Lucy Letby Case #76

[sebanna]

I’ve finished the pathologist already. I’ll do a summary…
---
So she only did the PM for baby D and also pathology on the placenta for twins E & F (but that was before baby E died and she didn’t learn about baby E’s death until the trial). Her colleagues performed the other PMs.

Apart from being defensive about the pneumonia (which is unnecessary anyway as it’s not in dispute) I think she came across fine. They were not ever informed these were sudden and unexpected deaths, and certainly never told suspicions about a nurse being present at all. I do actually believe this as there doesn’t seem to be any evidence of it and she wasn’t challenged on it too much. But the KCs basically hammered home that had she known, then forensic pathology and police would have been instructed. And the entire post mortem process takes a different course once forensics and police are involved.
View attachment 3266633So given the truthers want the insulin tests thrown out because it’s not forensic test then I have no doubt they will now want to throw out the original pathologist reports too 🫠

Ian Harvey (definitely the most accountable for the entire gigantic duck up) contacted her after Hawdon’s report but again, he left out lots of important info. She wasn’t told RCPCH had done a report, didn’t see it, no idea they had suggested a forensic review of the deaths. Didn’t know Hawdon had also suggested forensic review.

The pathologist said had she known more, she would have told them someone independent would have needed to review their original PM reports and also again, any suggestion of suspicions and it would have changed the course of their involvement.
View attachment 3266628View attachment 3266629
But even when she did go back to him, she also informed him there comments were not a full review.

View attachment 3266624

THIS is really, really good news. I love they haven’t waited for an inquiry to do this:
View attachment 3266632

This is where she gets defensive about the pneumonia and it was with Mr Baker KC on behalf of baby D’s family.

He makes me chuckle here “you can take my word for it”
View attachment 3266639

and here’s a few defensive responses but ultimately she concedes because of the context and clinical importance put on Hawdon’s comments
View attachment 3266640View attachment 3266641View attachment 3266643View attachment 3266644View attachment 3266646
---
Crapton must have really struggled to do a pro-Letby piece today. Thank god the pathologist said ‘there was clear cut pneumonia’ so she could use it in her headline.

Scanning for an air embolism is a good idea, as one of the fears with " The truthers" campaign is that other murderers may think air embolism is a good method as its hard to prove in court. Good that they were clear that a radiologist was needed to find the air on an X Ray. There was evidence of an air embolism for both babies A and D, it just the original postmortem wasn't detailed enough to show it.

The inquiry discusses with Jane Hawdon that Ian Harvey changed baby D's case from unexplained death to explained.

 

[MmmB777]

Anyone that thinks baby D died from infection is a moron. Typical sepsis/pneumonia deaths don’t go to inquest either. Which was only paused because Letby was arrested.

 

[Tofino]

Dr Ravi Jayaram today I wonder if there will be live reporting.

I do expect Dr J and Dr B to be given quite a hard time still. I understand the difficult position they were in and if they had no support and nobody believed them then why would the police, but I think they will still be questioned on why they didn’t just go over everybody’s heads and talk directly to the police.

 

[MmmB777]

Dr Ravi Jayaram today I wonder if there will be live reporting.

I do expect Dr J and Dr B to be given quite a hard time still. I understand the difficult position they were in and if they had no support and nobody believed them then why would the police, but I think they will still be questioned on why they didn’t just go over everybody’s heads and talk directly to the police.

Yep I agree. Think there will be some very tough questions for them

 

[Futtrit]

Dr Ravi Jayaram today I wonder if there will be live reporting.

I do expect Dr J and Dr B to be given quite a hard time still. I understand the difficult position they were in and if they had no support and nobody believed them then why would the police, but I think they will still be questioned on why they didn’t just go over everybody’s heads and talk directly to the police.

Hopefully we get to find out if he really said "Don't start Karen"


*crosses fingers*

 

[MmmB777]

Hawdon’s evidence is worth a read. Interesting medical details about some of the babies. Would think the fact that Harvey altered her reports to remove baby D from the unexplained and unexpected categories is of high significance and hope they hand his a to him on a plate over that. Can’t imagine how furious her parents must be

Hawdon does get a grilling at the end from the family lawyers. Both for some of her medical conclusions for the babies and because although she didn’t know about suspicions of foul play prior to her case note review (she’s saying she wouldn’t have done it if she had) but she did know in the months after and didn’t press strongly IH to say Police should be involved even though she’s saying that is what she thought and assumed was happening.

and

 

[Tofino]

Hawdon’s evidence is worth a read. Interesting medical details about some of the babies. Would think the fact that Harvey altered her reports to remove baby D from the unexplained and unexpected categories is of high significance and hope they hand his a to him on a plate over that. Can’t imagine how furious her parents must be

Hawdon does get a grilling at the end from the family lawyers. Both for some of her medical conclusions for the babies and because although she didn’t know about suspicions of foul play prior to her case note review (she’s saying she wouldn’t have done it if she had) but she did know in the months after and didn’t press strongly IH to say Police should be involved even though she’s saying that is what she thought and assumed was happening.
View attachment 3267091
and

View attachment 3267092View attachment 3267093View attachment 3267094View attachment 3267095

Why can’t they just say ‘I should have done more or been clearer. I’m sorry’.

 

[IGiveUp22]

Why can’t they just say ‘I should have done more or been clearer. I’m sorry’.

I guess that comes back down to the worry/fear they could get done for medical negligence.

Im glad they questioned her on this because surely when she did realise, you’d have gone back to the likes of Harvey and being like “woah, you haven’t got the police involved but you think there is potential deliberate harm”

I guess she assumed, wrongly, they were involving the police and that was out of her remit. It’s just so sad. I imagine a lot of these people (bar the management) really do struggle with the fact they didn’t just sod the policy and go to the police themselves

 

[Tofino]

I guess that comes back down to the worry/fear they could get done for medical negligence.

Im glad they questioned her on this because surely when she did realise, you’d have gone back to the likes of Harvey and being like “woah, you haven’t got the police involved but you think there is potential deliberate harm”

I guess she assumed, wrongly, they were involving the police and that was out of her remit. It’s just so sad. I imagine a lot of these people (bar the management) really do struggle with the fact they didn’t just sod the policy and go to the police themselves

I do think someone like Hawdon would know she couldn’t be done for negligence though. She’s really far removed from the main issues. I think she could have been less defensive in her situation.

I totally expect the execs to be incredibly defensive and cautious about what they say.

I don’t know whether individuals can be held liable though, especially criminally. I think it would be corporate manslaughter against the trust, which is extremely rare for NHS anyway, and I don’t know if that would hold individuals accountable. And this lot left as soon as she was arrested / charged anyway.

 

[Pulltheotherone]

Live reporting from Judith today.

 

[MmmB777]

Why can’t they just say ‘I should have done more or been clearer. I’m sorry’.

There is another point where she does say something exactly like that but not about this issue. Something to do with the babies condition I think.

I agree here though she should just say you’re right’ and even her saying “how do you want to proceed” to IH suggests to me that she’s thinking there were multiple options when there was literally one at this point - call the bleeping police.

 

[Tofino]

---
Dr J showing them all how it should be done

 

[Futtrit]

There is another point where she does say something exactly like that but not about this issue. Something to do with the babies condition I think.

I agree here though she should just say you’re right’ and even her saying “how do you want to proceed” to IH suggests to me that she’s thinking there were multiple options when there was literally one at this point - call the bleeping police.

I think it was the use of the word forensic possibly?

 

[Tofino]

Hitchens has had nothing to say about Hawdon.
Love Snowdon on the wind up

 

[MmmB777]

View attachment 3267157

That’s really upset me I think the doctors are pretty tortured by this. Dr ZA also emphatically accepts personal responsibility. Dr Gibbs was very remorseful about the bloods. They are putting their necks on the line it couldn’t be any clearer. They are willing to accept what the outcome is. People that otherwise have had brilliant careers dedicated to saving the lives of and treating sick children

Just so sad, these are the people that did try and the ones that covered it up, literally hid it, altered reports and put the needs and feelings of a serial killer before patient safety at every point can’t have that basic decency.

 

[Tofino]

That’s really upset me I think the doctors are pretty tortured by this. Dr ZA also emphatically accepts personal responsibility. Dr Gibbs was very remorseful about the bloods. They are putting their necks on the line it couldn’t be any clearer. They are willing to accept what the outcome is. People that otherwise have had brilliant careers dedicated to saving the lives of and treating sick children

Just so sad, these are the people that did try and the ones that covered it up, literally hid it, altered reports and put the needs and feelings of a serial killer before patient safety at every point can’t have that basic decency.

It’s like night and day. And they were at least trying even if they could and should have done things differently.

I’m surprised there is no other live reporting. I wonder if the Telegraph got banned. I also think Crapton has stopped commenting on Letby on X. I wonder if she was given any warning about it from telegraph.

 

[AllieBee]

Hawdon’s evidence is worth a read. Interesting medical details about some of the babies. Would think the fact that Harvey altered her reports to remove baby D from the unexplained and unexpected categories is of high significance and hope they hand his a to him on a plate over that. Can’t imagine how furious her parents must be

Hawdon does get a grilling at the end from the family lawyers. Both for some of her medical conclusions for the babies and because although she didn’t know about suspicions of foul play prior to her case note review (she’s saying she wouldn’t have done it if she had) but she did know in the months after and didn’t press strongly IH to say Police should be involved even though she’s saying that is what she thought and assumed was happening.
View attachment 3267091
and

View attachment 3267092View attachment 3267093View attachment 3267094View attachment 3267095

That last questions skewers Harvey.

 

[Tofino]

---

---
I think the KC for Baby K’s family will go hard on him about this

 

[Futtrit]

Dr Jayaram explains, "It’s such a seemingly outlandish thing that someone is causing deliberate harm. It's the fear of not being believed. It's the fear of ridicule. It's the fear of accusations of bullying... (1/2)


.. I appreciate and I say this to the parents of baby K and all the other parents - that seems entirely selfish, but these are the realities" (2/2)

 

[sebanna]

It must be so hard for the doctors. Other people are removed from this, but they saw those babies fighting for their lives and the utter despair their deaths caused. Dr Jayaram has the memory of baby K struggling to breathe and Lucy not helping and then has to live with the fact that later babies were killed and not protected. He was treated badly by his bosses and the media once he did speak out, so it would have been very difficult to ring the police after baby K.