nuthwhistleblowers

Calling for accountability and a just culture-will we achieve it?

[nuthwhistleblowers @nuthwb]

A just culture fixes systems and processes
It keep us all safe because anyone can be a patient at anytime

[Dr Phil Hammond 💙 @drphilhammond]

Letby may still spend the rest of her life in prison but at least she knows that nursing colleagues who worked alongside her support her appeal and some of the world’s top neonatologists can’t find a shred of evidence of any homicidal acts.

[nuthwhistleblowers @nuthwb]

👏🏻

[Dr Svilena Dimitrova @NeoDoc11]

Finally, this is being exposed. Thank you so very much for this extremely important article to @sarahknapton and @Telegraph.

https://t.co/xEtJjRybVq

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

[Dr Svilena Dimitrova @NeoDoc11]

Finally, this is being exposed. Thank you so very much for this extremely important article to @sarahknapton and @Telegraph.

https://t.co/xEtJjRybVq

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

[nuthwhistleblowers @nuthwb]

@drsvilenadimitrova
The pain is so real,
It’s time for the truth
👏🏻

[Dr Svilena Dimitrova @NeoDoc11]

Finally, this is being exposed. Thank you so very much for this extremely important article to @sarahknapton and @Telegraph.

https://t.co/xEtJjRybVq

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

[The Trials of Lucy Letby @LucyLetbyTrials]

Sir David Davis to the Mail on Sunday today: "Justice delayed will deny this young woman some of the most important years of her life. This case demands a retrial, the CCRC must act quickly and a referral should be in months, not years."

https://t.co/mf0ZZnagBR

[The Trials of Lucy Letby @LucyLetbyTrials]

"Professor Richard Gill has compared Lucy Letby's conviction to the case against Dutch paediatric nurse Lucia de Berk, who was jailed for murdering babies in her care before later being exonerated"

https://t.co/rqwMnqNzel

[Dr Chris Day @drcmday]

When my 10 year jungle of a whistleblowing case finally comes out into the public domain - and I mean properly comes out into the public domain - you lot don't know the half of it;

Believe me when I say...1/3
https://t.co/Teyq2BxPyG

[Martyn Pitman @MartynPitman]

This situation in the Employment Tribunal is an utter disgrace for the UK legal system. In what other profession would such egregious and misogynistic abuse be tolerated, ignored and allowed to continue unchecked? ET Judges are beyond challenge and immune to accountability.

[Dr Alexandros Dearges-Chantler. @AlexandrosG]

Lovely simple remembrance of Katie in St Luke's Chapel @NewcastleHosps .I probably broke the rules by leaving flowers from my garden. But Katie would understand. @NChaplaincy .

[nuthwhistleblowers @nuthwb]

👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻

[NHS Practitioner Health @NHSPracHealth]

We are happy to share that NHS Practitioner Health is now funded until March 2026! #NHSPractitionerHealth

[VC @VicLeighC25]

@nuthwb Devastating. It breaks my heart thinking of her pain over recent months. But moreover at the loss of such a wonderful human. 💔

[nuthwhistleblowers @nuthwb]

@corinneEgglest1 @corinneEgglest1 @nuthwb believe it is so important to learn lessons from what has gone wrong

As @NewcastleHosps moves forward under Sir Jim, we want to ensure a culture where staff are treated fairly whatever the circumstances

[nuthwhistleblowers @nuthwb]

Communication from Jim and Kath
https://t.co/nUfTnfVWrL
#with heartfelt thanks

[nuthwhistleblowers @nuthwb]

❤️ We Need To Look After The People Who Look After The People ❤️

RIP Katie, you were one in a million

[NuthCatering @NuthCatering]

God has gained an extraordinary angel @RevdCaptKatie. She was 1 in a million, I feel privileged to say I knew her and worked with her.
God bless Katie, sleep tight, rest easy, and as you said to me on many an occasion, " go easy on yourself."
The world seems empty tonight. 🤍

[Joseph Cosgrove @JosephCosgrove7]

A little thread in memoriam of someone ✨️ who oozed humanity.
Today many of us have lost a true friend and colleague. I've known Katie since she first began working @NewcastleHosps

[✨ Donna Hall ✨ @ProfDonnaHall]

It only takes 1 person in a system to stand up & say “This is wrong let’s stop” or “We’re managing decline let’s reform”. But it takes courage in a controlling culture. Finding another brave person & standing together is the start of a rebel alliance; creating impetus for change.

[nuthwhistleblowers @nuthwb]

RIP Katie
But At What Cost 😥

[Northumbria Police @northumbriapol]

We have some sad news to share with you. We have sadly found a body in the search for missing #Newcastle woman Katherine Watson.

The 50-year-old, also known as Katie, was reported missing yesterday.

Extensive searches have been carried out since then to locate her.

1/3

[nuthwhistleblowers @nuthwb]

A treasured member of our staff, please be on the lookout to find her

[Dr Alexandros Dearges-Chantler. @AlexandrosG]

Please help find Kate, please share if you can. @NewcastleHosps @samuelevolpe @Newcastle_NHS . She is amazing & such a kind, compassionate, person who was a fantastic Chaplin.
@NuthCatering @NUTHEqualities @nuthwb @CarolineDock

[✨ Donna Hall ✨ @ProfDonnaHall]

Leaders are often promoted into positions without essential people skills. They may have longevity, strategic thinking, the right connections but they never say “how are you really doing?” “thank you for everything you’ve done” or “I’m sorry I got that wrong” Leadership is this.