The installation of CCTV in a hospital nursery room would have prevented Lucy Letby from murdering a baby girl, her mother has told a public inquiry.
The child serial killer nurse attacked Child D three times in the early hours of June 22 2015 at the Countess of Chester Hospital’s neonatal unit as she injected air into her bloodstream.
Giving evidence on Tuesday at the Thirlwall Inquiry into the events surrounding Letby’s crimes, Child D’s mother said if she had known her daughter had suffered one collapse she would have stayed in the room “all night”.
Every hospital in England with a neonatal unit has been asked as part of the inquiry whether they have considered installing CCTV in the wake of Letby’s killing spree in which she murdered seven infants and attempted to murder seven others.
Child D’s mother said: “Every parent that can’t be at the hospital wants to know what is happening to their babies. There is nothing that could be bad about this. All there is is watching someone care for the baby.
“If I knew she had one collapse I would have stayed there all night. If I had access because there was CCTV or because we were being kept aware of what was going on, she wouldn’t have died.
“I would have been there so it wouldn’t have happened.
“She was doing well. I was promised it would be OK to go to sleep that night and I would wake up and I would be able to feed her and hold her.
“And we got woken up in the morning to be told ‘no, this is not happening’. Everything just crumbled. It was just a whirlwind of emotion and disaster, and I had lots of questions straightaway.
“You are going home without your baby but you know things aren’t right. Nothing made sense.”
The inquiry heard she went on to request the hospital notes of Child D and herself as she “clued up” on medical terms, protocols and guidelines.
It led to a meeting with the treating consultant paediatrician who told her that as a department they felt the most likely diagnosis was an “overwhelming infection” and that a rash which was documented to have appeared during the infant’s initial deterioration was likely a sign of its effect.
Child D’s mother said though that her daughter’s test result for infection had come back negative.
She said: “I said, ‘well you explain this to me, it doesn’t make sense’. She was getting better, not worse. She couldn’t explain.
“That wasn’t satisfactory to me. I said, ‘I am not accepting your finding, you have to do better that’.”
In September 2015 she wrote to Cheshire coroner Nicholas Rheinberg to set out the results of her own research and requested a full inquest into Child D’s death and a review of the post-mortem examination.
She told the inquiry: “It was clear the Countess (hospital) had not provided all of the information, and what they had given was not true or accurate. It was upsetting that I had to their job. It was clear they were trying to hide things.”
In January 2016 Mr Rheinberg told her that “on reflection” he had decided not to discontinue the investigation and to hold a full inquest.
The inquiry heard that an independent consultant paediatrician reported to the coroner that the death was “disturbing because the collapse was so sudden and unexpected”.
Child D’s mother said: “I know my husband was worried I was asking too many questions and I was requesting notes and I was talking about investigating and going to the police, and I thought maybe I was losing my mind.
“I kept thinking this is my daughter’s voice, I can’t give up here so I will carry on. Any energy and strength I had was going into pushing, reading the notes, getting clued up and everything else was getting drained in my emotions.
“I was just losing myself. I was no longer a friend, a daughter or a wife but that was my sacrifice.”
The inquest was put on hold, the inquiry heard, after Letby was first arrested by Cheshire Police in July 2018.
Child D’s mother said: “This left us in shock because we just never expected something of that nature. As much as I had questioned people at the Countess and wanted the police to get involved, I did not expect this to turn up in this way.
“There were more and more questions. I already had thousands and now we were just confused how serious this was turning out to be.”
After her evidence, inquiry chairwoman Lady Justice Thirlwall told Child D’s mother: “When all this began you looked for answers and explanations about what happened to your daughter, and we can all see and hear that at great personal cost you have never given up.
“And your evidence this morning leaves everyone listening in no doubt of your determination and persistence on behalf of your daughter and for you and your husband. You had done everything that you could have done and all of that evidence is of great help to the inquiry.”
The mother of Child A and Child B told the inquiry she would also like CCTV to be used in neonatal units.
They were the first victims of Letby, who injected air into their bloodstreams. Child A died but Child B survived.
Giving evidence, the mother said: “I think that it would have been a bit of a deterrent, or if not we would have had a much clearer view of who was there and what happened at the time without just people’s statements or things like that.
“You would be able to see it for yourself who was there and what was happening, and it might never have happened again.
“I understand that Child A was the first one, and maybe they couldn’t have stopped her for that one, but they most certainly could have for the rest of them if they’d have had that CCTV in place.”
She also called for a psychological screening process to assess the mental state of any staff treating vulnerable patients
She said: “If there was an assessment done, or if counselling was mandatory, whoever was talking to these staff might have seen some red flags.
“Something might have shown up in a discussion with these people, or in an evaluation, that might have needed more monitoring or maybe further assessment.”
Counsel to the inquiry Rachel Langdale KC asked: “You remember from the criminal trial learning that Letby had texted her friends stating that Father A & B had collapsed to the floor when she had taken Child A for the post-mortem. Was that true, had that had happened?”
The mother replied: “No, it’s not true. And this is why my point about psychological evaluation is very valid. That’s not normal.
“There was several text messages that came out through the trial that were lies and it was, to me, it was attention seeking. I think that should have really been a red flag. And if somebody had been checking in with her and assessing her, maybe that would have come up sooner.”
The inquiry heard that an inquest took place in October 2016 into Child A’s death but the concerns that consultants had already voiced about Letby were not raised to the coroner.
Child A and B’s mother said: “At the inquest we had no idea, and from the trial we know that by that time they did suspect her but nobody mentioned it. Not once, and they should have.”
Letby, 34, from Hereford, is serving 15 whole-life orders after she was convicted at Manchester Crown Court of murdering seven infants and attempting to murder seven others, with two attempts on one of her victims.
The inquiry is expected to sit until early 2025, with findings published by late autumn of that year.
A court order prohibits reporting of the identities of the surviving and dead children involved in the case.
