I think where she says “for anyone who goes through that” she is referring to Letby. Poor little Lucy. They all have blood on their hands
- Status
New to Tattle Life? Click "Order Thread by Most Liked Posts" button below to get an idea of what the site is about:
I missed yesterday because of my endometriosis, but I’m on my way up to watch the pricks today. Sadly I’ll be late because of extra traffic.
@Tofino if you’ve booked in, you are allowed to be late, I’ve confirmed with them.
Heads up: no one needs to book in to see Ian Harvey on Friday morning, it’s first come, first served and the doors open at 9am. Usually you have to book two weeks in advance. I’ll be there on Friday too.
@Tofino if you’ve booked in, you are allowed to be late, I’ve confirmed with them.
Heads up: no one needs to book in to see Ian Harvey on Friday morning, it’s first come, first served and the doors open at 9am. Usually you have to book two weeks in advance. I’ll be there on Friday too.
It's this attitude I find infuriating! Professionals who don't work in NNU and actually know nothing about how babies fare in these units. The paediatricians knew because they are the experts not TC, IH and Sue the HR lady, yet they were being over ruled. NNU babies are vulnerable but they are constantly monitored, their needs are met and unexpected deaths are very rare! Other patients in the hospital would be far more likely to die! Yet in this case everyone else seems to think they know better than the experts.Sue Hodkinson is really trying to come over as nicey nicey and they are having none of it
Absolute head offering her expert opinion on Neonatal care as an HR “people professional”.
View attachment 3292138View attachment 3292139View attachment 3292140View attachment 3292141
another weasel that can’t answer the question. It was difficult as a mum.
They’re the most vulnerable to nefarious acts from somebody evil.
---
I agree. I think her first statement about “being a mum” was potentially also a reference to poor Lucy. She’s another of Letby’s mother hens. They make me sick.
Thanks for letting me know. I missed the deadline in the end and Friday I have meetings all morning so I won’t make it. I’m not sure it’s wise me being there in person anyway. I don’t have a very good poker face.
---
I love how the KCs repeatedly refer to them as experts. Which they are.
Does anyone else think Tony Chambers was throwing Daddy Letby under the bus with the gun to my head threat thing? I think he’s exaggerating to play the victim. It’s not like John Letby is going to defend himself, and he wouldn’t be believed if he did.
Her parents should be made to answer questions at the inquiry to be honest.
Her parents should be made to answer questions at the inquiry to be honest.
If he felt threatened by Lucy's parents why didn't he just ban them from the meetings? Lucy could bring HC or Bergerac for support.
Exactly! As a chief executive he really should have much bigger balls than that, deary me!
Everyone makes mistakes at work, but when your lack of action results in deaths it really must be accountable.
if that was me on the stand I would be utterly devastated and probably sobbing but no all we have heard from them is didnt know enough ( I guess babies dying isn’t enough), needed to support Letby, can’t remember, didn’t read my emails, was scared of Pa Letby, was good at my job. There total lack of empathy for the parents having to listen to this is disgraceful.
C ant wait to hear what that slimeball has to say today
if that was me on the stand I would be utterly devastated and probably sobbing but no all we have heard from them is didnt know enough ( I guess babies dying isn’t enough), needed to support Letby, can’t remember, didn’t read my emails, was scared of Pa Letby, was good at my job. There total lack of empathy for the parents having to listen to this is disgraceful.
C ant wait to hear what that slimeball has to say today
Sue Hodkinson’s questioning is brutal 
10/10 would recommend.
More
it’s golden
10/10 would recommend. More
it’s golden
Last edited:
She was looking at CCTV?! If you’re having to look at CCTV to see if one of your staff may be murdering babies then maybe it’s time to call the police.Sue Hodkinson’s questioning is brutal
View attachment 3292265View attachment 3292266
Exactly! If your looking at CCTV then you damn well know that something criminal has been happening
Why did this bleep start with an apology? He can shove it up his a.
'What we had were gut feelings,' former CEO says
published at 10:21
10:21
Richard Baker KC begins by referring Tony Chambers to his evidence from yesterday.
He says: “You accepted on multiple occasions that the paediatricians were the experts in the room?”
Tony Chambers replies: “They were our experts, they were our doctors and they were the ones that were closest to these issues."
He then goes on to say that the consultants may have been presenting things as clear cut, but “it was not a simple, single thing. We understood from history that it was multifactorial”.
Richard Baker KC picks up Tony Chambers’ point about past cases, from recent history. He cites Harold Shipman and Beverley Allitt.
Chambers says with the Allitt case there was evidence of deliberate harm, to which Baker replies "there was evidence here!".
Chambers replies "what we had were gut feelings and nothing was presented in a very explicit way that would make you feel this was the only explanation for the matters that we were facing".
'What we had were gut feelings,' former CEO says
published at 10:21
10:21
Richard Baker KC begins by referring Tony Chambers to his evidence from yesterday.
He says: “You accepted on multiple occasions that the paediatricians were the experts in the room?”
Tony Chambers replies: “They were our experts, they were our doctors and they were the ones that were closest to these issues."
He then goes on to say that the consultants may have been presenting things as clear cut, but “it was not a simple, single thing. We understood from history that it was multifactorial”.
Richard Baker KC picks up Tony Chambers’ point about past cases, from recent history. He cites Harold Shipman and Beverley Allitt.
Chambers says with the Allitt case there was evidence of deliberate harm, to which Baker replies "there was evidence here!".
Chambers replies "what we had were gut feelings and nothing was presented in a very explicit way that would make you feel this was the only explanation for the matters that we were facing".
Couldn’t be clearer really. 12th May 2017 was when they met with police but just before the police met with the consultants alone (15th May) and formally launched the investigation
They really thought the police would back their position.
---
Oh. Not his notes so it didn’t happen
---
Richard Baker KC not holding back
“Utterly reprehensible behaviour and unfitting for a CEO in the NHS”
They really thought the police would back their position.
---
Oh. Not his notes so it didn’t happen
---
Richard Baker KC not holding back
“Utterly reprehensible behaviour and unfitting for a CEO in the NHS”
Last edited:
I feel like Chambers (and all the execs actually) are just trying the 'lie until it becomes the truth' in their evidence. They have all stated wide eyed 'We just didn't have the evidence, it was all gut feelings and vagueness from the consultants . We didn't get a clear sense of what was going on from the reviews or the consultants'.
Well for one, the reviews were conducted in bad faith - they were not given the full picture and were never going to meet the threshold for forensic case reviews. The RCPCH was a service review - it was never going to find 'the answer' because it's terms of reference explicitly state that if the deaths were caused by an individuals actions the review should be ceased immediately. It didn't cease because Kelly actively withheld the information around the individual. And I don't know how anyone could accuse someone of being vague when they are using language like 'you are harbouring a murderer' (spot on Jim) and 'If you put Letby back on that ward we will take more action' - they wanted the consultants to say 'Letby killed those babies by doing x,y and z at this time and she was seen with the empty syringe in her hand and here's the CCTV'. That level of evidence is so rarely present in murder cases - there are plenty of murders that go unseen, the only people bearing witness are the murderer and the victim. I'll never understand why those execs held those consultants up to a higher standard of backing up their claims than the CPS holds up detectives, professional investigators who are paid to do it.
Well for one, the reviews were conducted in bad faith - they were not given the full picture and were never going to meet the threshold for forensic case reviews. The RCPCH was a service review - it was never going to find 'the answer' because it's terms of reference explicitly state that if the deaths were caused by an individuals actions the review should be ceased immediately. It didn't cease because Kelly actively withheld the information around the individual. And I don't know how anyone could accuse someone of being vague when they are using language like 'you are harbouring a murderer' (spot on Jim) and 'If you put Letby back on that ward we will take more action' - they wanted the consultants to say 'Letby killed those babies by doing x,y and z at this time and she was seen with the empty syringe in her hand and here's the CCTV'. That level of evidence is so rarely present in murder cases - there are plenty of murders that go unseen, the only people bearing witness are the murderer and the victim. I'll never understand why those execs held those consultants up to a higher standard of backing up their claims than the CPS holds up detectives, professional investigators who are paid to do it.
What was she even expecting to see on CCTV? LL sneaking in, hood up, carrying a big syringe labelled poison?Sue Hodkinson’s questioning is brutal
View attachment 3292265View attachment 3292266
More
View attachment 3292270
- Status