Thirwall Theatre - Part 2

'Messed about' Messages and Manufactured Motives

9th November 2024

IN part 1 of Thirwall Theatre I looked at themes coming out of the inquiry. Firstly the unexpected theme which led to these deaths belatedly being rebranded as murders and secondly the weirdo theme which allowed Lucy to be branded as ward witch giving the the witch hunters the identity of the culprit.

There is a caveat here. If the consultants were so troubled by that which lies outside their realm of expectation, it is strange that that concern did not extend to questioning the odds of a previously peaceful, law abiding young woman, without any motive, suddenly morphing overnight into psycho killer bitch.

This part will concentrate on the cover up regarding Baby D, an odd message exchange, and the claimed motives regarding the mysterious Dr. U, as well as why Lucy could not be allowed to be found innocent, nor be allowed to appeal at this stage.

There are a number of ‘what’s ap’ messages that have been released of conversations between Letby and colleagues. Within these there are many redactions. However, one of these conversations I find very interesting and it involved baby D.

Baby D was the one whose mother’s waters broke, but after failed attempts to induce labour she was not given a caesarean section until two and a half days later. The baby girl according to her mother looked lifeless when born, was limp, grey , struggling to breathe and not an even colour. Initially a doctor claimed the baby was fine so the mother had to push for a second opinion and eventually baby D (after a delay) was admitted to the neonatal unit with breathing problems. She was told her baby needed to be intubated and needed to go on a ventilator. The baby took no interest in feeding. The mother complained that there was infection present and a failure to give antibiotics and this has been admitted by the hospital.

The mother gave evidence in court saying that she was not convinced by the doctors’ claims that her baby was in a good condition at birth. Baby D was in Nursery 1. Lucy was not Baby D’s designated nurse, that was Caroline Oakley, who also had another baby to look after in Nursery 2. This was not good practice. Apparently babies in intensive care should have one to one nursing. Lucy actually had three babies to look after, two of them in Nursery 1 and the third in another nursery. On the nightshift of 21/22nd June, Dr. Elizabeth Newby, the consultant in charge, had claimed to the parents that Baby D was stable so they had gone upstairs to rest.

It was alleged that Lucy tried to kill the baby three times that night, in the early hours, succeeding on the third attempt. Baby D did collapse several times and had black and brown discolouration to the skin. Dr. Andrew Braunton (registrar) described ‘an unusual red/brown rash’ similar to that on Baby A and B. When the baby collapsed a third time around 4am . Dr. Emily Thomas, a junior doctor, claims Lucy was the nurse who called her for help and that she was upset. The nurses were doing CPR, a crash call was put out, and it is not clear how long it took for Dr. Braunton to get back to help the baby. When he got there he attempted to resuscitate baby D. Consultant Newby was not initially available, it appears Dr. Braunton was communicating with somebody by phone whilst trying to resuscitate the baby, presumably for advice. When Newby did get there she tried to help get the baby’s heart to restart. Six doses of adrenalin were given but to no avail. Sadly the baby passed away.

It was agreed by medical experts that there was clear evidence of infection. Post mortem it was found the baby had had pneumonia. As did baby A and baby C. For further details and very detailed covering of overall everything that was wrong at COCH, fellow of Royal Statistic Society, Peter Elston and retired doctor Michael McConville have done a series of podcasts on the case on spotify. They explain that babies who are not treated properly for pneumonia with antibiotics get sepsis.

The conversation on what’s app between Lucy and PD/Nurse T regarding Baby D, after Lucy had finished her shift on 22/06/2015 was, as released by the Thirwell Enquiry, as follows:

Lucy: ‘We had such a rubbish night. Our job is just far too sad sometimes.

Nurse T: ‘No, what happened?’

Lucy: ‘We lost baby D’

PD/Nurse T: ‘What !!! But she was improving. What happened?

Lucy: ‘Messed about a couple of times and came out in this weird rash looking like overwhelming sepsis. Liz came in. Re screened etc.

( more redactions ? )

PD /Nurse T: ‘Yes but you’ve had it all recently.

In court there was more to this conversation, at least according to the newspapers, but nothing which clarified the odd, seemingly nonsensical response from Lucy to the question ‘What happened?’ ‘Messed about a couple of times’ does not make sense. I have to assume this is a typo and it is interesting that nobody seems interested in clarifying what Lucy meant.

I would guess she meant ‘missed about a couple of times’ which suggests somebody missed something and it also suggests that what was ‘missed’ has been redacted from the what’s ap conversation. Maybe she is referring to attempts to intubate going wrong or lines being inserted in the wrong place. . Evidence has come out already about incompetent/under qualified doctors at COCH missing when inserting lines. What we need to know is who ‘messed/missed about a couple of times’ causing the rash which looked like sepsis? Clearly this is incompetence by somebody regarding an already very sick and weak baby. But incompetence/mistakes are not murder, whoever was responsible. Yet still Dewi Evans comes up with the far out claim that this baby has died because Lucy deliberately injected air with zero evidence to support this and a wealth of evidence to show this baby had pneumonia at birth and they failed to give her antibiotics at the time, after already failing the mother during the birth.

You could not make this up. I don’t think you could even sell this ‘murder’ story to a bunch of schoolkids. NO wonder they have gagged Baby D’s parents from speaking directly to the press. Do they really believe this was murder or is it more likely they see gross medical negligence in the whole way this birth was conducted and the failure to treat properly a very sick baby with antibiotics?

As the original pathologist could see in regard to babies A, C and D who died in June 2015, we have acute pneumonia, phospholipid syndrome mother, emergency caesarian births (twins at 30 weeks - babies A and B) , low birthweights, lack of antibiotics, lack of fluids, delays in transfer to neonatal unit, crossed pulmonary arteries, high blood pressure, problems with two long lines, dangerous placenta conditions and sepsis. Also metabolic acidosis.

COCH consultants and Dewi Evans, I have a questions for you. Are you blind or just plain stupid or are you, Brearey and Jayaram, liars because you knew that you would be responsible for such negligence and poor care? I know which I think. When Lucy is vindicated, you need to face justice for what is likely contempt of court, bearing false witness. And management you should have stuck to your original position which was that the consultants were out of order and were scapegoating Letby. But you cowardly back-tracked. As did the cowardly Dr. U, hiding his identity whilst failing to stand up for Lucy in court like he had done when he was befriending her outside the hospital.

It makes me very angry when deaths that were very obviously due to fate aided by NHS incompetence/negligence have been reframed as murder in order to scapegoat a nurse and protect the backs of the self-serving consultants and management and to avoid negligence pay-outs. It doesn’t surprise me though. From personal experience in my own life on multiple occasions, I am well aware of how the NHS behaves when it thinks negligence might be on the cards. Immediate lying and covering up begins , and fingers are pointed at patients and where that is not possible, at the lower ranking staff. It is interesting that one doctor from COCH in court tried to blame baby D’s father for a collapse by claiming he was ‘holding his baby wrongly’. Bloody disgusting and I cannot imagine the trauma that must have caused Baby D’s father. But again , it doesn’t surprise me, from my own experience of the blaming culture in the NHS.

Those really responsible are always protected and rewarded for their incompetence and dishonesty. Organisations like the CQC are utterly useless and the ‘independent’ PHSO (public health service ombudsman), is about as independent as a breast feeding baby, see my ombudsman statistics analysis They just perpetuate the long outdated myth that the NHS is the envy of the world.

For some light relief, remember this during the fake pandemic dancing nurses

As for the motive for these ‘murders’, there was none. So the trial came up with the dubious suggestion that Lucy morphed into a serial killer in order to gain attention from the anonymous Dr. ‘U’ (also referred to as doctor A in enquiry). Lucy is accused of having been obsessed with this registrar. Funny then how she is also apparently attacking babies to get Dr. U’s attention when he is not on duty, as with Baby D. But in any case, the obsession claim is a twisting by the prosecution of the known facts. Neither Lucy, nor Dr. U admit to being anything more than friends. According to messages relayed between Lucy and a friend, it was Dr. U who first contacted Lucy outside of the hospital by messaging her on facebook and Lucy told her colleague that she did not fancy him.

This concurs with the evidence Dr. U has himself given to the enquiry, which is somewhat creepy. It was him who chased her, rather than the other way around. He states that he wanted to help ‘poor little Lucy’ due to her mental health issues. It comes across as very patronising and the usual excuse that male predators have for targeting vulnerable women. No wonder he does not want to be named. It has also come out in the enquiry that there was a rumour going round the hospital that one of the doctors or consultants was harassing Lucy. However it is not clear which person this applies to.

A note was found in Lucy’s home which apparently declared her love for Dr. U, although this still does not prove any unhealthy obsession on her part. Here is the note:

The Mirror have been reporting these words apparently from the note.

My best friend. Love I loved you and I think you knew that. I trusted you with everything … I wanted you to stand by me but you didn’t.

From the note it seems the Mirror are cherry picking and throwing bits together to make it appear like a sentence. Dr. U’s name is presumably blotted out.

IF you read across there is a long phrase all joined up together, but it seems to say:

Love was all we needed but time let us down

This is repeated several times in the note. There are other names mentioned several times though, Katheryn de Beger, the occupational health nurse assigned to support Lucy, and Karen Rees.

THe note shows an expression of sorrow that she had trusted someone but whoever it was let her down. If there was romance between the two of them, I fail to see how this means she would kill to get his attention. THere are easier ways of getting attention and in any case, he clearly was happy to give her attention, she did not need to beg for it.

IT is clear Dr. U believed Lucy was innocent of any wrongdoing, as after Lucy had been removed from the ward he made attempts to get permission for her to watch him dealing with post operative babies, even stating that he would trust her more than any other nurse with his own children. It is a shame he did not continue to stand up for her throughout the trial and it is not clear what changed his mind. He could have been ‘got at’ or it could just that he is a typical human and has acted in a way which will engender the least risk to himself and his own career, not least his marriage.

Dr. A has been criticised by parents for breaching anonymity by discussing the details of of one of the babies on the neonatal unit with Lucy in personal messages outside the hospital. His approach doesn’t appear particularly professional and I am not surprised that he is attempting to cover up his true identity

Why was Lucy unable to escape conviction then with so little actual evidence against her and a wealth of evidence of an understaffed, overstretched , underqualified neonatal unit with sewage leaks and infection on site? I am going to suggest three main reasons:

1. The post–it-notes ………… They played a big part in the perception of her guilt . Personally I think her lawyer should have argued that those should not have been admissible in court. They were not a confession. Confessions according to PACE have to be done without any external factors of ,say, vulnerability influencing them. Clearly Lucy was vulnerable and under a lot of pressure and stress when she wrote those notes. But key is the fact she was told to write these things down by a mentor she had been given at the time who was counselling her to help her with the accusations against her by the consultants and the police investigation. The post it notes very clearly then do not count as a confession and I have no idea why her legal team did not use this as grounds to appeal. Unfortunately they played a crucial part in her conviction because they were presented to the jury as though they were a written confession.

2. Legal Aid ………… . This may be, in my opinion, be the reason only a plumber gave evidence on behalf of the defence and why Dr. Michael Hall, the expert who could have refuted the nonsense claims of Dewi Evans, was not actually called to the stand. A statistician or a psychologist should also have been called but were not. Lucy was reliant on legal aid and legal aid is not properly funded. Expert witnesses cost money. A medical expert will cost way more than a plumber. Lucy’s legal team have not revealed why they didn’t call Dr. Michael Hall, but the courts have to approve in advance any expert called by the defence and costs have to be agreed. The court can refuse leave to the defence to call an expert if they have in some way not complied with the criminal procedure rules, for example serving a report late in the proceedings. However, Lucy’s lawyer in trial (Ben Myers) had argued there was ‘no case to answer’. Calling a medical expert might have been seen as an admission that there was something the defence had to answer (prove), so maybe they decided against it for that reason. However if that was the case , I am not sure why they called a plumber to the stand. It seems they were not using the argument that sewage was a factor in the incidents. Certainly in the appeal application Ben Myers cited the Judge was wrong to reject the defence call for ‘no case to answer’. I agree that there was no case to answer, but I think the charges were too serious to take the risk that the court would just accept that.

3. The negligence claims against COCH ………..A further reason Lucy was not going to be allowed to escape conviction is because COCH had a growing number of negligence claims against them. Please see the response to my FOI on this. Note on FOI If negligence was proven, they would have enormous payouts on their hands. If on the other hand they can officially call the deaths murders it means they are less likely to have to pay out. They can avoid liability by claiming that Letby broke the employer/employee relationship to such a degree that they cannot be held responsible . This is what I guess they will do and it is the main reason that Dame Thirwall will not entertain any other possibility other than that the convictions against Letby are sound.

While the Thirwall enquiry is taking place, the police are trying to drag up other deaths they can blame on Lucy. It has already been reported in the MSM that an audit has been done at Liverpool women’s hospital for the shifts Lucy did there on student placement. They are claiming that on 40 percent of the shifts Lucy did in October to December 2012 and January/February 2015, babies breathing tubes were recorded as dislodged. However no further information was given as to whether, as a trainee, she was alone on these shifts and how many shifts 40 percent means. I therefore put in an FOI to Liverpool Women’s hospital asking how many actual incidents of dislodged breathing tubes in babies were recorded for that time period, and of these incidents how many involved one trainee working alone.

I have now had a response in which they refuse to give the information, citing the inquiry and police investigation. I have requested an internal review since they base their refusal on the claim that releasing the information would interfere with the administration of justice. MY argument in response to them is that they have already released the 40 percent figure, so they were not concerned about that interfering with the administration of justice. Failure to further clarify WOULD interfere with the administration of justice.

With just this vague 40 percent claim given to the press, it is again an example of statistical nonsense, because we are not seeing the context or comparisons with other periods/staff. The claim at present is just another attempt by the gutter media to demonise Lucy.

I will follow up when I get a response. If you have read this post and appreciate it please tick the like button or leave a comment so I can see if people are interested in my continuing these type of articles.