Eileen killen

Lucy Letby Netflix documentary quote: “She came across as a competent nurse who knew how to care for the babies.” That’s because she was.... It’s unfortunate that the same cannot be said for some of my consultant colleagues who were responsible for the poor care certain babies received, and who appear incapable of owning their mistakes. Sadly, this reluctance to accept responsibility is a common feature among consultants - and doctors more broadly. It’s a mentality I have spent my entire professional life actively resisting, because it is remarkably easy to slip into when you feel threatened. The legal profession, which has absorbed a substantial portion of the Thirlwall Inquiry’s budget, bears a significant share of responsibility for creating a culture in which NHS staff are pressured into admissions and defensive behaviours. But an equally meaningful share lies with those in positions of power who face no consequences for poor conduct. They hold authority, and they know it. They are untouchable. @gmcuk and @RCPCHtweets - why is that? Until justice is actively demanded, individuals who have gotten away with repeatedly poor behaviours with no meaningful consequences will continue to “self-regulate” with roughly the same effectiveness as a three-year-old on the Tesco shop floor who wants an ice cream NOW - fully aware that screaming, biting, and kicking will eventually work, because they are being raised by someone who is not acquainted with the art of teaching discipline or learning through accepting just consequences. In short, I won’t be holding my breath for justice. But I am, at least, rather enjoying the art of satire... And unlike @ClarkeMicah I would recommend that everyone should watch the Lucy Letby docu on Netflix. It may be one of the most instructive examples of how a suspect can be bullied, harassed and dysregulated in the name of pursuing an extraction of a false confession - fail to obtain one - and yet conduct a targeted cherry-picked scapegoating an innocent person campaign that leads to a successful conviction. It is incredibly important that people interested in learning from history watch this because we don’t have contemporaneous video records of how historical witch-hunts (carried out by the British “justice” system) actually unfolded, but this documentary mirrors the written historical accounts with unsettling precision. @drphilhammond @netflix @NetflixUK @TheSun @LucyLetbyTrials @NadineDorries @MartynPitman @Michelehal7344 @bmj_latest

I have not previously commented in detail on the issue of handover sheets. But this is yet another aspect of the Letby case that was grossly misinterpreted. So what should have the jury heard? It has historically been normal for clinicians to take handover sheets home deliberately. This is because maintaining auditable records of clinical work and undertaking continuing professional development (CPD) based on cases managed represents best practice, and this has always been encouraged – in fact – it’s a requirement for me as a doctor. They functioned as informal but practical records of patients managed, conditions encountered, procedures performed or supervised others to do etc. In reality, many clinicians achieve this through keeping historical handover sheets, despite this not being formally permitted. There is of course always the matter of ideal practice and the practical realities of clinical work - this was never adequately examined. From the information that Cheshire police made available by the interviews they gave to Netflix – it became clear that Letby was someone conscientious, engaged, and keen to demonstrate learning, competence, and experience. Asterisking significant cases she was involved in (and of course sick babies and babies who die are significant cases) literally shows evidence of exactly that. Nurses, particularly junior or ambitious ones, often feel a strong need to evidence what they have done and what they have learned. Unlike consultants, clinically practicing nurses do not have offices or secure storage space at work. If a nurse wished to keep records of clinical experience, there were historically - and in most settings there still are - very limited alternatives, unless this information was logged on workplace computer systems that for the vast majority of clinical nurses (and for Letby) are only accessible on site. The reality of the modern NHS is that access to computers outside of direct clinical work is limited, and in some settings effectively impossible. There are often insufficient computers to meet the immediate clinical workload, let alone to allow staff to complete appraisal or portfolio/CPD work during working hours. Appraisals/yearly reviews - are therefore frequently completed on days off, as time formally allocated for these activities is routinely eroded by clinical demands. Against this backdrop, the suggestion that retained handover sheets represented “trophies” of murder is entirely inconsistent with the reality of standard clinical practice in our NHS as it is. While retaining identifiable patient information outside secure hospital systems can constitute a GDPR breach if discovered, that is a regulatory matter and does not imply criminal intent in any way, shape or form. To be clear, I would never have advised Lucy Letby to keep records of her work, CPD, or learning in this way, and I would not advise any nurse or doctor to do so. I am therefore not suggesting that this practice was appropriate, nor that it should be encouraged. I am stating that the interpretation of Letby’s record keeping behaviours by Cheshire Police as evidence of “trophy-keeping” represents yet another factually incorrect and intellectually weak aspect of this case. There is also something to be said about the wisdom of publicly displaying one’s own learning deficits while attempting to demonstrate intellectual authority but that’s a matter for those in charging of regulating the police to handle. @policeconduct @drphilhammond @Channel4News @Channel5Press @ITNProductions @NetflixUK @Michelehal7344 @wesstreeting @VeraBaird @ccrcupdate @cheshirepolice @LucyLetbyTrials @legalmarkmc @ShabanaMahmood @PrivateEyeNews

It reminds me of my 🧵 here

It seems CCRC averted scandal about one conflict of interest. Shaun Edwards axed.But there is another. Caroline Corfield, previous head of CCRC investigations also present at award for Paul Hughes as national SIO of year who led case to convict Lucy Letby thesun.co.uk/news/38622381/…

Wes Streeting and other #LucyLetby trolls said her supporters should not publicise the case and just leave it to the CCRC. This is why that's a terrible idea and why only continuous public and political pressure will reform a body that's rotten to the core

THIS!!! Staffing numbers do not equal safety. Experience does! Five multiplied by zero is still zero… When I did my first neonatal job 20 years ago, units were staffed with a strong core of very experienced nurses. That experience is everything. An experienced neonatal nurse: •Minimises handling and clusters care - protecting neurodevelopment. •Spots subtle deterioration before it escalates. •Acts decisively in emergencies and often pre-empts what needs doing. •Supports and teaches parents how to look after their babies on the unit - family integrated care much improves long-term outcomes. •Guides resident doctors who are new to neonates and is the main anchors in resuscitations. •Allocates staff safely based on skill and patient needs, not just rota gaps. Etc etc. A good experienced nurse is at the foundation of good neonatal care. But now we are seeing nurses with one or two years’ experience post QIS teaching others. Or going on ANP courses and being put on doctor rotas as replacements not very long after qualifying as nurses. That is not their fault. It’s a system failure. Experience cannot be fast-tracked. Incidents that would once have been considered as bad as “never events” are now just happening and I have seen in some cases in recent years these being brushed off as “one of those unpreventable things”, “this was fed back” being put as the only outcome. No meaningful investigations to address the root cause and consider measures to prevent them from recurring. This happens across failing units as a pattern. Lots of incidents like this are not even reported so would only be flagged up if it comes to either litigation, a complaint investigation or an external inquiry. Add to the above blame culture (used especially selectively for those who speak up when inevitably something bad or suboptimal happens on their shifts as it unavoidably does when you work in intensive care) and combine it with lack of accountability for those who choose to behave badly and cover up errors - and here are the perfect conditions for a downward spiral. The cherry on the cake is that people excuse lack of accountability with prevention of a blame culture. 🫣🫣 And the inevitable outcome is the erosion of standards. Our regulators are as much to blame as those who cover up errors. They play a crucial part in aiding scapegoating, as do NHS investigation procedures. And then we wonder why we have scandal after scandal after scandal…. @drphilhammond @Michelehal7344 @wesstreeting @PrivateEyeNews @hannahsbee @LucyLetbyTrials @Voice4theDead @C4Faye @Channel4News @DavidDavisMP @SkyNews @netflix @NetflixUK @LucyLetbyTrials @PeterElston1 @NadineDorries @MartynPitman @Voice4theDead @CaitlinSpeaksUp @JamesTitcombe

Charlotte Nichols MP spoke so well about her rape She waited 1088 days in a queue for a jury, behind many lesser cases in which the defendant had demanded jury trial. The Jury acquitted her attacker She sued him & a Judge, on his own, believed her & gave her damages

Miscarriage of justice watchdog sends case of 16yo boy who pleaded guilty to supplying drugs to Court of Appeal. A 'victim of modern slavery' convicted 'when authorities should have been protecting him from exploitation', says @VeraBaird thejusticegap.com/convictions-of…

This is a great survey of the law around reproductive coercion open.substack.com/pub/suzannemar…

We are determined to halve VAWG – and the @CPSUK’s Stalking Action Plan is a vital step forward. From new training for prosecutors to clearer information for victims, the plan sets out how CPS will strengthen case work and improve outcomes for victims. cps.gov.uk/publication/cp…

#newsround: Women’s Justice Board proposes steps to cut the number of women in jail insidetime.org/newsround/wome…

Agreed! The focus should be on Baby O and Babies F and L first, as those were the original convictions. All the others stemmed from her prior convictions for murdering or attempting to murder babies due to the jury instruction given by Judge Goss (who has now retired so we need not worry about what problems we could run into for holding him accountable, right?) Regarding the point that “we already know they weren’t able to find experts to defend the insulin cases” - who searched where exactly? The actual experts on immunoassay tests and their flaws - the scientists, NOT the medical doctors - have vocally and repeatedly highlighted the issues with the immunoassay tests, shouting as loudly as I’ve ever seen any experts shout in any case, even at the risk of contempt of court during the trial. And then there is the issue that what the biochemical scientist for the prosecution stated in court is factually incorrect. Heavily evidence based statement. And yet this remained completely unchallenged... More to come on this in due course. @drphilhammond @ccrcupdate @cheshirepolice @C4Faye @Channel4News @LucyLetbyTrials @DailyMail @NadineDorries @JamesTitcombe @wesstreeting @cheshirepolice @Michelehal7344 @DavidDavisMP @PeterElston1 @MartynPitman @ShaunLintern @guardiannews @ClarkeMicah @hannahsbee @CaitlinSpeaksUp @NetflixUK @netflix @channel5_tv @Voice4theDead @PrivateEyeNews

Finally, this is being exposed. Thank you so very much for this extremely important article to @sarahknapton and @Telegraph. telegraph.co.uk/news/2026/02/1… People often ask me why I have never gone into medico-legal expert work, even though I have a law degree. This is exactly why. On paper, expert witnesses are “independent” and owe their duty to the court. It sounds great. In reality, the system is adversarial - and adversarial systems reward resources, repetition, and narrative control. The prosecution has institutional funding and the ability to instruct multiple experts to reinforce the same case theory. They are also able to cherry pick experts (I addressed this issue at length in my law degree dissertation in fact). Example - if I give the prosecution a report that doesn’t support their narrative, they can bin it. This is at the foundation of repeated miscarriages of justice when it comes to cases involving complex scientific or medical evidence - and not just in the court systems! NHS Trusts employ the same selective listening tactics when they want a convenient scapegoat for failures - @MartynPitman can tell you more about that from personal experience - and I can confirm that having examined it, his story runs in identical patterns to the evidence of many others I have gathered through supporting genuine whistleblowers over the last 11 years. Going back to the courts, however, when a well-funded group of experts presents a unified opinion, it carries weight simply because of the numbers. The defence? Completely different situation. Legal aid budgets are tight. Expert hours are capped. Rates are lower. In many cases, they can only afford one specialist who would often be a clinician who is not experienced at navigating the criminal justice system. So when you end up with one legally inexperienced expert saying X and 7 "professional witness" (ie legally experienced) experts saying Y in front of a jury, what do you realistically expect a jury to do? They are not neonatologists. They are not scientists. They are not statisticians. They can’t spend months interrogating methodology. Human instinct says - ten experts’ opinions matter more than one. That’s social psychology. That's how the witch trials happened. We seemingly have learned nothing from them. When someone publicly talks about having “won” or “lost” cases, it shows how adversarial the mindset actually is. (And this is what Dr Dewi Evans said – only ever lost one case (interestingly, when he worked for the defence…..). Public statements. How embarrassing for the legal justice system – this in itself should warrant a quash of Letby’s convictions, shouldn’t it? He, after all, was the star expert whose reports started this off - and were merely peer-reviewed. @ccrcupdate If Dr Evans was truly independent and assisting the court, what exactly was he talking about when he referred to "winning"? And please let's also remember - once this process commences and there is an innocent party - be it a whistleblower, be it a scapegoat for any other reason - whether one "wins" or "loses", it’s the process that is the punishment. Years of investigation. Public vilification. Suspension. Financial ruin. Reputational destruction. Even without a conviction, your life as you knew it is as good as being effectively over. That creates perverse incentives for what are almost always the actual wrong-doers - when I say "wrong-doers" - I don't necessarily mean with intent. Plenty of people do wrong things whilst in fact thinking they are right. It appears that the COCH consultants all thought the care they provided was reasonable, if not excellent. There are 16 neonatologists out there, myself included, who don't quite agree. But... as far as those who think they did nothing wrong are concerned, the process alone against whoever they are vilifying creates distraction away from the original problem of the care, doesn't it? And let's face it - allegations alone can achieve reputational damage, regardless of whether the evidence stacks up, as long as they are repeated by enough people enough times. And that is what the HR process found was happening to Letby. But the jury didn't even get to hear about any of that. Judge Goss didn't allow it. The MoJ victim ends up getting tied up defending themselves whilst no-one ever meaningfully examines the substance of what actually happened. The process then becomes about how many people repeat the same story, how loudly and how confidently - not about whether the underlying analysis stands up to scrutiny. It is such a mess. And it's been going on for years. I am so happy to see it finally exposed. The Letby case is one great example of this. And there is a lot more to come as all these maternity/neonatal and other healthcare scandals unfold. Watch this space. @DavidDavisMP @wesstreeting @PrivateEyeNews @drphilhammond @PeterElston1 @ccrcupdate @VeraBaird @CPSUK @gmcuk @RCPCHtweets @BAPM_Official @NHSGIRFT @NHSEngland @Michelehal7344 @MartynPitman @PeterElston1 @guardian @Channel4News @channel5_tv @CheshireLive @cheshirepolice

Note that the International Homicide Investigators Association were advertising Cheshire police's upcoming talk about Lucy Letby as early as February 2024 – when reporting restrictions were in full force. All well and good, I'd say, since the organisation is headquartered in America, the event was set to take place in America, and British courts don't have jurisdiction over the entire world. But let's not forget that Cheshire police reported the New Yorker, an American magazine, to the attorney general's office, for breaching British reporting restrictions, when it published a detailed investigative article about Letby, in May 2024. Rules for thee, but not for me.

On matters relating to patient safety, there is currently no accessible mechanism that allows concerns by patients or healthcare professionals to be examined independently and promptly. On one side, patients currently have no access to an independent case review service. If concerns about unsafe care are not adequately addressed within a department or Trust, the remaining options are limited to litigation or campaigning for a public inquiry - processes that are adversarial, slow, costly, and triggered only after serious harm has occurred. The same is true for healthcare professionals. From my perspective as a doctor, if I raise a patient safety concern about risk of harm which is inadequately addressed and request that it be independently examined, I must ask the Trust itself to initiate that review. The Trust can refuse. If I escalate externally, I risk disciplinary action, reputational damage, or dismissal as several high profile whistleblowing cases have demonstrated. Even if the concerns are ultimately proven correct, that often becomes apparent only years later - after prolonged internal procedures, GMC/NMC/employment tribunal or in some cases even criminal proceedings. This pattern has been seen repeatedly, including in cases such as @MartynPitman and @drcmday. In the meantime, patients remain exposed to risk. The problems faced by whistleblowers and by patients who have been harmed are not separate - they are two sides of the same systemic failure. Patients often feel unheard, dismissed, or gaslit when they present evidence of harm. Both groups encounter delay, defensiveness, and internal processes that lack true independence and are at risk of retaliation. These issues must be addressed together, not in isolation. Internal risk and investigation systems currently involve organisations effectively marking their own homework. We need: 1. Open access to independent medical review of care. Patients and healthcare professionals must be able to request an impartial clinical assessment of whether care met appropriate standards. 2. Independent scrutiny of the governance processes themselves when concerns have not been adequately addressed internally. It is not enough to assess the clinical incident alone. The system must also examine how the concern was handled - whether the investigation was thorough, done by a person with the required expertise to a good standard, whether risks were appropriately recognised/addressed or minimised, and whether conflicts of interest affected decision-making. The review process must also be prompt. This is of paramount importance because delayed investigations are a form of punishment. Timeliness is essential to fairness and safety. I propose that we should aim to establish an Independent Patient Safety Review and Accountability Service which is empowered to examine both clinical care and governance failures, and to ensure accountability for individuals where appropriate. Accountability must extend to leadership as well as frontline staff. I am certain that if such a service were properly commissioned and led by individuals with experience, independence, and integrity, it would cost significantly less than what we currently spend managing the consequences of failure. The financial burden of avoidable harm - including litigation costs, repeated public inquiries, compensation payouts to harmed patients, and the wasted skills of whistleblowers who were managed out - far exceeds the likely cost of early, independent intervention. We are currently funding crisis response instead of prevention. If this proposal resonates with you, my DMs are open for anyone who wishes to discuss it further. @wesstreeting @DavidDavisMP @JamesTitcombe @hannahsbee @drphilhammond @Channel4News @BBCNews @channel5_tv @SkyNews @NadineDorries @Sajhawkins1 @gavinstpier @guardiannews @drcmday @MartynPitman @RCPCHtweets @BAPM_Official @LucyGoBag

I can confirm that everything with regards to the GMC referral information exposed in the article about Professor Hindmarsh is accurate. My sincere thanks to the brave whistleblower who brought this information to Felicity Lawrence. theguardian.com/uk-news/2026/m… I look forward to the day when people recognise that having a medical degree, impressive titles, or polished communication skills does not make someone incapable of poor judgment. Sometimes bad decisions stem from a lack of insight into one’s own limitations; other times they may arise from fear, pressure, ego, or even malice. Professional status does not grant immunity from human flaws. Over the course of my 20-year career, I have worked alongside many doctors. The uncomfortable truth is that there are a significant number I would not trust to care for someone I love. It is also important to acknowledge that “paid guns for hire” exist in every industry - individuals who will tell you what you want to hear for the right price or the right advantage. They often know one another and understand exactly who to call upon for a particular narrative or task. Unsurprisingly, networks of people with similar ethics tend to gravitate toward one another. When such individuals rise to positions of influence, what happens is that we get scandal after scandal. This is what is happening in the NHS right now - but it happens in every institution led by bad leaders (be it them being bad on purpose or not!). Don’t put bad people in positions of power - hardly an innovative proposition without heavy historical precedent, is it? At the same time, there are those on the opposite side who present themselves as advocates for victims while failing to examine evidence critically. Blind endorsement of victimhood without scrutiny causes just as much - if not more - harm. You cannot know that someone is a victim of wrongdoing simply because they say so. Allegations deserve to be taken seriously - but they also deserve proper examination. When someone pressures others to suspend critical thinking entirely, that in itself is a red flag. Raising concerns when something appears questionable is responsible. Blind allegiance - to individuals, institutions, or narratives - is not. Truth requires a willingness to examine evidence, even when it is uncomfortable There is much more to come - when the time is right. @guardian @guardiannews @drphilhammond @hannahsbee @MichelleWelshMP @Michelehal7344 @RupaHuq @gmcuk @RCPCHtweets @BAPM_Official @cheshirepolice @CPSUK @Voice4theDead @MartynPitman @ClarkeMicah @sarahknapton @PrivateEyeNews @Channel4News @channel5_tv @SkyNews @BBCNews @willcpowell @JamesTitcombe @DrNeenaJha @DavidDavisMP @wesstreeting @ShabanaMahmood @Thirlwall_Inq @LucyLetbyTrials @PeterElston1

@LucyLetbyTrials This is so depressing. Seems it was naive to think that the CCRC was an independent organisation. Nevertheless the Lucy Letby case is steadily revealing the rot in the system and the longer this innocent nurse is kept in imprisoned the more is going to come out.

One day, there will be a reckoning over why NINE doctors and nurses were granted full anonymity at Lucy Letby's trial. Several of them admitted they could not be trusted to testify truthfully and accurately – unless, that is, the court barred the public from ever finding out their names. The court, ever so obliging, gave these witnesses what they asked for. As a result, anyone in England who publicly names them faces a substantial fine or arrest. All nine of the now-anonymous doctors and nurses had worked side-by-side with Letby, during the nightmarish year when 13 babies died on their unit. Many still have A LOT of questions to answer about the care these babies received. One of them, a bona fide consultant, had just months before been found at fault for accidentally killing a baby under her care. The jury never got to hear about this.

Having reviewed all the clinical records as an instructed expert for Lucy Letby’s @ccrcupdate application, @NeoDoc11 is certain Lucy Letby is innocent and is prepared to go on record, at significant personal risk, to explain why. youtu.be/0El-GZpK58U?si…

Last week, CATA released two explosive reports which revealed a scandal of monumental proportions. Flawed decisions were made at the start of the Covid pandemic - and then covered up for years to come. In this series of videos, @SafeDavid3 talks us through the key findings…