A sober fact-finding exercise - or an adversarial battleground?published at 13:04 British Summer Time 13 September
Judith Moritz
Reporting from the inquiry
This week has given us a snapshot impression of the months to come.
The opening statements at any public inquiry are where you first hear those involved set out their stalls - giving a taste of their headline positions on significant issues, before witnesses start coming to give their evidence.
It’s already clear to me that this is an inquiry which will see different key players banging heads against each other.
Lawyers for the babies’ families didn’t hold back in their criticism of the senior managers at the hospital, accusing them of dishonesty, and a coverup which they suggest appears to have been motivated by the need to protect reputations.
The senior managers have dismissed this suggestion outright as being illogical - saying they didn’t prioritise the reputation of the hospital trust at any time.
They’ve hinted that they’re likely to criticise the consultants on Lucy Letby’s unit - asking why they didn’t contact the police, the nursing regulator or other external bodies directly.
Everyone who’s spoken this week has said that they support the inquiry, and the need to learn lessons.
It will be interesting to see whether that shared aim means that the hearings are a sober fact-finding exercise, or whether they become an adversarial battleground.
- You can follow all the updates to the inquiry here, and a here is a reminder of Lucy Letby's court case.