Former CEO states Letby’s father issued ‘threats’ during meetings

The former chief executive of the hospital where Lucy Letby committed the murders of seven infants stated that the father of the convicted serial killer “made threats” during “angry meetings.” Tony Chambers served as the head of the Countess of Chester hospital throughout 2015 and 2016, a period when the nurse also attempted to murder seven additional babies. Mr. Chambers informed the public inquiry investigating the circumstances surrounding Letby’s crimes that he and his fellow board members “simply didn’t see” the underlying cause of the increasing mortality rate among infants in the neonatal unit. He also offered an apology to the families of Letby’s victims “for the pain that may have been prolonged by any decisions or actions that I took in good faith.” Nicholas de la Poer KC, acting as counsel to the inquiry, questioned Mr. Chambers regarding discussions he conducted with Letby and her family in December 2016. This occurred after hospital management upheld a grievance Letby had filed in September of that year, concerning her removal from the neonatal unit and reassignment to clerical duties due to allegations made against her by senior consultants. The Thirlwall Inquiry, held at Liverpool Town Hall, heard that during that particular meeting, Mr. Chambers informed Letby she would be returning to the unit and acknowledged telling her: “For your resilience Lucy, you astound me.” He mentioned that Letby’s father, John Letby, wished to report the consultants who had accused his daughter of harming babies to the General Medical Council (GMC), the regulatory body. Mr. Chambers recounted, “Letby’s father was very angry, he was making threats.” He elaborated, “He was making threats that would have made an already difficult situation even worse by threatening GMC referrals for the doctors. “He was threatening guns to my head.”” Mr. Chambers indicated that he felt he had “perhaps” not managed that meeting effectively, but asserted he was attempting to “take the heat out” of the situation with Letby’s father. In one meeting, Letby insisted that any record of her removal from the unit be expunged from her personnel file, and expressed a desire for “four apologies” from the consultants who had voiced suspicions about her. Mr. de la Poer inquired: “Would you agree that this was deeply manipulative behaviour?” Mr. Chambers responded: “I didn’t feel that I was being manipulated at the time….” He added, “It was the father who seemed to be pulling the strings rather than Letby herself.” He admitted to having told her “don’t worry Lucy, we’ve got your back,” which he later described as “clumsy language” in hindsight. He also informed her that a review of neonatal mortality conducted by the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health (RCPCH) in September 2016 had “vindicated” her. Mr. Chambers testified to the inquiry that he now accepts the RCPCH review did not vindicate Letby because it had not investigated any connection between her and the fatalities – though he noted it did not suggest anything suspicious. He stated, “I was very conscious to try as much as possible to avoid further escalation particularly from her father.” Mr. de la Poer posed the question: “If it was an attempt by Lucy Letby to take control and get what she wanted, and go on the offensive, she succeeded in recruiting you to that. “Do you agree?” Mr. Chambers replied: “No I don’t think so at all,” further stating his belief that Letby merely wanted to “get back to the job she loved.” Earlier in the inquiry, it was revealed that Mr. Chambers convened a meeting with consultant paediatricians on 29 June 2016, which, he stated, marked the initial instance he was apprised of concerns regarding Letby’s association with unexplained infant deaths and collapses. He conveyed to the inquiry that the concerns about Letby were “very shocking” to hear, but that “we wouldn’t jump to criminality as the causal factor.” Mr. Chambers remarked: “There was strong rebuttal to the proposition that this one nurse was deliberately causing harm.” He added, “There was a very strong level of support for this individual.” Letby was scheduled for a two-week leave following 30 June and subsequently assigned to clerical duties, never returning to the unit. Mr. de la Poer questioned Mr. Chambers about a meeting on 27 March 2017, during which consultant Dr. Stephen Brearey advised Mr. Chambers that the police should be contacted. Mr. Chambers confirmed that an agreement was reached at that meeting to involve the police, but he did not dispatch a letter to the chief constable of Cheshire Constabulary until 2 May, after seeking counsel from criminal barrister Simon Medland QC. Nevertheless, Mr. de la Poer put forth the suggestion that, in his initial communication with the police, Mr. Chambers “did not present the case at its highest” and sought to “discourage” an investigation. Mr. Chambers vehemently denied this, responding “absolutely not,” and affirmed that the hospital “shared with police very openly and candidly what we genuinely believed to be the position as we understood it at the time.” The inquiry remains ongoing.