They are wrong. Letby was the nurse and those two nurses are just the ones that the parents spoke to about it. Were they supposed to have X-ray vision and see that letby had left the baby with the stoma off under the towel? Pathetic response.Telegraph reply to my complaint. It seems they still want to ignore Letby was designated nurse because mum's testimony doesn't identify her as being in the room at the time they walked in. Funny how they are happy to accept a mother's memory when it doesn't incriminate Lucy, eh?
-------------------
Re: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/09/23/lucy-letby-hospital-baby-faeces-inquiry/
Thank you for contacting The Telegraph concerning the above-referenced article.
Your complaint is under Clause 1 of the IPSO Editor's Code (Accuracy). You believe our article is inaccurate and misleading because we do not say that Lucy Letby was the designated nurse caring for Baby J on the day that the baby was found covered in faeces. You cite an article in the Guardian as evidence that The Telegraph article is inaccurate.
Both the mother and father of Baby J have given evidence to the Thirlwall inquiry in respect of this incident. This is the evidence they gave on 23rd September 2024:
Mother's evidence:
Q. Right, so tell us what you found when you came
in on the 15th?
MOTHER J: Yes, so I walked into Room 2 and our
daughter was in her hot cot at the time and she was just
in a small towel, just put across her bottom area, and
just over the stoma so the stoma bag wasn't on there and
just sort of loosely covered is the way I would describe
it and she has a Broviac line in place, so I just took
one look at her and was just -- well, I was just
disgusted really to see her in that situation and also
incredibly saddened being a mum and thinking: what's
happened here, and there were two nurses in the room at
the time and they could see that she was in that
situation and I just said, you know -- I think one of
them was pregnant and I knew the other one had children
and I said "You are mums, what would you do in this
situation? Why has she been left like this?" They
didn't really engage in discussion and we made
a complaint on that day. I think my husband then came
in shortly afterwards, saw her in that situation as well
and then we took the address they gave us --
Q. When you say made a complaint, Father J, who
did you complain to or speak to about it or was it you,
Mother J?
MOTHER J: I spoke to one of the nurses and said
that we wanted to see one of the Consultants about that
situation and that it was just unacceptable.
Q. Did you speak to a Consultant?
MOTHER J: Yes.
Q. Who did you speak with?
MOTHER J: Dr Saladi.
Father's evidence:
The first time we asked who had left our daughter in a towel, this faeces covered towel with nothing else on her. We never got an answer at the time. We never got an answer afterwards. It wasn't until our solicitor looked at the records that she discovered that the designated nurse on that shift was in fact Lucy Letby who was responsible for looking after our daughter when she was left in this particular state, so that was a big shock to us. It is something we have only found out recently.
As is clear from the transcript, the mother's evidence was her first hand account; the father's evidence is hearsay. We know from the mother's first hand witness account (which I have highlighted in bold for ease of reference) that neither of the nurses present could have been Lucy Letby as she is not a mother and was not pregnant. We also know from the transcript of the evidence given to Inquiry that the parents of Child J arrived at the unit at 8am and that there were no reported issues with the stoma bags:
Q. Back in paragraph 81 of your statement, in relation to your daughter being found in the towel, you say: "There was no record of Letby or other staff having issues with bags on the shift, however, on 15 December, at the handover from Letby's shifts, when I came in at around 8 am and found Child J in her cot ..." That's when you have given the evidence earlier about what you found
At the trial of Lucy Letby the jury heard that the handover from night shifts is at 7.30am. In other words, when the parents arrived at 8am and two nurses were present neither of those nurses was Lucy Letby.
Given the above, we believe the journalist has been scrupulously careful in her reporting and the use of the phrase 'Lucy Letby's unit' was accurate in all the circumstances. We therefore find no breach of Clause 1 of the IPSO Editor's Code. We do however thank you for taking the time to raise your concerns with us.
Kind regards
Yours sincerely
Editorial Legal & Compliance
Telegraph Media Group
- Status
New to Tattle Life? Click "Order Thread by Most Liked Posts" button below to get an idea of what the site is about:
They are wrong. Letby was the nurse and those two nurses are just the ones that the parents spoke to about it. Were they supposed to have X-ray vision and see that letby had left the baby with the stoma off under the towel? Pathetic response.
I went a couple of weeks back for the opening statements of the barrister's representing the Core Participants (the families, the Countess etc) and I'll be going one day next week
Dr Gibbs on Tuesday would be a good day to go. I wonder if they expect him to give evidence most of the day or if this is just the way availability worked.
Finally caught up with it all.
1. Absolutely not surprised by the cover up. This is NHS senior management through and through. Reputation and ego always comes before patient safety, sadly.
2. Interesting the findings about breathing tubes also being dislodged at Liverpool. I wonder if she moved to COCH because people were growing suspicious at Liverpool.
3. Dr A/U absolutely needs to be held accountable. I very much wonder how many of the deaths he may have been indirectly responsible for especially as he knew what she was being investigated for.
This is an absolute tit show and I hope people go to jail for this.
1. Absolutely not surprised by the cover up. This is NHS senior management through and through. Reputation and ego always comes before patient safety, sadly.
2. Interesting the findings about breathing tubes also being dislodged at Liverpool. I wonder if she moved to COCH because people were growing suspicious at Liverpool.
3. Dr A/U absolutely needs to be held accountable. I very much wonder how many of the deaths he may have been indirectly responsible for especially as he knew what she was being investigated for.
This is an absolute tit show and I hope people go to jail for this.
I think she was only training at Liverpool was she not?
Is NoNameButWeKnowHisName not giving evidence? Can't see him on that list.
Yes, true. What I meant was if she could have continued her career there (as is often the case with training hospitals) why didn't she? Maybe no reason. Maybe she felt they were growing suspicious. I was just thinking aloud really.
there’s more doctors the week after but they haven’t published names yet.
Presumably Lucy had her on the night shift. It would take a bit of time for the waste to accumulate. It sounds like Lucy removed the bag and didn't mention it on handover. I can't actually read Sarah Knapton's articles, which is probably for the best.
Fellas, that reply from the telegraph has really annoyed me!! It feels like gaslighting to be honest because even their reply is choosing to defend the convicted serial killer.
the whole ‘hearsay’ thing. This is not a criminal trial ffs. Do the press never print hearsay then?
Using mother’s evidence that the two nurses she spoke to were mothers so it can’t have been Letby. Ok, so are you going to run an article on what baby E’s mum discovered when it WAS Letby in the room?
Handover is at 7.30am (their meaning is Letby would have finished and this somehow proves baby was ok).
1. handovers last 20-30 mins.
2. Letby herself says she stays late often
3. Baby was covered in a towel so this could have been hidden from new staff - another one of her ‘do something at shift change’ moments to disguise that it’s her. This is textbook lucy!!!
I get they can’t speculate as such but to use the reason that they didn’t report what the father said because somehow all the other ‘evidence’ ‘proves’ it couldn’t have been Letby is bleeping disgraceful. They are literally covering for a convicted baby killer right now.
the whole ‘hearsay’ thing. This is not a criminal trial ffs. Do the press never print hearsay then?
Using mother’s evidence that the two nurses she spoke to were mothers so it can’t have been Letby. Ok, so are you going to run an article on what baby E’s mum discovered when it WAS Letby in the room?
Handover is at 7.30am (their meaning is Letby would have finished and this somehow proves baby was ok).
1. handovers last 20-30 mins.
2. Letby herself says she stays late often
3. Baby was covered in a towel so this could have been hidden from new staff - another one of her ‘do something at shift change’ moments to disguise that it’s her. This is textbook lucy!!!
I get they can’t speculate as such but to use the reason that they didn’t report what the father said because somehow all the other ‘evidence’ ‘proves’ it couldn’t have been Letby is bleeping disgraceful. They are literally covering for a convicted baby killer right now.
The Telegraph response is crazy.
The parent's solicitor found out Lucy Letby had looked after her over night, she had not reported the issue that there was no stoma bag. Letby's shift wouldn't end until 8am, the day nurse may not have had chance to look at the baby before the parents arrived.
Just got round to reading this.
Lucy Letby’s defenders have failed | Georgia L. Gilholy | The Critic Magazine
Nowadays no high-profile serial killer is complete without their own deluded fan base. Even Britain’s most notorious baby murderer is no exception. 34-year-old Lucy Letby, an ex-neonatal nurse at the…thecritic.co.uk
Hope the link works, this is a good article, surely anyone reading that wouldn't still continue to think she's innocent?
Has anyone else clicked on that ‘circumstantial evidence’ link towards the end of the article?
I hadn't and I posted the link! Queen Toffypops your hard work is famous!
I saw the link and thought ooh, wonder if this is a link to an article about how circumstantial evidence is still strong/important. Thought I’d take a look… and imagine my surprise
A legend for sure
Amazing!I saw the link and thought ooh, wonder if this is a link to an article about how circumstantial evidence is still strong/important. Thought I’d take a look… and imagine my surprise
If you click on the part about the New Yorker being retracted it takes you an interesting Twitter page explaining why they retracted a part of the article.
---
---
Your wiki is very informative, people need to read it before putting their opinions on the Internet.I saw the link and thought ooh, wonder if this is a link to an article about how circumstantial evidence is still strong/important. Thought I’d take a look… and imagine my surprise
We didn't hear much from the live reporting about Baby J, but I was there for the cross examination for this one and it was blatantly obvious Letby was the only one in the room for the second pair of collapses.
Reading through the transcripts for her parents evidence was enlightening. Baby J was a surviving twin who'd lost her sibling in the womb, but now we know this twin was horrifically lost at a late stage during a failed surgical intervention. The mother then had to carry and birth the deceased twin with survivor Baby J.
From what we know of Letby's desired victims, Baby J would have been absolutely irresistible to her: she was a twin, she had a conspicuous medical issue that could be utilised to portray her as vulnerable, she had already overcome adversity to survive, and her parents had already gone through terrible grief and hardship. In addition, there is an aspect of the baby's name that I believe would have made her uniquely attractive to Letby.
But the parents were absolute warriors in advocating for their daughter. The nurses made it very clear that they considered them nothing more than interfering PITAs, but J's parents stoically persisted in fighting for their daughter to receive the correct care, and to receive her food and medications. This focus would likely have made it less convenient for Letby to attack. Given how Baby J was her ideal victim in every possible way, I think the parents' constant diligence probably saved her life. Ironically, they wouldn't have needed to do this if the quality of care wasn't so appalling in the first place.
You could reply to this disputing their response, and saying that you will escalate this to IPSO on the following grounds:
Reading through the transcripts for her parents evidence was enlightening. Baby J was a surviving twin who'd lost her sibling in the womb, but now we know this twin was horrifically lost at a late stage during a failed surgical intervention. The mother then had to carry and birth the deceased twin with survivor Baby J.
From what we know of Letby's desired victims, Baby J would have been absolutely irresistible to her: she was a twin, she had a conspicuous medical issue that could be utilised to portray her as vulnerable, she had already overcome adversity to survive, and her parents had already gone through terrible grief and hardship. In addition, there is an aspect of the baby's name that I believe would have made her uniquely attractive to Letby.
But the parents were absolute warriors in advocating for their daughter. The nurses made it very clear that they considered them nothing more than interfering PITAs, but J's parents stoically persisted in fighting for their daughter to receive the correct care, and to receive her food and medications. This focus would likely have made it less convenient for Letby to attack. Given how Baby J was her ideal victim in every possible way, I think the parents' constant diligence probably saved her life. Ironically, they wouldn't have needed to do this if the quality of care wasn't so appalling in the first place.
You could reply to this disputing their response, and saying that you will escalate this to IPSO on the following grounds:
- That your complaint was that they ignored the fact that Baby J's designated nurse, during the shift she was left with her stoma bag off and wrapped in a feces-covered towel, was confirmed to be Lucy Letby.
- The paper ignored this because it makes serial killer Letby look bad, and the paper has an agenda for promoting conspiracy theories that she is innocent.
- The designated nurse has primary responsibility for a particular baby's care.
- As we know from the trial, nursery rooms housed several babies, each being tended to by their designated nurse. The other two nurses are irrelevant to this complaint because they were not Baby J's designated nurse.
- Baby J's medical records showing that Letby was the designated nurse during this shift is not hearsay.
- Father J's evidence is not "hearsay" and the particular parent who first found the baby is not relevant as the medical records state that Letby was the designated nurse that shift. Witness accounts of other nurses are irrelevant to this complaint.
- The only way this testimony can be considered "hearsay" is if the Telegraph is disputing that this incident with the stoma removed happened at all. Nobody else has disputed this incident and indeed defense barrister Ben Myers referenced this incident when cross-examining the mother here: Chester Standard, 10/02/23 2:30pm.
- They failed to quote other testimony during the inquiry about the incident, which further refers to Letby being responsible (link: transcript 23/09/24) including: Mother J: "certainly after finding our daughter wrapped in a towel with her stoma bag off and then now that we know that the nurse at the time was Letby, that was most certainly a missed opportunity to investigate or begin an investigation into opportunities" (page 66)
- Status