• #1,101
Delighted to see that YET again Davis neither knows the law or his own case.
 
  • #1,102
D
 
  • #1,103
IMG_20260326_202452.jpg
 
  • #1,104
Screenshot 2026-03-26 230912.png
 
  • #1,105
  • #1,106
  • #1,107
The Thirlwall Inquiry is at the stage of being proofread for publication- this will take some time, but conclusions have obviously been reached and it has been wrapped up, aside from ensuring any remaining evidence referred to in the report has been uploaded.
Once released do we think this will be considered by the CCRC, or seen as a separate entity whose paths don’t need to cross?

One other question to you all- whilst the CCRC often takes many months/years to fully assess an application- are there any known scenarios where it has been resolved and dismissed quickly?
 
  • #1,108
I can't see how the CCRC can consider it
 
  • #1,109
  • #1,110
The headline doesn’t read the same if they had focused on this quote out of the article they printed

“Having mostly agreed with Dr Evans's conclusions, Bohin was called upon by the prosecution during the trial,”

Dr Bohin doesn’t agree with all the conclusions of the international panel, or all of Dr Evans opinions.

The headline could also have read
Expert Witness: This is what prosecutors of Letby got so wrong. It’s not an investigative piece of neutral reporting, it’s another article that is pushing its own biased narrative. Most of the press articles are the same- attempting to push public opinion one way or the other, rather than being fully informative pieces of journalism.
 
  • #1,111
Not only is another sad attempt by Liz Hull to shore up the case (and her podcast’s legacy) but I don’t know why people are getting away with posting stuff that’s completely unrelated to the inquiry? This is a thread about Thirlwall, is it not?
 
  • #1,112
“just before Letby was due to start her shift on 27 June 2016, she was called and told not to come into work. She was then moved into an administrative role.”




Yet in December they are still having meetings to keep the unit downgraded and we have parents still believing their children were harmed, but being dismissed by Hummingbird as being out of the timeline for investigation.


The telegraph article discussing parents who complained but weren’t considered is behind a paywall. Archived links are available, but also can’t be shared on here- sorry

And it has since never been upgraded, despite hints in the meeting minutes shared above by Thirlwall from 3 months after Letby had been removed from the unit, that it may be upgraded again following the report due early 2017. In fact many, many years later it has still not been upgraded, even with a new purpose built building. That must reflect more widely on the care provided than just a single person.
 
Last edited:
  • #1,113
DBM
 
  • #1,114
Hey folks,

This thread is about the inquiry, (so not about everything Letby related).

Please stay on topic. Thanks !!
 
  • #1,115
It was never a skeleton staff.
According to the hospital itself and the Thirlwall documents it was. They were understaffed throughout the time period.

Firstly, the review is explicit that the neonatal service was not meeting required professional standards. It directly asks whether the service was compliant and answers: “Is the service provision compliant with current professional standards? No.” (p10/33). The unit’s own self-assessment recorded it as “non-compliant on nurse and medical staffing levels, environment and accommodation for parents, support from the community neonatal team and postnatal follow up.” (p10/33).

Secondly, medical staffing was found to be inadequate across multiple rotas. The review states “A Tier 2 rota… with at least 8 staff (not compliant)” and “A Tier 1 rota… with at least 8 staff (not compliant)” (p10/33). This indicates that the unit did not have the level of medical cover required for the complexity of care it was providing.

Thirdly, the review records that the service was “non-compliant on nurse and medical staffing levels” (p10/33),


And the report was excluded from the trial.


They were aware of the deficiency in nursing staff in 2015 and were attempting to argue for increased staffing


There are numerous other documents, including numerous internal meetings, on Thirlwall about understaffing, but it would take days to find and share them all.
 
  • #1,116
According to the hospital itself and the Thirlwall documents it was. They were understaffed throughout the time period.

Firstly, the review is explicit that the neonatal service was not meeting required professional standards. It directly asks whether the service was compliant and answers: “Is the service provision compliant with current professional standards? No.” (p10/33). The unit’s own self-assessment recorded it as “non-compliant on nurse and medical staffing levels, environment and accommodation for parents, support from the community neonatal team and postnatal follow up.” (p10/33).

Secondly, medical staffing was found to be inadequate across multiple rotas. The review states “A Tier 2 rota… with at least 8 staff (not compliant)” and “A Tier 1 rota… with at least 8 staff (not compliant)” (p10/33). This indicates that the unit did not have the level of medical cover required for the complexity of care it was providing.

Thirdly, the review records that the service was “non-compliant on nurse and medical staffing levels” (p10/33),


And the report was excluded from the trial.


They were aware of the deficiency in nursing staff in 2015 and were attempting to argue for increased staffing


There are numerous other documents, including numerous internal meetings, on Thirlwall about understaffing, but it would take days to find and share them all.
of course it was understaffed. Where isn't? Means absolutely nothing.
 
  • #1,117

Guardians Monthly Goal

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
161
Guests online
10,241
Total visitors
10,402

Forum statistics

Threads
645,698
Messages
18,846,786
Members
245,764
Latest member
katiejaneparker
Top