Shocking new details have continued to emerge from the Thirlwall inquiry which is investigating how Lucy Letby was able to murder babies at the Countess of Chester hospital between 2015 and 2016
Horrifying new details in the case of killer nurse Lucy Letby have emerged as an inquiry into her sickening crimes has entered its fourth day.
The Thirlwall inquiry began on Tuesday, and will investigate how the 34-year-old was able to kill and injure babies while working in the neonatal unit at the Counter of Chester Hospital between 2015 and 2016. Letby was sentenced to 15 whole-life orders after she was convicted across two trials of murdering seven babies and attempting to murder seven others.
Led by Lady Justice Thirlwall at Liverpool town hall, the investigation will comb through events at the hospital, as it looks into the experiences of the victims’ parents, the conduct of staff at the Countess of Chester and the effectiveness of NHS management.
As the inquiry enters its fourth day, the Mirror takes a look at five alarming new details that have come to light following the horror case.
Babies’ deaths on everyone, say management
Senior managers at the Countess of Chester hospital have said it was the “collective responsibility” of everyone “from the ward to the board” to keep babies safe, the inquiry heard.
But when alarm bells were first rung about high mortality rates on the neonatal ward, little was done, and consultants were instead made to sign a letter of apology to Letby after raising concerns that she may have been responsible. Rachel Langdale KC said the Inquiry will be looking at why the decision on 2 July 2015, that no further investigation was warranted was reached. She added: “With hindsight, this decision may represent a significant opportunity missed.
“As well as failing to recommend further investigation due to the number of unexpected neonatal deaths (3 within 2 weeks), the meeting on 2 July 2015 also failed to consider or document: a. which staff were present at each resuscitation. b. Whether, in addition to the deaths, there had been any unexpected collapses over the same period.
“Had these factors been considered, it seems likely that at this stage, in July 2015, as a minimum Letby’s presence at each sudden and unexpected death and her presence at the collapse of Child B would have been highlighted. In addition, the surprise and shock that doctors and nurses felt at the deaths and the prevalence of unusual clinical features, including the rashes, would have been considered in greater detail.”
Alarm bells rung about Letby in 2016
Kate Blackwell KC, representing medical director Ian Harvey and director of nursing and quality Alison Kelly, said the pair were first made aware by consultants at the end of June 2016 that Letby may be directly connected to the deaths. But in February 2017, Letby and her parents held a meeting with members of the hospital’s Executive Directors Group.
At the start of the meeting Letby was informed that the consultants would write her a joint letter of apology and that mediation would take place. In the course of the meeting, Letby’s father was recorded as suggesting that the consultants had “got away with calling my daughter a murderer”, adding: “You should have called the police or told them to go away.”
On February 28, eight consultants, including Dr Brearey and Dr Jayaram, signed a letter of apology addressed to Letby.
The apology acknowledged how stressful Letby must have found the period of the reviews and apologised for “any inappropriate comments that may have been made during this difficult period.” It also apologised for the stress and upset that Letby had experienced.
Managers did not suspect murder
Managers felt that the alarming number of neonatal deaths was not a result of any “unnatural event or the result of foul play”, the inquiry heard.
Ms Blackwell said: “Issues were flagged within these reviews concerning elements of care. However, during the course of these reviews and investigations there was no suggestion of any concerns that the increase in mortality rates was connected to any unnatural event or the result of foul play.”
It wasn’t until a meeting with members of the hospital board was convened on April 13, 2017, that an investigation had commenced. At the meeting, it was agreed that contact with the police should be made through the Child Death Overview Panel.
The letter asked Cheshire Police to “conduct a forensic investigation into the circumstances surrounding the deaths with a view to excluding any unnatural causes”. Three days later the first meeting of Operation Hummingbird (the name given to the police investigation) took place.
Letby was not suspected
Senior managers were aware Letby had been on shift when a number of the deaths had occurred, but she was not thought to be responsible.
It was understood that Letby was a specialist practitioner and, therefore, because of her skills and training, she was more likely to be looking after the sickest infants on the neonatal unit, often on her own. In addition to this, her willingness to work overtime meant that she was on shift on a more frequent basis than other nursing practitioners.
Family lawyer Richard Baker stressed earlier on in the inquiry: “We prefer our monsters to look like monsters. It’s sometimes hard to accept that evil can be banal, but we should not be so naive. To be successful a serial killer hides in plain sight.”
Managers in dark on evidence of murder bid
Management were reportedly never told about the moment a baby, referred to as Child F, had blood test results in August 2015 for which accidental administration of insulin had been excluded. Letby was later convicted of attempting to murder Child F by poisoning him.
Ms Blackwell, who is also representing ex-chief executive Antony Chambers and former director of people and organisational development Susan Hodkinson, said: “Clinicians are in the unique position of being able to identify if there is something concerning about a clinical presentation or if the conduct of other clinicians or staff is a concern. Such concerns must be reported or escalated in order for governance processes to work effectively.
“It is crucial to understand that the responsibility to keep babies safe is shared by everyone. From those who work on the ward all the way to the board. It is a collective responsibility.”