" but from time to time I just can't cope with it all. I'm at risk of to put it bluntly, losing my shit at undeserving public servants which no doubt would jeopardise the outcome of certain situations.

I've weathered many storms, as I have alluded to here and in certain situations the sheer terror of dealing with very serious situations is overwhelming. I don't think having some kind of advocate onside is that peculiar. My Dad would have been great in his younger days and also a great comfort. Alas, I am now his advocate, when I'm allowed to be.

So I think the emphasis on LLs "immaturity" in such a stressful situation is a little misplaced.

I do wonder, respectfully, whether some of the people posting here live and work with a large number and variety of people?

I work in a large institution, with people in lots of roles from manual to senior professional. Lots of backgrounds, lots of personalities, lots of strengths, lots of (to me) oddities.

I can promise you that some of them work, socialise, speak, cope, grieve, emote in ways that would raise eyebrows. Whose eyebrows? Well I behave in ways that can surprise colleagues, and colleagues behave in ways that can surprise me. I see some people's bedrooms in their Teams meeting and think, normal. I see others and think, unexpected.

All this digging around with she had teddies in her room, her dad helped her with HR, she sulked a bit ... So what? If you see a lot of a variety of people, I don't see how you can possibly see her as some extraordinary outlier. If Letby's behaviours before arrest are really red flags for serial killers, I'm amazed I've lasted so long.

That's not to say, she's normal and can't be a killer. It's just to say, her behaviours in themselves are really not screaming killer, so we'd better hope the medical evidence is robust.

Which it is. And that's why she's going to spend the rest of her life in jail.

Your call, but as you say, HR can consider whether such requests are appropriate on the details they have before them, and they clearly allowed it here.

You also have to consider the parent and their likely behaviour. The parent I didn't allow to attend had a difficult relationship with us as employers, late night abusive calls etc. So no an over controlling parent isn't going to help. I don't think that parent would have been helpful at all to their child or to the employer in fact I think they'd have escalated things.