UK - Lucy Letby Trial - Media, Maps & Timeline *NO DISCUSSION*

[Tortoise]

Defence Case continued 17th May 2023 -

Lucy Letby's CROSS-EXAMINATION

BBC Tweets - Dan O'Donoghue

Nick Johnson KC has now begun his cross examination - he opens by asking Ms Letby is there's 'any reason you cry when you talk about yourself but not dead or injured children', she says 'I have cried about some of the babies'

Mr Johnson accuses Ms Letby of suggesting Dr Ravi Jayaram 'deliberately misled this jury'. Dr Jayaram had said in evidence he saw Ms Letby standing over Child K when she was desaturating - she said yesterday that this did not happen

Mr Johnson asks about handover sheets (found in her home) He suggests that when Ms Letby moved from property to property, she took the handover sheets with her. He is now going back over where Ms Letby lived, from her first academic year in 2008 at Chester Uni


BBC Live Blog - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-65602988

Posted at 16:0116:01

Prosecution begins its cross-examination​

Judith Moritz

Nick Johnson KC gets on his feet, he's leading the prosecution.
Lucy Letby is crying in the witness box.
He asks Lucy Letby why she cries when she's talking about herself but not about the babies. She replies that she has cried whilst talking about the babies.
This is Lucy Letby's 5th day in the witness box. So far she has only been questioned by her own barrister, Ben Myers KC who is leading the defence.


Posted at 16:0316:03

The scene inside the courtroom​

Judith Moritz

Several of the parents of babies who the nurse is alleged to have murdered and attacked are in court to watch today's proceedings.
Lucy Letby is wearing a black suit and blue shirt. She's sitting in the witness box with a prison officer on either side of her.
Her parents are sitting in the public gallery just behind her.
Nick Johnson KC is standing with his arms folded, looking down at Lucy Letby who's sitting in the witness box, almost next to him.
The red-robed judge, Mr Justice Goss is sitting above them.
The jury of 8 women and 4 men are directly opposite nurse Letby.



Posted at 16:0616:06

Prosecution asks Lucy Letby about doctor's evidence​

Judith Moritz

Earlier in the trial the jury heard from a doctor, Ravi Jayaram. He says that he walked in to find Lucy Letby after she removed the breathing tube from one of the babies.
Yesterday, Lucy Letby said this never happened. Nick Johnson now says that this is tantamount to accusing the doctor of lying.
Lucy Letby agrees that she is accusing Dr Jayaram of misleading the jury. She denies that she is lying.



Posted at 16:0716:07

Lucy Letby says she didn't keep handover sheets on purpose​

Judith Moritz

The trial has heard that when police searched Lucy Letby's house they found 257 handover sheets relating to babies on the neonatal unit.
She has previously said that she didn't keep them on purpose.
Nick Johnson suggests she's lying about this, and took them with her when she moved house.
She denies lying about it.
Lucy Letby has previously said that she took handover notes home in the pockets of her nurses uniform.
Nick Johnson asks her what she did with all the notes every time she washed her uniform. She says she'd put them aside in various places around her house.


Posted at 16:1516:15

Notes were still held in confidence, nurse Letby says​

Judith Moritz

Lucy Letby says it's normal practice to discard handover notes in confidential waste.
Nick Johnson KC asks why she didn't return 250+ notes to the unit or destroy them. She says it wasn't intentional.
She says "I know they were at my home address, but they were still held in confidence"
Nick Johnson: "held in confidence? They were in a bin bag in your garage.... Do you obey the rules when it suits you?" Lucy Letby answers "no".



Posted at 16:1716:17

That's all for today​

Judith Moritz

The court is finishing for the day now and the jury are being sent home.
The cross examination of Lucy Letby will continue tomorrow.

 

[Tortoise]

Mr Johnson said: “What would have happened in a disciplinary sense if the hospital management knew you had 250-odd handover sheets at home?”

Letby said: “I can’t answer that. I don’t know what the policy would be.”

Mr Johnson said: “You’re not bothered are you?

Letby said: “It’s not that I’m not bothered. They were at my home address but they were still held in confidence.”

[...]

Mr Johnson said: “You like telling other people what to do but you don’t quite live up to those standards yourself, do you?”

Letby said: “No.”

The cross-examination of Letby will continue on Thursday.

Murder accused nurse denies she has only cried for herself during...

A tearful Lucy Letby denied deliberately harming numerous infants while on duty at the Countess of Chester Hospital´s neonatal unit.

www.dailymail.co.uk

 

[Tortoise]

Defence Case continued Thursday 18th May 2023 -

Lucy Letby's CROSS-EXAMINATION

Chester Standard https://www.chesterstandard.co.uk/news/23530215.live-lucy-letby-trial-may-18---prosecution-cross-examines-letby/

10:31am

The judge, Mr Justice James Goss, has entered the courtroom.
Lucy Letby will continue to be cross-examined by Nicholas Johnson KC, for the prosecution.

10:39am

Mr Johnson asks if Lucy Letby wishes to change any of her answers from yesterday. Letby: "No."
Mr Johnson asks if handover sheets were handed out to student nurses.
Letby said she would have handover sheets as a student nurse at some placements, but in the neonatal unit she cannot recall specifically. She tells the court it was not standard practice at the neonatal unit to hand out handover sheets to student nurses "for the time we are talking about".
Mr Johnson says one of the handover sheets, dated June 1, 2010, was in a keep-sake box with roses on the box, when Letby was a student nurse [Letby having started full-time employment at the hospital on January 2, 2012]. Letby says she cannot recall it.
Mr Johnson asks what is "unusual" about the handover sheet, and how it differs from the others.
Letby is unsure what Mr Johnson means.
Mr Johnson: "It is in pristine condition."
Letby: "It's the original?"
Mr Johnson: "Yes."
Letby: "Ok."

10:55am

Mr Johnson says Letby took the sheet for June 23, 2016 home as it had notes of drugs for Child O and Child P.
Letby said there was documentation on there, but cannot be sure what details were on it.
Letby said she took the note home deliberately to bring it back the following day for finishing up writing of medications.
A copy of the handover sheet is circulated to the jury and Letby. Mr Johnson says he is interested in the back, on the medical notes.
Letby describes what is on the note - medication for Child P - caffeine. Nothing was written for Child O. No medications were noted for a third child.
Letby said she had taken it back with the paper towel, which had further details.
Letby is asked when the Morrisons work bag was placed under her bed. Letby says she cannot recall the Ibiza bag became her new bag after her trip to Ibiza around June 2016.
Letby is asked how the handover sheets ended up in her bag. She says after emptying her pockets, the sheets would end up in her work bag.
Nicholas Johnson: "You're ferrying work sheets to and from work."
Letby: "I can't say definitively."
NJ: "They must have been...why put them in that bag at all?"
LL: "I can't recall."
NJ: "Can't or won't?"
LL: "They were just bits of paper to me."
Letby says she accepts pieces of paper were taken between different areas and properties - "it's the paper I accumulate, not the content."
Letby says she has difficulty throwing things away.
NJ: "Is that why you bought a shredder?"
LL: "I bought a shredder for certain documents when I bought the house...predominantly bank statements."
NJ: "Why not the handover sheets?"
LL: "I wasn't aware I had them."

10:58am

LL: "I wasn't thinking - they were just bits of paper."
Mr Johnson says the shredder was bought after Letby moved into her Chester home in April 2016.
LL: "They were insignificant."
NJ: "They are significant."
NJ: "They have the names of dead children on them."
LL: "They have the names of a lot of children on them - I agree I shouldn't have taken them home."

11:02am

Mr Johnson asks about other work documents found in Letby's Morrisons work bag, such as a blood gas record for Child M.
NJ: "Were they insignificant?"
Letby says at the time the documents were insignificant, as they went home along with a lot of other documents for babies not on the indictment.
LL: "These have come home with me...not with any intention."
NJ: "You have taken them home."
Letby accepts the wording.

11:04am

Mr Johnson asks if Letby recalls a colleague nurse's evidence for Child M on the blood gas reading.
Mr Johnson says she took it, wrote it on the chart, and disposed of it.
Letby is asked how she got the sheet, if it had been put in the [hospital's] confidential waste bin.
LL: "I can't recall specifically."
NJ: "It was for your little collection, wasn't it?"
LL: "No."

11:07am

Mr Johnson asks why Letby purchased a shredder if she wasn't going to use it - was she on so much money she could make such purchases?
Letby, after saying she is not sure what finance has to do with this, says she used the shredder to shred bank statements.
"Why did you lie about [not having a shredder] in interview?"
Letby said she didn't recall having a shredder, it was not a significant item in her house.
"Like the pieces of paper?"
Letby agrees.

11:15am

Letby, asked how she could have disposed of handover sheets, said to police in interview she did not have a shredder and, if she did, that would be how she would dispose of confidential documents.
Letby tells the court: "I can't recall at the time - I had just been arrested by police, locating a shredder wasn't on my mind."
Mr Johnson asks when the shredder was bought.
Letby says "shortly before this [police] interview - if I said it was bought recently."
Mr Johnson asks about a shredder box in Letby's parents' home, in her bedroom wardrobe. Letby said "it probably moved with me". She says she cannot recall "definitively" whether it was her parents' shredder.
Mr Johnson says "it was settled" that the box had the word "keep" written on it. Letby said that was to "keep the box and the shredder".
Mr Johnson: "But there is no shredder in the box"
Letby: "The shredder was elsewhere in the house".
Letby agrees her parents would not go in her room at their parents' place.
Mr Johnson asks why the word 'keep' would be written on the box in that event.
"I can't answer that."

11:22am

Mr Johnson asks about a sympathy card written to Child I's family.
Letby is asked where she wrote the card.
Letby says she bought the card, but cannot recall where specifically she wrote it.
Letby says she wouldn't have written it on shift.
Letby is asked why the photo was taken when she was at work.
"The card is written, it has been taken to work to hand over to a colleague who is going to the funeral."
NJ: "Why did you take a picture at the place where the child...died in dreadful circumstances?"
Letby said the place the photo was taken was "insignificant", it was taken before the card was handed over to staff.
Mr Johnson: "Another thing that is insignificant?"
Letby: "I think that is taken out of context."
Mr Johnson: "Did it give you a bit of a thrill?"
LL: "Absolutely not."

11:33am

Mr Johnson says in the defence, Letby's name is not referred to in the schedule surrounding the events for some babies.
"Are you suggesting the absence of your name [from the schedule]...is showing you hadn't had contact with the child?"
Letby agrees "...in terms of the documentation at that time." She agrees that does not record events such as minor nursing responses if a baby starts crying.
Letby says she has been to the unit on days off, such as finishing documentation that hasn't been done in the day, or seeing colleagues who have been on a course.
Letby says a record would be made as the swipe data would record her entrance, as the only way she could get into the unit.
Mr Johnson says for Child G, Letby did not leave work until 10am on September 7. Letby says: "That's not unusual."
A message is shown from 10.56pm on September 7 - Letby: "She looks awful doesn't she. Hope you get some sleep."
Letby said if there was a sick baby on the unit, "you would go and check on them, that's not unreasonable."
She had looked at Child G's charts, and accepts she was not on duty at that time. Letby said she had been in to finish some documentation.
Mr Johnson tells the court this was a "big day for" Child G, as it was her 100th day. Letby said: "Yeah she's declining bit by bit".
Mr Johnson says there is no record of Letby entering the unit.
He suggests Letby does not need a pass to gain entry to the unit.
Letby says she would need a pass to swipe in, and accepts: "Unless another colleague opened the door for me."
Letby adds if she had a legitimate reason to enter the unit, she would have entry accepted.
Letby is asked why she entered the unit at around 11pm, not earlier that day.
Letby: "It's quieter at night - I don't know, I can't say why I've gone in at night."

11:55am

Mr Johnson asks to clarify an issue relating to naso-gastric tube feeds.
Letby explains to the court how an NG Tube feed is administered to a baby.
NJ: "Have you ever used a plunger syringe to speed up the flow of milk?"
LL: "No."
NJ: "Have you ever sent texts to your friends while giving an NGT feed?"
LL: "No." Letby says that would be inappropriate and impractical. She says the times on the feed charts would be done to the next 15 minutes - [such as, for 9am, that feed would be between 8.45am-9.15am].
Letby says she has never used her phone in a clinical area.
She says the baby would take priority over texting her friends/colleagues. She says she has not texted anyone while a resuscitation is taking place on the unit, one that she was involved in.
Letby said she would not 'provide commentary' during a resuscitation.

11:58am

Mr Johnson asks about staffing levels.
Letby agrees that babies in room 1 are not necessarily always intensive care babies, or that babies in room 2 are always high dependency babies.
Mr Johnson says if the jury conclude a baby was attacked, then it would be the attacker who was the common link
Letby: "Just because I was on shift doesn't mean I have done anything."
Mr Johnson says if the jury conclude attacks happened in four cases, then the common link between them all would be the attacker.
LL: "That is for them to decide."
NJ: "On principle, do you agree?"
LL: "I don't think I can answer that."

12:06pm

Mr Johnson asks about Letby's colleagues.
Letby says she did not have a disagreement with Dr Gail Beech or Dr Andrew Brunton, and had a good working relationship with them.
For Dr Stephen Brearey, Letby said she did not have a problem with him at the time she was at work with him - she wrote a note calling him a profanity after she was redeployed, as he and Dr Ravi Jayaram "had been making comments" about Letby being implicated in the deaths of babies.
"They were very insistent that I be removed from the unit."Letby denies being in love with a doctor who cannot be named - "I loved him as a friend, I was not in love with him."
A note in Letby's handwriting is shown to the court. There is a suggestion the writing, previously said as 'Timmy', is 'Tiny Boy'.
Letby says her dog as a child had a nickname of 'Tiny boy', while another of her childhood dogs was named 'Timmy'.
Letby said she had no issues with other doctors on the unit, including Dr John Gibbs, Dr Sally Ogden, Dr Alison Ventress and Dr David Harkness.
For one other doctor, she said she did not have the best working relationship, but they got on.
For Dr Jayaram, "we had a normal working relationship".
NJ: "You searched for him on the internet."
LL: "I searched for a lot of people."

12:11pm

Letby says four doctors were in the 'conspiracy group', including Dr Jayaram, Dr Gibbs and Dr Brearey - "that they have apportioned blame on me".
Letby is asked about "failings in the hospital".
Letby is asked if Child E was poisoned with insulin.
"Yes I agree that he had insulin."
"Do you believe that somebody gave it to him unlawfully?"
"Yes."
"Do you believe that someone targeted him?"
"No."
"It was a random act?"
"Yes...I don't know where the insulin came from."
"Do you agree [Child L] was poisoned with insulin?"
"From the blood results, yes."
"Do you agree that someone targeted him specifically?"
"No...I don't know how the insulin got there."
Letby adds: "I don't believe that any member of staff on the unit would make a mistake in giving insulin."
The judge asks if that is the case for Child E.
Letby agrees.
She denies it was her who administered the insulin.

12:12pm

Letby is asked about the dangers of unprescribed insulin.
Letby: "It would cause them to be unwell, it would cause them to be hypoglacaemic... seizures, apnoea, even death."

12:16pm

Letby is asked about her training which, when completed, allowed her to care for intensive care babies.
Letby is asked if that meant she would have access to room 1 more often than before. Letby agrees.
The training involved education about lines, access, and the complication of air embolous, the court hears.
Letby said she had heard of air embolous by the time police interviewed her.
She tells the court: "All staff know that air introduced...can lead to death."
NJ: "Everybody knows the danger of air embolous."
LL: "I can't speak for everyone."

 

[Tortoise]

Defence Case continued Thursday 18th May 2023 -

Lucy Letby's CROSS-EXAMINATION

Sky News Lucy Letby murder trial latest: 'Killer' nurse becomes emotional as she is accused of enjoying baby dying

6h ago10:06

Good morning​

Welcome back to our live coverage of the trial of Lucy Letby.
The defendant, 33, is accused of the murder of seven babies and the attempted murder of 10 more between June 2015 and June 2016, while working at the Countess of Chester neonatal unit.
Letby has denied all 22 charges against her.
Our live blogger Katie Williams will bring the latest updates throughout the day as Letby's cross-examination by the prosecution continues.
Reminder: This blog contains descriptions of newborn and infant deaths which some readers may find distressing

6h ago10:28

Coming up this morning​

As we mentioned, Lucy Letby's cross-examination began yesterday afternoon and enters its first full day today.
Nick Johnson KC, for the prosecution, is questioning the neonatal nurse, who is giving evidence for the sixth day.
Throughout her questioning Letby has remained seated at a table flanked by two guards, with court documents and an iPad in front of her at various points.
She has largely spoken calmly, though has become emotional at times.

6h ago10:33

Letby's cross-examination back under way​

Prosecutor Nick Johnson KC is on his feet to continue his cross-examination of Lucy Letby.
The defendant, 33, is wearing a black striped suit and has her hair down.
Mr Justice James Goss, the judge in this trial, is overseeing proceedings.
Letby's parents, Susan and John, are sitting in the public gallery behind her.

6h ago10:49

Letby 'not prepared to tell truth' about handover sheets at her home​

Nick Johnson KC, for the prosecution, gives Lucy Letby the opportunity to modify any of her answers from his questioning yesterday - she doesn't.
He moves to ask Letby about her statement to the jury that student nurses are not given handover sheets.
"That's right," she says.
She later says she "can't recall specifically" whether she was given a handover sheet from the neonatal unit at Countess of Chester Hospital during her time as a student.
"You know where I'm going, don't you," Mr Johnson says.
He puts to Letby that a handover sheet from June 2010 - while she was in training to become a children's nurse - was found at her house during a police search after her arrest in 2018.
"Are you doing your best to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?"
"Yes."
Asked where the June 2010 handover sheet was found, she says: "No idea".
"Did you have a keepsake box with roses on it at your house?" Mr Johnson asks.
"Yes."
"What was in that keepsake box?"
"I can't recall from memory."
Mr Johnson asks if one of the things in the box was the 2010 handover sheet, and the defendant replies she has "no recollection" and can't recall this specific document.
The prosecutor notes it is unusual as there's no handwriting on it and it's in "pristine condition".
"You have not been prepared to tell the truth about these handover sheets, have you?" Mr Johnson asks.
"The truth is what I've told you," Letby says.

6h ago11:01

Letby says handover documents 'just bits of paper' to her​

Lucy Letby continues to be questioned on the handover sheets found at her home.
Nick Johnson KC moves to the plastic bag of 31 handover sheets found in Letby's bedroom, containing details about babies involved the case.
The documents are dated from July 2014 to June 2016.
Asked to explain the process of how they ended up in the bag after coming home in her uniform, Letby says she empties her pockets before washing her clothes and transfers the documents to the bag she used for work.
"You’re ferrying handover sheets to and from the Countess of Chester, is that what you're saying?"
"I can't say specifically."
Mr Johnson says that must be what Letby is suggesting and she accepts the handover documents were in the bag.
He says: "They're in the bag when police find it, I'm more interested in why you put them in the bag at all."
"I can't recall."
"Can't, or won't?"
"They were just bits of paper to me."
"You're not telling the truth, are you?"
"I am," Letby replies.

5h ago11:10

'Why don't you want to tell the truth?'​

"Why don't you want to tell the truth?" asks Nick Johnson KC, on the subject of handover sheets found at Lucy Letby's Chester home.
The defendant says they have "no meaning" and are "just pieces of paper".
"If they have no meaning, why did you keep them?" Mr Johnson asks.
Letby says she has accumulated "copious amounts of paper, cards" throughout "her whole life" and that these are "no different".
Mr Johnson mentions that handover documents were found in different bags in different places during the police search of her home. Letby says she was accumulating "paper, not their content".
"The question the jury may be interested in is why," Mr Johnson says.
"I have difficulty throwing anything away," Letby replies.
"Is that why you bought a shredder?"
"I did have a shredder at some point, yes."
Mr Johnson says that wasn't his question and asks if her difficulty in throwing things away is why she bought the shredder. Letby says it was for other documents she would gather, such as bank statements.
The prosecution asks if Letby bought a shredder, found at her home, between April 2016 and the date police knocked on her door in 2018. She agrees.
"Why didn't you shred the handover sheets?" Mr Johnson asks.
"Because they're insignificant," she says.
Mr Johnson puts to Letby that they're "very significant" as they contain the names of deceased babies.
"Yes they shouldn't have come home with me I agree… they were put among other notes," she replies.
"Are you really asking the jury to accept that pieces of paper with information about dead children are insignificant?" asks Mr Johnson.
"Yes," Letby says.

5h ago11:26

Letby asked if she makes up evidence as she goes along​

We're now hearing questions from Nick Johnson KC on a shredder found at Lucy Letby's home by police.
He puts to the defendant that when officers asked in interview if she would dispose of handover sheets at her home she said no, as she did not own a shredder.
Mr Johnson reminds Letby of what she told the jury about this on 2 May, when she said her answer to police was an "oversight".
"What did you mean by that?" he asks, to which she replies that "it was an oversight for me to say I didn't have a shredder at that time and I had bought that recently".
Mr Johnson then asks Letby about an empty shredder box found in a wardrobe in her bedroom at her parents' home. It had the word "keep" written on it.
She says she believes it was her parents' shredder.
"Is there some doubt in your mind?" Mr Johnson asks, to which Letby replies: "I can't recall specifically what shredders were in the property and who they belong to."
Mr Johnson puts to the nurse an answer she gave before the jury yesterday when she said her parents would never enter her bedroom.
"Why do you write 'keep' as instruction to your parents, when that something is in your room they never go in?" he questions.
"I can't answer that."
"Is the truth of it that you’re making up bits of evidence as you're going along?"
"No."

5h ago11:37

Letby denies taking photo of sympathy card to grieving parents gave her a 'thrill'​

Nick Johnson KC turns to the sympathy card Lucy Letby sent to the bereaved parents of Child I, a baby she is alleged to have killed, who died in October 2015.
The picture on Letby's phone was taken at the Countess of Chester Hospital.
He asks why the defendant took a picture of the card at the place where the baby died in "dreadful circumstances", to which she replies the location is "insignificant".
Mr Johnson questions Letby on whether taking a picture of the card gave her "a bit of a thrill".
"Absolutely not," she says.

5h ago11:47

Defendant says she would sometimes be on unit outside shift hours​

Lucy Letby is questioned by the prosecution on whether she would ever go to the neonatal unit late at night when not on shift.
She replies that she would sometimes, to see colleagues who had been on a course or finish filling out documents.
Nick Johnson KC puts it to Letby that there have been times she has been on the unit and there's no trace of her having been there.
"There would be trace as I would have to swipe into the unit," Letby says.
He pulls up images of text messages Letby sent to colleagues suggesting that she would sometimes finish hours after her shift ended.
"Yes and that's not unusual," she tells the court.
"I'm not suggesting it is, I'm just trying to get to the truth. I will tell you if something is unusual," Mr Johnson replies.
He suggests that she did not always need a pass to get in as colleagues could have held a door open for her.

5h ago12:05

Letby probed on phone use while working​

Nick Johnson KC turns to the subject of milk tube feeds for babies on the unit.
After asking Lucy Letby to explain the process, he asks if she's ever used a syringe plunger to speed up the flow of milk, which she denies.
"Is it a job for which you need to use both hands?" Mr Johnson asks - Letby agrees.
"Have you ever sent texts to your friends while you have been performing a tube feed?" he questions.
"Absolutely not, no," she replies.
She says it would be "inappropriate" and that she doesn't "see how you could do a feed without having both hands".
He proposes that if hospital records show she was identified as giving feeds at the same time as texting friends that she wasn't in fact giving that feed.
Letby says the feed charts are estimates to the nearest quarter or half past hour.
"What would take priority, texting your friends or feeding a child?" Mr Johnson asks.
"The baby, obviously," she replies.
Mr Johnson asks if Letby has ever texted her friends while a resuscitation is going on in the unit. She says such an act would be inappropriate if she was at the cot side but not if she were elsewhere.
"Is it appropriate to be texting friends while a resuscitation is going on?"
"If I'm not playing a part in that, yes."
She denies Mr Johnson's suggestion she would have been "giving a commentary" to her friends while doing so.
"Do you know what I'm talking about?" he asks.
"No."
"We'll come to it."

4h ago12:12

Being on shift at time of incidents doesn't mean I attacked babies, Letby says​

Nick Johnson KC puts to Lucy Letby that if she agrees that certain combinations of children were attacked, unless more than one person was attacking them then she must be the attacker.
"I haven't attacked any children," she replies, to which Mr Johnson says he understands her position.
"If the jury conclude that a certain combination of children were attacked by someone... the shift pattern gives us the answer to who the attacker was, doesn't it?"
"I don't agree."
"Why?"
"Just because I was on shift doesn't mean I have done anything," Letby says.

4h ago12:17

Letby says 'conspiracy group' of colleagues blamed her for baby deaths and collapse​

Lucy Letby is asked about people she worked with in the neonatal unit, and if she had problems with any of her colleagues.
Nick Johnson KC questions Lucy Letby on a "conspiracy group" against her - four of Letby's colleagues, including doctors, who raised concern over a possible link to Letby's presence and incidents involving babies on the unit.
"What is the conspiracy?" Mr Johnson asks.
"That they have apportioned blame on to me," Letby replies.
Asked what the motive would be, she says: "I believe to cover failings at the hospital."
Mr Johnson indicates he'll give Letby the opportunity to explain what hospital failings were involved in each case against her.

4h ago12:28

Defendant says Child F and Child L not deliberately attacked with insulin​

Lucy Letby is asked if she believes Child F and Child L were specifically targeted via insulin poisoning.
She disagrees that someone targeted Child F.
In the case of Child L, she agrees that he was poisoned with insulin as per his blood results but does not know if there was intent to cause harm.
"Knowing what you know about blood sugar readings, what are the realistic possibilities in Child L's case?" Nick Johnson KC, for the prosecution, asks.
Letby says she doesn't believe any staff on the unit would "make a mistake and give insulin".
"Mistake not possible in this case, is it?" Mr Johnson says.
"No," Letby replies.
Mr Johnson asks if Letby believes there was deliberate poisoning by someone but not her.
"Insulin was added by somebody, I can't comment on how or who, just that it was not me."
Asked to describe the dangers of non-prescribed insulin, Letby says "it would cause them to be unwell, they would become hypoglycaemic and with that comes a number of problems, such as seizures, apnoea, even death".

 

[Tortoise]

Defence Case continued Thursday 18th May 2023 -

Lucy Letby's CROSS-EXAMINATION

BBC Blog - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-65602988/page/3

Posted at 10:3510:35

The courtroom is starting to assemble​

Judith Moritz

This is Lucy Letby's sixth day in the witness box and her first full day of cross-examination.
The nurse is wearing a black pinstriped suit, and is sitting with a prison officer on either side of her, with another prison officer stationed just inside the door of the courtroom.
The judge, Mr Justice Goss, has entered the room, and the jury of eight women and four men are now taking their seats.

Posted at 10:3710:37

The prosecution begins questioning Letby​

Judith Moritz

Nick Johnson KC is leading the prosecution team of three barristers.
He begins by asking Lucy Letby if she wants to modify any of the answers which she gave to him yesterday. She says she does not.
Nick Johnson KC "are you doing your best to tell your truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth Lucy Letby?"
She answers "yes".

Posted at 10:4410:44

Prosecution says Letby not telling the truth about handover sheets​

Judith Moritz

Nick Johnson KC is asking the nurse about nursing handover sheets with confidential medical information on them, which were found at her house after her arrest.
He shows her one and asks her to pick it up. She does. He asks her how it's different to all the others found at her house. He tells her it's because it has no folds in it.
She asks if it's the original. He says it is. He says: "You've not been prepared to tell the truth about these handover sheets have you?"
She says: "The truth is what I've told you."
Yesterday Lucy Letby said that student nurses weren't given handover sheets. Today Nick Johnson KC says that 99 of the sheets found at Letby's house were from her time as a student nurse.

Posted at 10:4710:47

The scene inside court today​

Judith Moritz

We're in courtroom number seven at Manchester Crown Court. It's a medium sized windowless room.
I am one of only four journalists in the room itself. Others are watching via videolink in an annexe.
Parents of some of the babies in the trial are in court to listen to today's evidence.
Lucy Letby's parents and one of her friends are sitting just behind the nurse.
Lucy Letby is sitting very still at a wooden table directly opposite the jury. She's looking straight ahead, with a neutral expression.
The judge, Mr Justice Goss is wearing red robes, and sits above the court.
Nick Johnson KC is standing at right angles to the nurse peering over his reading glasses at her.
The courtroom is full. There are six barristers - three prosecution and three defence. There's also a row of other lawyers and court staff.

Posted at 10:5810:58

Letby says handover sheets weren't significant​

Judith Moritz

Regarding handover sheets and why they were kept, Nick Johnson KC asks Lucy Letby: "Why don't you want to tell the truth?"
She says: "That is the truth. They have no meaning to me at all. They're just pieces of paper to me. I didn't know I had handover sheets. They weren't significant."
Mr Johnson says: "They were in your work bag."
He adds: "Are you really asking the jury to accept that pieces of paper with sensitive information about dead children on them were insignificant?"
Lucy Letby answers: "Yes."

Posted at 11:0911:09

Letby asked if she took documents out of the bin​

Judith Moritz

Lucy Letby is asked about a confidential document regarding one of the babies (a blood gas record chart relating to one of the babies) which was also found at her house.
Nick Johnson KC accuses her of "fishing it out of the confidential waste bin".
She says: "I never fished anything out of the confidential waste bin."
He says: "It was for your little collection, wasn't it?" She replies "No."

11:16

Why didn't you tell police about document shredder, Letby asked​

Judith Moritz

Nick Johnson KC asks Lucy Letby about her document shredder. When she was arrested she told police that she didn't have a shredder.
A shredder box was found in her bedroom at her parents' house. Nick Johnson asks her why she didn't tell detectives that she did in fact have a shredder.
She says: "I’d just been arrested by the police, locating a shredder wasn’t on my mind."
Johnson adds: "Are you making up bits of evidence as you go along?"
Lucy Letby replies: "No."

11:21

Prosecution turns to a sympathy card Letby sent​

Judith Moritz

Nick Johnson KC now says he wants to ask Lucy Letby about a sympathy card which she sent to the parents of baby I.
She took photos of the card on her phone, on the day of the baby girl's funeral.
A reminder, we can't identify any of the babies or the families in this case as there are legal orders which prevent us from doing so.
Baby I was a girl who Lucy Letby is accused of murdering in October 2015.
The photo of the card was taken by the nurse at 04:30am at the hospital, whilst Lucy Letby was on a night shift.

Posted at 11:3211:32

Letby asked about time in the neonatal unit after her shift​

Judith Moritz
Inside the courtroom
Nick Johnson KC says: "Did you go into the neonatal unit late at night when you weren’t on shift?"
Lucy Letby replies: "I would sometimes go when not on shift, sometimes to finish paperwork."
Johnson asks: "So there are times when you’ve been on the neonatal unit when there is no trace of you having been there?"
Letby: "There would be a trace because I would have had to swipe, there’s no other way."
Lucy Letby says it would not be unusual for her to still be on the unit a couple of hours after her shift ended.
Nick Johnson KC says swipe data doesn't always show when she was there. He points out that colleagues could have held doors open for her.

Posted at 11:5611:56

Court returns, and Letby is asked about tube feeding​

Judith Moritz
Inside the courtroom
Nick Johnson KC now begins asking Lucy Letby about nasogastric tube feeding of babies on the unit.
She explains how it's done. Nick Johnson KC asks: "Have you ever used a syringe plunger to speed up the flow of milk?" Lucy Letby answers: "No."
Johnson asks: "Is it a job you need to use both hands for?" Letby says: "Yes."
Johnson then says: "Have you ever sent texts to your friends while performing a tube feed?" Letby replies: "No, absolutely not."
Johnson asks: "Where would that fall in the scale of infractions?"
Letby responds: "It would be inappropriate and I don’t know how you could do a feed without using both hands."

12:03

Letby asked whether she sent texts to friends during resuscitations​

Nick Johnson KC continues his questioning.
He asks: "What would take priority? Texting your friends or feeding a child?" Lucy Letby replies: "The baby obviously."
Johnson asks: "Have you ever texted your friends whilst a resuscitation has been going on?" Letby says: "No".
Johnson then asks: "Are you sure about that?" Letby asks: "A resus that I’ve been involved with?"
Johnson says: "A resus on the unit." Letby responds: "I can’t recall texting while on a resuscitation."
Johnson asks: "Would it be wholly inappropriate?" Letby replies: "If I was at cot side, yes."

Posted at 12:0812:08

'Just because I was on shift doesn’t mean I’ve done anything' - Letby​

Nick Johnson KC asks: "Do you agree that if certain combinations of these children were attacked, that unless more than one person was attacking them - you have to be the attacker?"
Lucy Letby says: "No I’ve not attacked any children."
Johnson continues: "I understand your case that you’ve not attacked anyone. If the jury conclude that a certain combination of children were certainly attacked by someone, then the shift pattern gives us the answer as to who."
Lucy Letby replies: "No, I don’t agree."
Johnson responds: "Why don’t you agree?"
Lucy Letby: "Just because I was on shift doesn’t mean I’ve done anything."
Johnson says: "Babies 5, 8, 10 and 12 were all attacked by someone, and you’re the only common feature."
Lucy Letby: "That’s for them (the jury) to decide."
Johnson: "Of course it is, but as a principle do you agree?"
Lucy Letby: "I don’t feel like I can answer that."

Posted at 12:1712:17

Doctors blame me to cover things up, says Letby​

Judith Moritz
Inside the courtroom
Nick Johnson KC is reading a list of all the doctors on the unit and asking Lucy Letby if she had any issues with them.
She says she had normal working relationships with the doctors.
Johnson asks: "Are you suggesting that there is some sort of agreement between any of the medical staff who’ve given evidence in this case - to get you?"
Letby responds: "In the consultant group? Yes I do believe that."
Johnson says: "Who is in the conspiracy group?" Lucy Letby says: "Which individuals? I believe Ravi Jayaram, Stephen Brearey, John Gibbs (and another doctor, name witheld)."
Johnson says: "So the gang of four?"
Letby answers: "Yes."
Johnson then asks: "What is the conspiracy between the gang of four?"
Letby replies: "That they have apportioned blame onto me."
Johnson says: "And the motive of apportioning blame onto you?"
Letby explains: "I believe to cover up things at the hospital."

Posted at 12:2012:20

Letby says it wasn't her that gave babies insulin​

Judith Moritz
Inside the courtroom
Lucy Letby is now asked about the two babies in the case who she's accused of poisoning with insulin.
She agrees that both babies were given insulin unlawfully, but that it was not given by her.
Lucy Letby says: "I don’t believe that any staff on the unit would make a mistake in giving insulin."
Nick Johnson KC: "Mistake is not an option here, so it was deliberate poisoning by someone, but not you?"
Lucy Letby: "Insulin has been added by somebody but I can’t say by who, just that it wasn’t me."

Posted at 12:2212:22

Prosecution asks Letby what she knew about injecting air​

Lucy Letby is alleged to have attacked some of the babies by injecting air into their stomachs or bloodstreams.
She is asked what she knew, from her training, about the dangers of air embolism.
Letby answers: "I think every nurse knows that injecting air into a patient can lead to death."

 

[Tortoise]

Defence Case continued Thursday 18th May 2023 -

Lucy Letby's CROSS-EXAMINATION

Dan O'Donoghue BBC Tweets - https://twitter.com/MrDanDonoghue

Nurse Lucy Letby will be in the witness box for the sixth day at Manchester Crown Court this morning - with her defence evidence now complete, Nick Johnson KC will launch into his cross examination. Ms Letby is accused of murdering 7 babies and attempting to kill 10 others

Mr Johnson had around 20minutes with Ms Letby yesterday. His opening question was: 'Is there any reason why you cry when you talk about yourself and do not cry when you talk about the dead and seriously injured children?'

Ms Letby responded: 'I have cried when talking about some of the babies'. The nurse denies all charges against her

Everyone is now present in court, Mr Johnson has just got to his feet. He kicks off by asking Ms Letby 'if there's anything you said during course of my questioning (yesterday) to you that you have thought about over night and want to modify any of the answers you have given'

Ms Letby says 'no'. Mr Johnson then brings discussion to handover sheets, he asks her when she was a student at the Countess of Chester if she was given handover sheets - she says 'yes' on some placements

Mr Johnson is focusing his questioning on the 250 plus handover sheets that were found in Ms Letby's home when police searched. One sheet is from 1 June 2010. Mr Johnson says this dates to Ms Letby's first day on the neonatal unit (as part of a student placement)

Mr Johnson says this was found in a keepsake box at Ms Letby's home. Ms Letby says she 'can't recall' what was in that box. Mr Johnson says the note was in 'pristine' condition and says 'you knew where you were keeping these handover notes didn't you', Ms Lebty says 'no'

Mr Johnson is now asking Ms Letby about an exchange she had with her defence lawyer Ben Myers KC regarding a handover sheet for the triplet brothers Child O and P (who Ms Letby is alleged to have murdered on successive days in June 2016)

Ms Letby told her defence lawyer she took a sheet home as she needed to write up medications the next day. Mr Johnson has pulled up the sheet, on it is written 'caffeine' for Child P - no other medications are on the sheet

Mr Johnson says 'your evidence yesterday was you took that home because it had caffeine written on it and brought it in next day to help remind you of caffeine', Ms Letby says she did not say this. She says she also took a paper towel with medicines on it home

Mr Johnson asks Ms Letby, the 250 plus handover sheets found, 'what were you thinking as this pile of handover sheets accumulated almost to the size of a phonebook' Ms Letby says she 'didn't recall I had that many' and says they are not significant, just pieces of paper

Ms Letby explains she has had difficulty throwing away paper her entire life and has cards, letters and various documents

Mr Johnson asks 'are you really asking the jury to accept that pieces of paper about dead children are insignificant' Ms Letby says 'yes'

Mr Johnson puts it to Ms Letby that she took the sheets home 'for your little collection'. Ms Letby says 'no'

Mr Johnson is now turning to a sympathy card she sent to the parents of Child I. The below image was recovered from Ms Letby's phone and was taken on the hospital's neonatal unit

Mr Johnson asks why she took the image at the hospital, the place where Child I had died 'in dreadful circumstances'. Ms Letby said the place she took the image is 'insignificant' and that taking pictures of cards and letters was a normal pattern of behaviour for her

Mr Johnson asks her 'did it give you a bit of thrill taking it at the place where this poor unfortunate child died', she responded 'absolutely not no'

We're back after a 15min break. Mr Johnson KC is now asking Ms Letby about nasogastric tube feeding of babies on the unit

Mr Johnson asks Ms Letby if she has ever texted or messaged a friend while a resuscitation of a baby is ongoing on a unit - she says 'not that I can recall no'. Mr Johnson says that would be 'wholly inappropriate', Ms Letby repeats that she can't recall texting anyone

Mr Johnson asks Ms Letby if she knows what he is referring to, she says no. He says 'we'll come to it'

Mr Johnson is asking Ms Letby about each member of staff on the neonatal unit in turn and how she felt towards them - he asks about Dr Stephen Brearey, a consultant who pushed for Ms Letby to be taken off the unit in June 2016

She says when working on unit she 'did not have a problem' with him. She said her issues 'came after'. On a note, found at Ms Letby's home, she had written the word 'bastards' - she said this was about Dr Brearey and Dr Ravi Jayaram

Asked why she had written this, she says it was because they were 'making comments I was responsible for the deaths of babies' She adds 'they were very insistent that I be removed from the unit'

Mr Johnson asks about another doctor, who cannot be named for legal reasons. He asks Ms Letby if she was 'in love with him', she says she 'loved him as a friend'

Mr Johnson asks Ms Letby if she believes there is a 'conspiracy against her', she says yes. Mr Johnson asks her who is involved in this, she says Dr Stephen Brearey, Dr Ravi Jayaram, Dr John Gibbs and another doctor who cannot be named for legal reasons

Mr Johnson says he will refer to these doctors as 'the gang of four'. He asks what motive they would have for such a conspiracy. She says: 'They have apportioned blame onto me. I believe to cover failings at the hospital'

 

[Tortoise]

Defence Case continued Thursday 18th May 2023 -

Lucy Letby's CROSS-EXAMINATION

CHILD A

Chester Standard - https://www.chesterstandard.co.uk/news/23530215.live-lucy-letby-trial-may-18---prosecution-cross-examines-letby/

12:18pm

Mr Johnson asks about the case of Child A.
Letby says she did have independent memory of Child A.
"Before [Child A], had you ever known a child to die unexpectedly within 24 hours of birth?"
LL: "I can't recall - I'm not sure."
Letby says she can recall "two or three" baby deaths prior at the Countess of Chester Hospital, and "several" at her placement in Liverpool Women's Hospital.
Mr Johnson says Letby had previously told police it was "two" at Liverpool. Letby says her memory would have been clearer back then.

12:24pm

Letby says it was discussed at the time Child A's antiphospholipid syndrome could have been a contributing factor at the time.
Letby tells the court "in part", staffing levels were a contributing part in Child A's death, due to a lack of fluids for four hours and issues with the UVC line.
She says they were "contributing factors", and put Child A "at increased risk of collapse".
"I can't tell you how [Child A] died, but there were contributing factors that were missed."
Letby says the issues with Child A's lines "made him more vulnerable", with one of the lines "not being connected to anything".
Letby is asked why she didn't record this on a 'Datix form'.
LL: "It was discussed amongst staff at the time...I didn't feel the need to do a Datix, it had been raised verbally with two senior staff, one Dr Jayaram, one a senior nursing staff."
She adds: "I don't know why [Child A] died."
Letby says if the cause of death was established as air embolus, then it would have come from the person connecting the fluids, "which wasn't me".

12:27pm

Mr Johnson: "Do you accept you were by [Child A] at the time he collapsed?"
LL: "I accept that I was in his cot space, checking equipment, yes...I was in his close vicinity."
NJ: "Could you reach out and touch him?"
LL: "I could touch his incubator - the incubator was closed."
NJ: "Could you touch his lines?"
LL: "No."

12:32pm

Letby says "there's no way of knowing" from the signatures, who administered the medication between the two nurses, Letby or nurse Melanie Taylor.
Dr David Harkness recalled to the court: "There was a very unusual patchiness of the skin, which I have never seen before, and only seen since in cases at the Countess of Chester Hospital."
Letby disagrees with that skin colour description for Child A.
She agrees with Dr Harkness that Child A had "mottling", with "purple and white patches".
Letby says she cannot recall any blotchiness.
"I didn't see it - if he says he saw it...that's for him to justify.
"It's not something I saw.
"I was present and I did not see those."

12:36pm

Dr Ravi Jayaram said Child A was "pale, very pale", and referred to "unusual patches of discolouration."
Letby: "I don't agree with the description of discolouration, I agree he was pale."
Letby disagrees with the description of Child A being blue, with pink patches 'flitting around'.
An 'experienced nurse of 20 years', who the court hears was a friend of Letby, said: "I've never seen a baby look that way before - he looked very ill."
Letby agrees Child A looked ill. She disagrees with the nurse's statement of the discolouration, or the blotchiness on Child A's skin.
"I agree he was white with what looked like purple markings."
Letby agrees with the statement that the colouring "came on very suddenly".

12:46pm

Mr Johnson refers to Letby's police interview, in which Letby was asked to interpret what she had seen on Child A.
Letby explained to police mottling was 'blotchy, red markings on the skin'
"Like, reddy-purple".
Child A was "centrally pale".
In police interview, Letby was asked about what she saw on Child A. She said: "I think from memory it [the mottling] was more on the side the line was in...I think it was his left."
Letby tells the court she felt Child A was "more pale than mottled".
She says it was "unusual" for Child A to be pale and to have discolouration on the side", but there was "nothing unusual" about the type of discolouration itself.
Mr Johnson asks about the bag being kept for testing.
Letby says she cannot recall if she followed it up if the bag was tested. She had handed it over to the shift leader.
Letby is asked if she accepts Child A did not have a normal respiratory problem. Letby agrees.

12:53pm

Mr Johnson asks if Letby has ever seen an arrhythmia in a neonate. Letby: "No, I don't think so, no."
Mr Johnson says air bubbles were found in Child A afterwards.
"Did you inject [Child A] with air?"
"No."
Mr Johnson asks if Letby was "keen" to get back to room 1 after this event.
Letby says from her experience at Liverpool Women's, she was taught to get back and carry on as soon as possible.
Letby had been asked what the dangers of air embolus were, and she had not known.
"Were you playing daft?"
"No - every nurse knows the dangers."
Letby said she did not know how an air embolus would progress, but knew the ultimate risk was death.

2:01pm

The trial is now resuming. Nicholas Johnson KC says there is one thing he overlooked from the morning's evidence.
He asks Lucy Letby why she said "blotchiness" rather than "mottling" in part of her police statement.
"I think they are interchangeable," Letby tells the court.


Sky News - https://news.sky.com/story/lucy-letby-murder-trial-latest-former-nurse-tells-court-why-she-repeatedly-searched-for-dead-babys-mother-on-facebook-12868375

4h ago12:37

Letby accepts she was in Child A's cot space when he collapsed​

Nick Johnson KC moves to questions about the individual babies involved in the case.
He begins with Child A, a boy, who died on 8 June 2015. The prosecution previously told the court he "most likely" died after being injected with air.
Mr Johnson asks Lucy Letby if before Child A, she had ever known a child to die unexpectedly within 24 hours of birth.
"I can't comment on that, I'm not sure," she replies.
He later questions Letby on her location at the time of Child A's collapse that evening.
"Do you accept you were standing over Child A at the time he collapsed?" Mr Johnson asks, to which Letby says she was in his cot space checking equipment.
Letby tells the court she was in close vicinity to the baby but could not touch his lines as the incubator was closed.

4h ago12:55

Letby says she disagrees with colleagues' recollection of events​

Nick Johnson KC, for the prosecution, proceeds to take Lucy Letby through the evidence relating to Child A given by Countess of Chester colleagues during the trial.
A doctor told the court during questioning that Child A had "very unusual patchiness of his skin" - Letby says she doesn't agree with the description.
She also disagrees with his statement that Child A had patches of blue/purple, as well as of red and white in places.
Mr Johnson asks if Letby is suggesting the doctor's recollection is made up.
"I didn't see it, if he saw something I didn't see that's something for him to justify."
Letby also disagrees with the recollection of a nurse - who she said was a friend - of discolouration and blotchiness.
She tells the court she doesn't remember Child A having any "abnormal discolouration".

4h ago13:02

'Did you inject Child A with air?'​

Nick Johnson KC says a medical review of Child A found an air bubble in his brain and lungs.
"Did you inject Child A with that?" Letby is asked.
She replies: "No."
Other doctors also discovered air bubbles. Mr Johnson puts to her: "That's because you injected him with air, isn't it?"
Letby denies that she did.
The prosecutor asks Letby if she wanted to get straight back into nursery one of the Countess of Chester's neonatal unit, where Child A was being cared for, after his death.
She agrees and says from her experience at Liverpool Women's Hospital, "if you've lost a baby in a certain cot space you go back... so you can move on from that first experience".

4h ago13:09

Letby denies 'playing daft' in police interview​

The defendant is asked about her police interview, in which she suggested to officers that she didn't know the dangers of air embolisms.
"Were you playing daft?" Nick Johnson KC asks Letby.
She replies that every nurse would know the dangers.
Letby tells the court she knew that the "ultimate serious outcome" would be death, "but what that would appear as in symptoms of a baby I don't know"


BBC Blog - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-65602988/page/2

12:27

Nick Johnson KC now turns to the babies in the case​

Judith Moritz
Inside the courtroom
There are 17 in total - the nurse is accused of murdering seven and attempting to murder another 10.
Because we can't name the babies, we are listing them in alphabetical order, as they are set out, chronologically, on the indictment.
The charges run from June 2015-June 2016.

Posted at 12:2912:29

Did staffing levels contribute to baby A's death, Letby asked​

Nick Johnson KC asks about baby A - a boy twin - who Lucy Letby is accused of murdering in June 2015. She denies this (and all the charges).
Nick Johnson KC adds: "Is it the case that the staffing levels at the Countess of Chester Hospital contributed to Baby A’s death?"
Lucy Letby responds: "In part, yes."
She says she believes that the fact baby A spent four hours without fluids contributed to his death.
Lucy Letby says it was another nurse who had the access to baby A's tube lines. She does not accept that she was standing over the baby when he collapsed.

12:39

Letby asked if she's disputing what the doctor saw​

The trial previously heard evidence from a doctor who said he'd observed very unusual patches on Baby A's skin at the time of his collapse.
Lucy Letby is asked by Nick Johnson KC: "Do you agree with that description that there were very unusual patches on his skin?"
Letby replies: "No."
Johnson then asks: "Are you disputing what the doctor saw?"
Letby says: "Yes."
Johnson then asks Letby if she's suggesting that the doctor is lying.
Her barrister, Ben Myers KC, interjects and says it's not appropriate to continually ask the nurse if she's accusing witnesses of lying.
The judge, Mr Justice Goss, tells Nick Johnson KC: "It’s ultimately a matter for the jury to decide whether he is lying, or she is lying, so I’m not going to permit you to ask that question anymore."

Posted at 12:5512:55

Nurse Letby denies injecting baby A with air​

Judith Moritz
Inside the courtroom
Lucy Letby says baby A had mottled skin, but it was not an abnormal discolouration. She says: "He was unusually pale, but in terms of the colour, it was not unusual."
Nick Johnson KC says: "The pathologist found an air bubble in baby A’s brain and lungs. Did you inject him with air?"
Lucy Letby replies: "No."
Johnson explains: "He found air bubbles in his blood vessels. Do you remember that?"
Letby says: "Yes."
Johnson adds: "Like babies D and O. That’s because you injected him with air didn’t you?"
Letby responds: "No."

Posted at 12:5912:59

Were you playing daft in your police interview, Letby asked​

The court was told that in her police interview Lucy Letby said she didn't know what the dangers of injecting air were.
She says now that she meant she didn't know the exact pathological danger, but did know that ultimately it would end in death.
Nick Johnson KC: "Were you playing daft?"
Lucy Letby: "No, it’s something every nurse would know."
Nick Johnson KC: "Why didn’t you say something?"
Lucy Letby: "I know the ultimate outcome would be death - how that would appear in terms of symptoms for a baby - I don’t know."

Posted at 13:0313:03

The court takes a break for lunch​

Judith Moritz
Inside the courtroom
Before they were sent out, the judge spoke to the jury about the likely length of the rest of the case.
He has now told them that it may last until the end of July. It began in October.


Dan O'Donoghue BBC Tweets - https://twitter.com/MrDanDonoghue

Mr Johnson has just been asking Ms Letby about Child A, her first alleged victim - who medical experts say died as as result of an injection of air

Mr Johnson asks Ms Lebty if she believed another nurse, Melanie Taylor, was responsible for air getting into Child A's system. She says she doesn't know why Child A died, but says if nurse Taylor attached his lines and if air embolism is the cause, then yes

Mr Johnson says 'The pathologist found an air bubble in baby A’s brain and lungs. Did you inject him with air?' Ms Letby said 'no'

Ms Letby is asked if she knows about air embolism, she says yes that it is something every nurse would know - asked what it could cause she says she knew the 'ultimate serious outcome could be death, what that would appear as in symptoms of the baby I don’t know'

 

[Tortoise]

Defence Case continued Thursday 18th May 2023 -

Lucy Letby's CROSS-EXAMINATION

CHILD B

Chester Standard - https://www.chesterstandard.co.uk/news/23530215.live-lucy-letby-trial-may-18---prosecution-cross-examines-letby/

2:06pm

Asked if staffing levels or mistakes had contributed to the collapse of Child B, Letby says she does not know what caused Child B's collapse.
She says she does not recall Child B's father lying on the floor following Child B's collapse.
A text message from Letby includes:...'Dad was on the foor crying saying please don't take out baby away when I took him to the mortuary, it's just heartbreaking."
Letby says she does not recall that.
Letby says in this case, she did not want to care for Child B so soon after the death of Child A, as unlike the Liverpool example she had been taught of 'getting back on the horse' (Mr Johnson's words) and being back in nursery room 1, this was with the same family.
Letby accepts Child B did well on the day shift of June 9.

2:11pm

Letby is asked if Child B's parents 'stood guard' in the unit following the death of twin, Child A.
Letby: "They were very much present on the unit and we allowed for that."
A diagram for the night shift of June 9-10 shows Letby was in nursery room 3 for that night shift, looking after two babies. Child B was in room 1.
Letby says she "got on well" with all her nursing colleagues.
Letby recalls evidence from court by a nurse colleague on March 21, in which Letby had said working in nurseries 3 and 4 was "boring".
Letby tells the court: "I have never been bored [at work], I would never describe my work as boring."

2:24pm

Mr Johnson goes through the timeline of Child B's events.
A message from Letby to Yvonne Griffiths said: "...Hard coming in and seeing the parents".
Mr Johnson says she is "engaged in chit-chat with a friend" between 8.41pm-9.10pm on the night shift in a social context. Letby says that sort of conversation was not limited to just her.
Mr Johnson says further messages are exchanged between 9.12pm-9.32pm.
Letby says "all members of staff use their phones on the unit". She says it was "accepted".
She says she cannot comment for the whole unit, but her designated babies were being cared for.
She says she does not believe there were staffing issues - "I can't see what's going on with the other babies [at this time]."
Further messages are exchanged involving Letby, some in a social context, up to 10.28pm.
Mr Johnson says in the middle of the block of messages, Letby signs for medication for a baby at 10.20pm. Letby says she didn't use her phone in clinical areas.
A "further block of messages" are exchanged on Letby's phone between 10.38-10.59pm.
NJ: "Were you bored?"
LL: "No."
NJ: "As a matter of fact, do you text a lot when in [room 3]?"
LL: "I text regardless where I am on shift."
NJ: "Even with an ITU baby [in room 1]?"
LL: "Yes, and I think everyone else would say the same if they were honest."

2:32pm

Letby says she was working in nursery 1 "at points" during the shift. She accepts that following Child B's collapse, she was in room 1.
A document for a TPN bag and lipid administration is signed by Letby, at 11.40pm on June 9.
Letby says an observation form at what appears to be 0010 has what Letby accepts could be her handwriting. It is similar to the writing in the next column, which is initialled by Letby.
A blood gas record is shown for 12.16am. Letby accepts she is there at that time as two nurses are needed to carry out the test.

2:45pm

Letby says she was "unsure" whether she or a colleague had alerted the other to Child B's deterioration.
LL: "I can't sit here and say definitively which way now, no."
NJ: "You injected [Child B] with air, didn't you?"
LL: "No I didn't."
Mr Johnson asks about Child B's appearance - Letby had earlier told her defence Child B "becoming quite mottled", "dark", "all over".
Letby was asked if she had seen that mottling before. "Yes, it was like general mottling that we do see on babies," adding: "It was not unusual" but it was a concern, in light of Child A's decline the night before.
Letby tells the court the mottling was more pronounced than usually found.
In police interview, Letby had said the mottling was more than seen on Child A, who was pale centrally.
"It was darker". Letby also said there was a "rash appearance".
Letby tells the court it was a "more pronounced mottling", but was still mottling.
NJ: "Are you saying this was normal?"
Letby says it was not normal, but something which would be seen. It was "more pronounced than general mottling". She says it "came very quickly", and in the context of Child A, everyone "acted very quickly".
Mr Johnson asks why a doctor asked for someone to get a camera.
LL: "In view of what had happened to [Child A] the night before...we did not want to take any chances."
Child B's mother describes the mottling event, and the consultant had "never seen this before", and the mother was "surprised" at this.
"Do you accept what [Child A and B's mother] said?"
LL: "I accept there was mottling, yes."
She says she does not recall the consultant saying that, as she was not there when it was said.
Letby tells the court she went "immediately" to get a camera, and when she returned, the mottling had gone.

2:49pm

A doctor had said Child B was a "very pale, dusky colour", and then developing widespread blotches...patches of a purpley-red colour.
Letby said she was not there at that point, as she may have been getting the camera. She says she did not see that on Child B. She says no conversation was ever had about that.
The judge asks if there was anything that could have led the doctor to be mistaken in her description.
Letby: "No, I just saw mottling."
Letby says the mottling was purpley-red.

3:00pm

Another doctor had described a blotchiness "to one side".
Lety says she did not "take over care" of Child B, from a senior nurse of 20 years experience. She says the senior nurse was busy with the family.
The court is shown Letby is co-signer for a number of medications following Child B's collapse, with the senior nurse.
Letby denies suggesting antiphospholipid syndrome was a cause of Child B's death.
Mr Johnson asks if Letby accepts Child A and Child B had air administered.
LL: "No."

Sky News - https://news.sky.com/story/lucy-letby-murder-trial-latest-former-nurse-tells-court-why-she-repeatedly-searched-for-dead-babys-mother-on-facebook-12868375

3h ago14:12

Letby denies she thinks staffing issues caused Child B's collapse​

Prosecutor Nick Johnson KC is now questioning Lucy Letby on Child B, a girl, the elder twin of Child A.
The prosecution alleges Child B survived a murder attempt by Letby just over a day after her brother died in June 2015, which she denies.
Letby tells the court she had "very little" independent memory of Child B before her police interview in July 2018.
"Is it your case that staffing levels contributed to Child B’s collapse?" Mr Johnson asks.
"No, I don't know what caused the collapse," Letby replies.
She repeats the answer when questioned if it's her belief that medical incompetence was a factor.
"Do you remember the devastation Child A's death caused his family?" Mr Johnson asks the nurse.
"Yes," she says.
"Do you remember Child A's dad lying on the floor after his death?"
"I don't recall anyone lying on the floor, no."
Mr Johnson pulls up a text sent from Letby to a colleague on 9 June 2015 in which she explains she had previously told senior staff she hadn't felt she could look after Child B after what happened with Child A.
"Dad was on the floor crying," she texted.

3h ago14:16

Letby asked whether she found caring for healthier babies 'boring'​

Court documents show Lucy Letby was caring for children in the neonatal unit's nursery three on the night shift of 9-10 June 2015, while Child B was in intensive care nursery one.
"You had two children in nursery three is that right?" asks prosecutor Nick Johnson KC - Letby agrees.
"You didn't like being there, did you?"
Letby says "that's not accurate at all" and denies a suggestion by Mr Johnson that she was "bored".
"I've never been bored at work, I've never described my work as boring."

3h ago14:29

Letby says she would send texts while on shift​

Nick Johnson KC pulls up text messages between Lucy Letby, a friend and colleagues, sent during the evening of 9 June 2015 while she was at work.
"This is why I'm suggesting you're bored, you're engaging in chit-chat with your friend," Mr Johnson puts to Letby.
The defendant said this wasn't unique to her.
"All members of staff use their phone," she tells the court.
Mr Johnson asks if Letby spends "a lot of time texting" when working in nurseries three and four on the neonatal unit - for babies with a lower level of care need.
"I text regardless of where I am during the shift," the nurse responds.
She says all staff "would say the same thing if they were being honest".

3h ago14:46

Letby says she can't remember how she was alerted to Child B's collapse​

Nick Johnson KC asks Lucy Letby if she recalls telling the jury that it was another nurse that alerted her to Child B's collapse in the early hours of 10 June 2015.
She says she was unsure what way around events happened.
"My memory is that she alerted me but I can't say for definite now, that was my memory at the time."
"So she was wrong about that?" Mr Johnson asks.
"Potentially yes... I can't sit here now and say definitively which way it happened."
"You injected Child B with air didn't you?" asks Mr Johnson.
Letby replies: "No I didn't."

2h ago14:59

Letby questioned on colleagues' accounts​

Lucy Letby is asked about her description of Child B's appearance as "mottled and dark" as she collapsed - a description she previously gave to the court.
Asked if the mottling was "remarkable", she says she "can't recall specifically" but it was "more pronounced" than she had seen before.
Prosecutor Nick Johnson KC puts to Letby the accounts of other staff, including doctors, who had been present at the time.
One doctor previously told the court they had not witnessed the colouration Child B had before.
Asked if she accepts this, Letby says "yes, but it was not said to me". She says she agrees it was said but does not remember the conversation happening.
Mr Johnson asks why she's prepared to accept this happened even though she doesn't recall it, but has disagreed with colleagues' recollections of other events.
The defendant says she is relying on her colleagues' statements being accurate.

2h ago15:12

Letby denies air was injected into babies' IV lines​

Nick Johnson KC takes Lucy Letby to comments she made previously in which she recalled Child B's discolouration was similar to Child A's before he died the previous day.
"Why were you linking or drawing a similarity between Child A and B?" he asks the defendant.
Letby replies that she can't say.
"I'll offer you a reason - because they were the same, like [another nurse] said [while giving evidence]."
The defendant denies that the nurse was referring to Child B's colour but was "referring to a sick baby" and "didn't want something happening again".
"She was referring to the rash," Mr Johnson says.
Letby replies: "I don't agree with that."
"Do you accept that all people who saw the skin discolouration said they hadn't seen this type of thing before?"
The nurse says she will have to accept their evidence as correct.
Mr Johnson questions whether Letby agrees air was injected into the IV (intravenous) lines of both or either Child A and B - she says she doesn't.
"Do you accept you had the opportunity to have access to the IV lines of both children before they collapsed?"
"Yes, but I didn't access the lines," she says.

https://news.sky.com/story/lucy-let...vidence-12868375?postid=5931370#liveblog-body


BBC Blog - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-65602988/page/2

Posted at 14:0414:04

Hearing begins again​

The judge and the jury are in court too now so we can begin.
Nick Johnson KC is back on his feet.
He asks Lucy Letby if she wants to amend anything she said during the morning's evidence.
She says no.

Posted at 14:0714:07

Letby asked if she remembers parents' grief​

Nick Johnson KC moves on to ask the nurse about baby B - a girl, and the twin sister of baby A. It's alleged that Lucy Letby attempted to murder her after she had murdered her brother, in early June 2015.
Lucy Letby is asked if she remembers how devastated the twins' parents were after the death of baby A. She does.
She's asked if she remembers their father lying on the floor in grief. She says she does not remember this.
The court is shown a text message from Lucy Letby to a colleague on the day after baby A died.
In it she wrote: "Dad was on the floor crying saying 'please don’t take our baby away' when I took him to the mortuary, it's just heartbreaking."

14:21

Prosecution suggests Letby was bored at times​

Judith Moritz
Inside the courtroom
Nick Johnson KC says that on the night of baby B's collapse, Lucy Letby was based in a different room within the unit. The baby was in nursery one (intensive care).
Nurse Letby was looking after two children in nursery three. Nick Johnson suggests that Lucy Letby had wanted to be based in nursery one.
He says: "You didn’t like being there (nursery three) did you?"
Letby answers: "That’s not accurate."
Johnson responds: "You were bored."
Letby says: "I’ve never been bored at work. I’ve never described my work as boring."

Posted at 14:2314:23

Texting while on shift was common practice, says Letby​

Nick Johnson KC shows the court a list of text messages which Lucy Letby sent to friends and colleagues whilst she was on shift.
He says: "I’m suggesting you were bored because you were engaging in chit chat on texts with friends."
Lucy Letby replies: "No that’s common practice on the ward, that's not unique to me."
Johnson adds: "I take it that staffing levels weren't an issue then?"
Lucy Letby says she can't speak for the other staff on the unit, but her babies were being adequately looked after at the time.

Posted at 14:3014:30

Letby says she texts regardless of where she is​

Judith Moritz
Inside the courtroom
Nick Johnson KC is continuing to ask Lucy Letby about texting. "Were you bored?" he asks.
Letby replies: "No."
Then Johnson says: "As a matter of fact do you spend a lot of time texting when you're in nursery three?"
Letby says: "I text regardless of where I am on shift."
Johnson responds: "Even when you’re looking after an ITU (intensive care) baby?"
Letby says: "Yes, at times when they’re not needing care, and I think everyone would say the same if they were honest."

Posted at 14:3914:39

Letby denies injecting baby B with air​

Nick Johnson KC shows the court medical records relating to baby B (who was in nursery one), which have Lucy Letby's signature on, even though the babies she was tasked with caring for that night were in a different room.
He says: "You had migrated back into nursery one hadn't you?"
Letby answers that some procedures needed to be signed off by two nurses, and that's why she was there.
Johnson challenges Letby: "You injected baby B with air, didn't you?"
She replies: "No I didn't."

Posted at 14:4114:41

The scene inside the courtroom this afternoon​

Judith Moritz
Inside the courtroom
Nick Johnson KC is standing with his arms folded.
He is looking across to his right, and down, at Lucy Letby who's wearing a black pinstriped suit in the witness box. Two female prison officers are with her.
Lucy Letby speaks fairly quietly.
She's sitting very still, with her hands clasped below the table of the witness box.

Posted at 14:5014:50

Letby asked to go back over police interviews​

Judith Moritz
Inside the courtroom
Nick Johnson KC asks Lucy Letby to look at the lever-arch file which contains some of her police interviews.
He takes her to the section which includes an interview she did with detectives about baby B.
They asked her about the appearance of the baby's skin. She told police that it had a "rash appearance".
She now says she accepts there was skin "mottling".
Nick Johnson KC asks the nurse if she accepts it wasn't normal.
She answers: "It was more pronounced mottling, yes, and in view of what had happened with baby A we were very keen to act."

Posted at 15:0015:00

Letby shown medical notes relating to baby B​

The court is shown a neonatal intensive care chart, a blood gas record, and medication forms relating to baby B.
Lucy Letby was not the baby's designated nurse at that time, but her signature is on these documents.

Posted at 15:0715:07

Prosecution asks Letby if she put air into babies' IV lines​

Judith Moritz
Inside the courtroom
Nick Johnson KC says: "Do you accept that all the people who saw the skin discolouration, say they hadn’t seen that sort of thing before?"
Lucy Letby says: "I have to accept what they say, yes."
Johnson then adds: "Do you accept air was put into the IV lines of both children?" (Babies A and B).
Letby says: "No."
Johnson replies: "Or either of them?
Letby responds: "No."
Johnson asks: "Do you accept that you had the opportunity to access the lines of both children?"
Letby says: "Yes but I didn’t access the lines."

Posted at 15:1215:12

Heads up...​

We're having a change of staff here - Dan O'Donoghue will be telling us what's happening in court for the rest of the day.


Dan O'Donoghue BBC Tweets - https://twitter.com/MrDanDonoghue

We're back after a break for lunch. Mr Johnson is turning to what Ms Letby said in evidence in relation to Child B. She was the twin sister of Child A and collapsed on 10 June 2015, 28 hours after her brother's death. Child B recovered and was eventually discharged a month later.

Ms Letby tells Ms Johnson 'I don't know what caused the collapse'...he asks if it is due to medical competence of staff on the unit, she says 'i don't know'

Mr Johnson puts to Ms Letby what a colleague said in evidence about a time Ms Letby was asked to work in an ‘outside nursery’ where babies were treated in preparation for going home.

Senior nurse Kathryn Percival-Calderbank told the jury “She said it was boring and she didn’t want to feed babies. She wanted to be in the intensive care”.

Ms Letby says that is 'not true', she adds: 'I’ve never been bored at work, I would never describe my work as boring'

Mr Johnson is pulling up WhatsApp messages sent by Ms Letby, while at work in June 2015. He says this 'chitchat' with friends and others is evidence of her being bored. She rejects this, saying messaging on shift was not 'unique to me'

'All members of staff used their phone on that unit', she said.

Mr Johnson is going back over all the messages Ms Letby sent to colleagues during the shift of 9 June. He also goes into the neonatal review, which shows she was signing for a prescription for a child around the same time

Mr Johnson says 'you didn't use your phone in clinical areas', Ms Letby says that she did not use her phone in the nurseries

He again asks, 'were you bored'. She responds 'no'

Mr Johnson is focusing his line of questioning on Ms Letby 'migrating back into nursery one' during her shift on 9 June. He pulls up various obs charts on which there are signatures that Ms Letby says are 'potentially' hers, he says this is her heading back to n1

She says 'that's an expected course' and that she may have been in there to 'support' another nurse

Mr Johnson says 'you injected (Child B) with air didn’t you' She says 'no I didn’t'

Mr Johnson is focusing now on testimony from doctors earlier in the trial who described seeing a purply/red blotches across her. Ms Letby says this was 'mottling' which is seen a lot in babies

Ms Letby said it was 'more pronounced that just general mottling', but mottling nonetheless. A doctor who cannot be named said she said at the time 'I've never witnessed this before' - Ms Letby says she cannot recall that comment

Mr Johnson is quoting a nurse's evidence, who also saw the mottling - she said in evidence that Child B was 'pale white with this purple blotchy discolourisation'. The nurse said she looked like her brother, Child A, had the night before

Ms Letby says 'no, I do not agree with that, that is not what I saw'

Mr Johnson asks Ms Letby if she accepts 'all the people who saw the skin discolourisation say they hadn't seen this sort of thing before' Ms Letby says 'I have to accept what they say, yes'

Mr Johnson asks, in case of Child A and Child B, if Ms Letby accepts she 'had the opportunity to have access to IV lines of both children just before they collapsed' Ms Letby responds 'Yes but I didn’t access the lines'

 

[Tortoise]

Defence Case continued Thursday 18th May 2023 -

Lucy Letby's CROSS-EXAMINATION

CHILD C

Chester Standard - https://www.chesterstandard.co.uk/news/23530215.live-lucy-letby-trial-may-18---prosecution-cross-examines-letby/

3:25pm

Mr Johnson turns to the case of Child C.
Letby is asked to look at her defence statement.
Letby recalls she did not believe she was in room 1, and cannot recall how she ended up in room 1 - possibly it was as a result of Child C's alarm going off.
Letby, in her statement, said she had been involved in speaking to the family afterwards, but not to the extent Child C's mother had said.
Mr Johnson said a nurse had given evidence to say Letby had to be removed from the family room after Child C died.
Mr Johnson says Letby's "vague" recollection of events is untrue.
LL: "I don't agree with that."
NJ: "I'm going to suggest you enjoyed what happened, and that was why you were in the family room."
LL: "No."
Letby is asked why she did not remember Child C in police interview. Letby says she remembered once provided with further details.
She adds: "I don't know how [child C] died." She rules out staffing levels, medical incompetencies, or someone making a mistake.

3:27pm

Mr Johnson says this is a case where one of the nursing notes, by Yvonne Griffiths, was 'misfiled' to a different baby, and was, after Child C died, refiled back to Child C.
Mr Johnson asks Letby if nursing notes, timestamped by their start and end, are editable.
Letby: "No."
The court hears because of this, the note had to be re-entered into the system.

3:35pm

The rewritten note is shown to the court.
The note is for the June 12 day shift. It includes: '...no apnoeas noted and caffeine given as prescribed. Longline inserted by Dr Beech on second attempt...[Child C] unsettled at times soothes with pacifier and enjoyed kangaroo [skin-to-skin] care with parents."
A nursing note by Joanne Williams is shown to the court for Child C on the day shift: '...[Child C] very unsettled and fractious...[Child C] taken off CPAP while out having skin to skin with mummy. Calmed down straight away with mummy...'
Letby agrees this was a "positive picture" for Child C.
Child C was on CPAP breathing support to 10am, then was taken off it for a couple of hours, then was on Optiflow breathing support for the rest of his life.

3:55pm

Mr Johnson moves on to the shift in which Letby was present. A shift rota is shown to the court, showing Letby was looking after two babies that night on June 13. She was in nursery room 3, with Child C in room 1 that night.
Mr Johnson says this was another shift when Letby had "migrated" to room 1.
Letby: "Yes, in response to [Child C's] care needs." She says she has no recollection of going to see Child C prior to his collapse.
Letby says she was unhappy at being in room 3 for that shift - as opposed to room 1 - but that was the decision of the prior shift leader.
Letby's nursing colleague had said Letby's designated baby in room 3 needed attention, after Letby had asked if she could be redeployed to room 1 that night.
Letby: "Yes, [they] did need attention and I gave [them] attention."
Letby had sent a message to Jennifer Jones-Key: "I just keep thinking about Mon. Feel like I need to be in 1 to overcome it but [colleague] said no x"
JJK: "I agree with her don't think it will help. You need a break from full on ITU. You have to let it go or it will eat you up i know not easy and will take time x"
LL: "Not the vented baby necessarily. I just feel I need to be in 1 to get the image out of my head, Mel has said the same and [colleague] let her go. Being in 3 is eating me up, all I can see is him in 1"
"It probably sounds odd but it's how I feel X"
JJK: "Well it's up to you but don't think it's going to help. It sounds very odd and I would be complete opposite. Can understand [colleague] she trying to look after you all"
LL: "Well that's how I feel, from when I've experienced it at women's I've needed to go straight back and have a sick baby otherwise the image of the one you lost never goes. Why send Mel in if she's trying to look after us, She was in bits over it. X
"Don't expect people to understand but I know how I feel and how I've dealt with it before, I've voiced that so can't do anymore but people should respect that X"
JJK: "Ok x
JJK: "I think They do respect it but also trying to help you. Why don't you go in one for a bit. X"
LL: "Yeah I've done couple of meds in 1. I'll be fine X"
JJK: "It didn't sound like you would be? Sorry was eating my tea x"
LL: ...Forget i said anything, I'll be fine,It's part of the job just don't feel like there is much team spirit tonight X"
JJK: "...I'm not going to forget but just think your way to hard on yourself. It is part of the job but the worst part but I do believe it makes us stronger people."
LL: "Unfortunately I've seen my fair share at the women's but you are supported differently & here it's like people want to tell you how to think/Feel. Anyway. Onwards & upwards. Just shame i'm on with Mel & [colleague].Sophie in 1 so haven't got her to talk to either."
JJK: "Work is work.
A lot of the girls say women's don't support and tell them to get on with it. I think they don't mean to tell you thou and were over caring sometimes
Yeah that's not good but you got Liz x"
LL: "Women's can be awful but I learnt hard way that you have to speak up to get support. I lost a baby one day.and few hours later was given another dying baby just born in the same cot space. Girls there said it was important to overcome the image. It was awful but by.end of day i realised they were right. It's just different here X
"Anyway, forget it. I can only talk about it properly with those who knew him and Mel not interested so I'll overcome it myself. You get some sleep X"
Letby accepts there were two babies in room 1, but does not accept she was specifically wanting to look after Child C.
Letby tells the court: "It wasn't about me wanting to get my own way."
Letby accepts she was upset, "just generally", that her feeings weren't being considered by a colleague and Melanie Taylor.
Mr Johnson says if this was the Melanie Taylor who Letby had said "potentially" caused a child's death. Letby: "Potentially, yes."
JJK: "That's a bit mean isn't it. Don't have to know him to understand we've all been there. Yep off to bed now x"
LL: "I don't mean it like that, just that only those who saw him know what image i have in my head X
"Forget it. Im obviously making more of it than I should X"
Letby tells the court she had hoped Jennifer Jones-Key would have been more understanding to how she was feeling, and was frustrated, and the conversation was not going anywhere, so she wanted to "leave the conversation".

3:58pm

Letby says colleague Sophie Ellis was the least experienced member of staff on that shift and "did not have the skills for the job" of looking after small, premature babies in room 1.
"I did not think she was qualified for the job...She did not have the skills for the premature babies [in room 1]."
She denies that Sophie Ellis did anything to cause Child C's collapse.
Mr Johnson: "She had something you wanted?"
Letby: "No."

4:06pm

The court hears Sophie Ellis's statement saying when she entered room 1, Letby was by Child C's cotside, saying: "He's just dropped..his heart rate/saturations" or words to that effect.
The court is shown the neonatal schedule for the night shift of June 13-14, 2015. Letby is shown recording observations for her designated babies, and made medication prescriptions for babies not in room 1.
Letby says the medications for those babies would have been drawn up in room 1. "They could not have been done in a special care nursery".
Letby says if Sophie Ellis has documented correctly, there would have been no air in Child C's stomach after an aspiration was made for the baby's feed.
Letby denies taking, in Mr Johnson's words: "an opportunity to sabotage [Child C]."

4:13pm

In police interview, it is put to Letby that Child C collapsed six minutes after she sent the last of her text messages.
Letby: "I don't recall where I was at the time" - Letby says she may have been in a nursing station before going into room 1.
Letby said she did not recall being cotside, but accepted Sophie Ellis's account at the time it was put to her by police.
"The death of [Child C] was very memorable, wasn't it?"
"Yes."

5:07pm

A second round-up story from today in court:
Letby: ‘Gang of four’ consultants pinned baby deaths on me: Letby: ‘Gang of four’ consultants pinned baby deaths on me


Sky News - https://news.sky.com/story/lucy-letby-murder-trial-latest-former-nurse-tells-court-why-she-repeatedly-searched-for-dead-babys-mother-on-facebook-12868375

2h ago15:36

Letby denies she 'enjoyed' baby's deterioration​

Nick Johnson KC now moves to the case of Child C, who died shortly before 6am on 14 June 2015. Lucy Letby stands accused of his murder.
In Letby's defence statement she said she recalled having contact with Child C's family after his death but not to the extent described by his mother.
A nurse previously told the court she had to remove Letby from the neonatal parents' room as Child C was dying - and after he had died.
In her statement, Letby said she only had a vague recollection of events around Child C's collapse.
Mr Johnson puts to Letby that this isn't true. "I don't agree with that," she replies.
"I'm going to suggest that you enjoyed what happened, that's why you were in the parents' room," the prosecutor says.
Letby appears to become emotional as she responds: "No."

2h ago15:49

Nurse admits she was unhappy at being in lower dependency nursery​

Court documents show Lucy Letby was looking after a baby in nursery three at the Countess of Chester hospital during the night shift of 13-14 June 2015, while Child C was in intensive care nursery one.
Nick Johnson KC suggests to Letby that this was "another shift" where she "migrated" from a nursery for babies with lower dependencies back into nursery one.
Letby agrees but says it was only "in response to Child C's care needs".
"No, before Child C collapsed," Mr Johnson says.
"I don't have any recollection of that," Letby replies.
The shift leader on duty previously told the court she had to order Letby to look after her designated baby rather than get herself involved in other children.
"Is that true?" Mr Johnson asks. Letby says she doesn't remember the conversation.
"I'm going to suggest you were unhappy with the arrangements she'd made that dictated where you were working, do you agree?" he asks.
Letby concedes she was unhappy but it was down to the decision of a previous shift leader.

1h ago16:09

Letby asked if Child C's designated nurse 'had something she wanted'​

Nick Johnson KC pulls up texts between Lucy Letby and another nurse sent during the evening of 13 June 2015 in which Letby talks about wanting to go back into intensive nursery one to overcome the incidents with Child A and B.
"Did you feel like you weren't getting your own way?" he asks the defendant, referring to the fact she was placed in a lower dependency nursery that night.
"It wasn't about having my own way," she replies.
Letby says she was frustrated at the time because she didn't think her feelings were being considered by colleagues on the unit.
Mr Johnson asks if Letby wanted attention from the nurse she was texting that night.
"I don't think attention is the right word, I just wanted recognition from a friend to acknowledge how I was feeling," she says.
Other nurses on duty during the 13-14 June night shift have been questioned on Letby's behalf, on whether Child C's designated nurse in nursery one was in the correct position to look after the baby.
"Is that your position?" asks Mr Johnson.
Letby says the nurse was recently qualified and didn't have experience of looking after small premature babies like Child C who needed close monitoring.
"She had something you wanted?" Mr Johnson puts to Letby.
"No," she responds.

1h ago16:15

Defendant says she didn't 'sabotage' Child C when his nurse had left room​

Hospital records show Child C's designated nurse gave him his first feed and carried out observations at around 11pm on 13 June 2015.
Lucy Letby is asked whether she accepts the nurse's evidence that she aspirated bile from Child C's stomach before the feed and that, as a result, there wouldn't have been air in his stomach.
"If she's documented correctly then yes," Letby says.
The court is shown records of Child C's nurse providing medication for another child a short time later.
Mr Johnson says the nurse told the court she then left nursery one, where Child C was being cared for.
"That was the opportunity you took to sabotage Child C wasn't it?" Mr Johnson asks her - Letby denies this.

1h ago16:24

Court adjourned​

Proceedings have concluded for the day.
The case will resume tomorrow when Lucy Letby's cross-examination will continue.
Thank you for following our live coverage today.


BBC Blog - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-65602988/page/2

Posted at 15:2215:22

Letby now being asked about baby C​

Dan O'Donoghue
At Manchester Crown Court
After a short break, the court has resumed. Lucy Letby appears to be talking much more quietly than before. She has tears in her eyes as she answers questions from Nick Johnson KC.
He turns to baby C, who the jury have previously heard was born in "good condition" and stable after his premature birth in early June 2015.
The boy stopped breathing without warning on 13 June while being treated in the unit's nursery one.
Prosecutors have said Ms Letby, who was then designated nurse for a child in nursery three, was in his nursery at the time and caused his collapse by inserting air into his stomach via a nasogastric tube.
He was pronounced dead on 14 June.

Posted at 15:3215:32

Letby cries as she is asked if she enjoyed what happened​

Dan O'Donoghue
At Manchester Crown Court
Nick Johnson KC is quoting Lucy Letby's police interviews in relation to baby C.
She told officers that she "did nothing to injure him" and that she "did not recall" being in nursery one when the boy collapsed.
Johnson said: "I'm going to suggest that your assertion in your defence statement, that your recollection of events (in relation to baby C's collapse) is vague, is not true."
Letby responds: "I don't agree with that."
Johnson says: "I'm going to suggest that you enjoyed what happened and that is why you were in and out of the family room."
Nurse Letby, through tears, said "No."

Posted at 15:4615:46

Letby 'migrated' back to baby C's room, prosecutor says​

Dan O'Donoghue
At Manchester Crown Court
Johnson is taking the court back over nursing notes for baby C. The note, made by one of Letby's colleagues, is a summary of the baby boy's health on 13 June 2015.
Johnson confirms with Letby that she came on shift at 19:30pm that night.
She was designated two babies, initialled JE and PE, to care for that evening - these children are not part of the case.
Mr Johnson puts it to Ms Letby that this was "another shift on which (she) migrated either from nursery three or four and back into nursery one."
Letby says: "Yes, in response to (baby C's) care needs."
The prosecutor suggests that Letby was unhappy at being designated children in nursery three to care for.
Letby accepts this. She says: "Yes I had expressed I would have preferred to be in nursery one."

Posted at 15:5715:57

Letby tells court she wanted to be in baby C's room​

Dan O'Donoghue
At Manchester Crown Court
The court is once again shown a text message nurse Letby sent to a nursing colleague during her shift on the 13 June.
In that message, Letby said: "I just feel I need to be in 1 to get the image out of my head....being 3 is eating me up, all I can see is him in 1."
Letby has previously explained that when working at Liverpool Women’s Hospital she had “lost a baby one day and a few hours later was given another dying baby just by the same cot space”.
Letby tells the court that being placed in nursery three at that time, instead of one, had made her feel upset.
"I didn't feel my feelings were being considered," she said.

Posted at 16:0516:05

Nurse left with baby C did not have experience, Letby says​

Dan O'Donoghue
At Manchester Crown Court
Nick Johnson KC continues his cross-examination.
"You wanted to be in nursery one, your wish was being frustrated by management and in your view the person who had what you wanted, to look after the non-vented baby in nursery one, wasn’t sufficiently qualified for the job."
Letby said the nurse designated to care for baby C had recently qualified and "did not have the experience or skills" to care for a premature boy like him.
Jurors have heard that the nurse caring for baby C, Sophie Ellis, went briefly to the nurses' station during her shift and whilst there she heard baby C's monitor sound an alarm.
When she re-entered nursery one, she said nurse Letby was already standing next to the cot and told her: "He's just dropped his heart rate and saturations."
Johnson put it to Letby that when Ellis went to the nurses' station, "that was the opportunity you took to sabotage (baby C) wasn't it?"
"No," she responded.

Posted at 16:1516:15

I was disappointed not to be with baby C, Letby says​

Dan O'Donoghue
At Manchester Crown Court
Johnson is now quoting from Letby's police interviews. In one she was asked about a message exchange with a colleague while on shift on 13 June.
The detective in that interview said: “The text messages suggest you were frustrated at not working in nursery one, do you agree?”
The defendant said: “Yes, I think it would have helped me if I could have been in nursery one.”
Johnson asks if she was frustrated. Letby says she was disappointed.
She's asked if she has accepted the evidence of nurse Ellis, that she saw Letby at baby C's cotside.
"I haven't accepted it, I've said I don't recall," she said.

Posted at 16:1716:17

That concludes proceedings for today​

Dan O'Donoghue
At Manchester Crown Court
Nick Johnson KC will resume his cross-examination tomorrow morning.

 

[Tortoise]

She named them as Stephen Brearey, the leading paediatric consultant at the Countess of Chester Hospital, and one of his senior colleagues, the TV doctor Ravi Jayaram.

She said that they had been joined in a 'conspiracy' against her by consultant John Gibbs and a female doctor who cannot be named for legal reasons.

Nick Johnson KC, prosecuting, had taken Letby through a list of 19 doctors who had been involved in the care of the seven babies she is alleged to have murdered and ten more she is said to have tried to kill.

[...]

The list of doctors put to Letby included the male registrar she is said to have flirted with.

When she agreed she had no problem with him, Mr Johnson asked: 'Were you in love with him?'

Letby replied: 'I loved (first name) as a friend. I was not in love with him.'

[...]

Mr Johnson reminded Letby that a fellow nurse who had taken the measurement said in evidence that she would have disposed of the printout in the unit's confidential waste bin.

He then asked: 'When did you fish it out of the bin?'

[...]


Mr Johnson said: 'If the jury conclude, let's say, that babies five, eight, ten and 12, were all attacked, you are the only common feature, it would have to be, you are the attacker?'

Letby replied: 'That's for them to decide.'

Lucy Letby tells trial 'gang' of consultants 'conspired to get her'

Alleged baby killer Lucy Letby (right, in court sketch) claimed today that a 'gang of four' consultants conspired to 'get her' over for deaths on a neonatal unit so they could cover up failings at the hospital.

www.dailymail.co.uk

 

[Tortoise]

Defence Case Friday 19th May 2023 - LUCY LETBY'S CROSS-EXAMINATION

CHILD C continued

Chester Standard updates - Recap: Lucy Letby trial, May 19 - cross-examination continues

9:08am

Yesterday, jurors received an answer to their question as to when the trial would be over.
The judge, Mr Justice James Goss, said a precise answer could not be given, as that partly depended on how long their deliberations would be when they go out to consider the verdicts, but he said the latest expected date would be the end of July.
He added he was hopeful it would be concluded sooner than that.
The information would be relayed to the respective jurors' employers informing them of this.

10:40am

The trial is now resuming, following a short legal discussion.
Nicholas Johnson KC, for the prosecution, is continuing to cross-examine, and is asking Lucy Letby questions in the case of Child C.

10:44am

Mr Johnson says text messages were exchanged between Letby and Jennifer Jones-Key between 11.01pm and 11.09pm.
Letby says she does not accept she was in room 1 at the time of Child C's collapse. She says she has "no memory" of it.
Nurse Sophie Ellis had said she was in room 1 at the time, and Letby said in police interview, based on that, she was in room 1.
Letby says she "disputes" that, as she has "no memory" of it.
"Do you dispute being born?" Mr Johnson asks.
"No." Letby replies.
NJ: "But you have no memory of it?"
LL: "No."

10:50am

Letby is asked why she let a band 4 nursery nurse look after her designated baby.
Letby says it's "not unusual" for band 4 nurses to assist her in her duties.
LL: "I have no memory of that".
NJ: "Did you have something better to do?"
LL: "No."
Mr Johnson says the text at 11.01pm sent by Letby to Jennifer Jones-Key meant she must not have been in a clinical area, and would not have had time to feed her designated baby in room 3.
LL: "I can't answer that."
Mr Johnson says it took her out of the nursing area. Letby said she would have been "in the doorway" of the unit.

11:00am

Mr Johnson says Melanie Taylor, in evidence, described Letby as "cool and calm".
Letby does not dispute that.
She disputes saying to the Melanie Taylor that Child C had had a brady, as she has no memory of it.
Notes by Dr Katherine Davis are shown to the court for Child C's collapse.
At the time of arrival, "chest compressions in progress"
"Occasional intermittent gasps noted".
"Unable to pass ET Tube as cords++" - the court hears the cords were "swollen".
Mr Johnson asks Letby if it was a "theme" that when doctors went to intubate, they had difficulties, with swollen cords and/or bleeding. Letby accepts that was the case. She denies putting anything down Child C's throat.
Mr Johnson: "Do you agree something caused [Child C]'s stomach to dilate before the collapse?"
Letby says the stomach dilation "could have been caused by the Neopuff resuscitation".
Letby is asked if she had seen the kind of decline as seen by Child C before. Letby says she has, but not the way Child C 'clinged to life'.
NJ: "You enjoyed the aftermath of this, didn't you?"
LL: "No."
NJ: "Why were you so keen to spend time with the [Child C] family as they cradled their drying child?"
LL: "I don't agree with that, I wasn't there a lot of the time."
Letby disputes being "repeatedly" in the family room afterwards, adding: "I don't recall [colleague] having to pull me out [of there]."
She disputes the statement made by her colleague.

11:03am

Letby is asked "what useful function" she was contributing to the family during the "dreadful situation" they were going through.
Letby said she cannot recall, other than gathering the mementos, which is a two-person job.
Letby says she would have to see the bereavement checklist charts to see if there was anything she had co-signed, as otherwise she does not recall and has no memory.
The judge asks if hand and footprints are collected when the baby is still alive. Letby replies they can be, or after they have passed.

11:05am

Letby denies that she was "enjoying what was going on".

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sky News - Lucy Letby murder trial latest: Questioning ends early - after 'baby killer' nurse accused of 'faking hospital notes' for alibi

5h ago10:41

Court has begun​

The jury has arrived and proceedings have begun.
Letby is sitting in the witness box wearing a dark blue suit jacket with black trousers and looking straight ahead to the jury.
She is flanked by two security officers from the court.

5h ago10:50

'Do you dispute you were born?'​

Nick Johnson KC is continuing his prosecution questioning with the case of Child C, a boy who died on 14 June 2015.
Letby denies she was in the room at the Countess of Chester hospital when Child C collapsed, telling the court she has "no memory" of it. She previously told police she was in the room.
Mr Johnson asks how, if she has no memory, she can dispute the fact she was in the nursery.
"I have not agreed that I was definitely in the nursery," she said.
Mr Johnson says she is "ignoring the question" because she cannot answer the question.
"Do you remember being born?" Mr Johnson asks.
"No," Letby says.
"Do you dispute you were born?"
After a pause, Letby replies: "No."

5h ago10:57

Letby 'cool and calm' when Child C collapsed​

During the night Child C collapsed, Letby was not his assigned nurse but was supposed to be looking after another child in a different room on the unit.
Mr Johnson asks why Letby left the child she was assigned in the care of another - less qualified - colleague.
"Did you have something better to do?" he asks.
"No. Both babies that night had the care they needed."
The court is shown text messages Letby sent to a colleague at 11.01pm. It is around this time the prosecution claims she was in the room with Child C.
A staff member had previously described Letby's demeanour at the time of the child's collapse as "cool and calm".
When asked about this, Letby says: "I would expect staff to be cool and calm, it's what we are trained to do."

5h ago11:06

Letby denies she 'enjoyed the aftermath' of alleged victim's death​

Nick Johnson KC, for the prosecution, asks about the swelling and bleeding found in the throat of Child C.
"Do you agree this becomes a theme when doctors look down the throats of these children they find swelling or bleeding?" Mr Johnson asks.
"Yes, I know doctors have commented on that," Letby says.
Child C was fed at 11pm, and collapsed at 11.15pm. Extensive CPR was undertaken and "a heart rate was restored".
"Do you remember that?" Mr Johnson asks Letby.
"Yes."
"He clung to life for a further five hours plus."
"Yes."
"Have you ever seen that sort of a decline before?"
Letby says: "In the context of when he first collapsed? Yes, I have seen babies suddenly collapse before."
"And cling to life the way Child C did?"
"No, I haven't seen that."
"You enjoyed the aftermath of this, didn't you?" Mr Johnson asks.
"No."
"Why were you so keen to involve yourself with the family as they cradled their dying son?"
"I don't agree with that," Letby says.
A colleague said they had to keep pulling Letby from the family room.
Asked if she disputes this, Letby says: "I agree I probably went round at some point, but not repeatedly and I don't recall my colleague having to pull me back out."

5h ago11:14

'You were enjoying it, weren't you?'​

"What useful contribution were you making for this family?" Mr Johnson asks Lucy Letby, referring to the family of Child C.
A colleague of Letby has said they had to keep pulling her away from the family as the child was dying.
Letby says she cannot recall what she was doing at the time Child C lay dying in his mother's arms, but says she may have been helping a colleague with mementoes for the family - including taking the hand and footprints of Child C.
"I would have to check the charts to see if there was anything I co-signed at that time," she says.
"You were enjoying what was going on, weren't you, Lucy Letby," says Mr Johnson.
"No."
She is then asked if she enjoyed seeing her colleague upset - her colleague had been questioning if it was her fault.
"No."

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

BBC Blog - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-65602988

Posted at 10:3910:39

Judge enters the courtroom​

Judith Moritz
Inside the courtroom
The judge, Mr Justice Goss, has entered the room. He's wearing red robes, with a black sash and ermine sleeves.
The jurors are not yet in the courtroom. The lawyers are discussing some legal matters which can't be reported publicly, in the absence of the jury.

Posted at 10:4410:44

Hearing gets under way​

Judith Moritz
Inside the courtroom
The jury of eight women and four men have now made their way into courtroom number seven.
They each sit at their own desk, with individual computer screens to allow them to follow the evidence, a lot of which is shown digitally. They also have paper files.
The hearing is now getting under way, with Nick Johnson KC, leading the prosecution, up on his feet.

Posted at 10:5510:55

Letby asked about collapse of baby C​

Judith Moritz
Inside the courtroom
Prosecutor Nick Johnson KC has begun his cross-examination by carrying on his questions relating to baby C, a boy, who Lucy Letby is accused of murdering.
Letby says she was not in the room when baby C collapsed, in June 2015.
Johnson asks her: "Do you dispute you were in the room at the time of the collapse?"
The nurse responds: "Yes, because I have no memory of that."
Johnson then questions: "Do you remember being born?"
Letby says: "No."
Johnson: "Do you dispute being born?"
Letby: "No."

Posted at 11:0711:07

I have seen babies suddenly collapse before, says Letby​

Judith Moritz
Inside the courtroom
Nick Johnson KC says baby C had massive gastric dilation and ballooning of the stomach when he collapsed.
He asks: "For some reason a heart rate was restored and he clung to life for a further five hours plus. Have you ever seen that sort of decline before?"
Lucy Letby replies: "I have seen babies suddenly collapse before."
Johnson says: "You enjoyed the aftermath of this didn’t you?"
Letby says: "No."
The prosecutor then asks: "Why were you so keen to involve yourself with baby C’s family as they cradled their dying son?"
Lucy Letby says: "I don’t recall being there for a lot of the time like they’ve said."

Posted at 11:1511:15

Nurse denies enjoying baby's distress​

Judith Moritz
Inside the courtroom
Lucy Letby continues to be cross-examined about baby C.
Nick Johnson KC asks: "What useful function were you performing? What were you contributing to the dreadful situation baby C's family were going through?"
Letby responds: "I can't recall whether I assisted with the mementoes (of the baby) which is a two-person job."
The prosecutor continues: "Do you dispute you were making a useful contribution?"
Letby says: "I would have to check the (medical) charts to see if I co-signed them at the time."
Johnson questions: "The charts wouldn’t be in the family room...he wasn’t in a cot, he was in the arms of his mother, dying, wasn’t he Lucy Letby?"
To which she replies: "Yes."
Johnson: "You were enjoying what was going on weren't you Lucy?" She responds: "No."

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dan O'Donoghue BBC Tweets - Dan O'Donoghue

Lucy Letby enters the witness box at Manchester Crown Court for the seventh time today. Nick Johnson KC will continue his cross examination of the nurse, who is alleged to have murdered seven babies and attempted to murder 10 others at the Countess of Chester Hospital

Slight delay to proceedings as there is some legal argument before jury come into court

Mr Johnson is continuing to ask Ms Letby about her recollection of Child C. He wasin a "good condition" and stable after his premature birth in early June 2015, but stopped breathing without warning on 13 June while being treated in the unit's nursery one.

Prosecutors said Ms Letby, who was then designated nurse for a child in nursery three, was in his nursery at the time and caused his collapse by inserting air into his stomach via a nasogastric tube.

The court has previously heard evidence form nurse Sophie Ellis who said she saw Ms Letby stood in nursery one by Child C's incubator after his alarm had sounded

Mr Johnson asks Ms Letby if she accepts she was stood in nursery one, she says she does not as she does not remember that. After a back and forth, Mr Johnson asks 'do you remember being born?' 'No', she says 'Do you dispute being born?', he asks 'No', she says

Mr Johnson quotes evidence of a nursing colleague, Mel Taylor, who said when Child C collapsed Ms Letby was 'cool and calm', he asks if she disputes that. She says 'no I would expect members of staff to be cool and calm on the unit that's what we’re trained to do'

Mr Johnson notes that doctors observed swelling in Child C's throat. He asks Ms Letby if 'had you put something down (Child C's) throat?' 'No', she says

After Child C's death, Mr Johnson notes the evidence of another nurse - who said Ms Letby 'repeatedly' went into the family room where Child C's parents were cradling their son. He says 'you enjoyed the aftermath of this didn't you' 'no', she says

Mr Myers [my note - Johnson?] quotes the evidence of a senior nurse who said she 'asked Lucy to focus back in nursery three' because she was concerned about another baby in there. The nurse said 'however Lucy went into the family room a few times' she said she 'asked her to come out'

Ms Letby says she disputes that evidence

Mr Johnson asks Ms Letby what she was doing while Child C was 'in the arms of his mother dying' - she says she 'can't recall from memory' Mr Johnson says 'you were enjoying what was going on weren't you Lucy Letby' She says 'no'

 

[Tortoise]

Defence Case Friday 19th May 2023 - LUCY LETBY'S CROSS-EXAMINATION

CHILD D

Chester Standard updates - Recap: Lucy Letby trial, May 19 - cross-examination continues

11:11am

Mr Johnson now moves on to the case of Child D.
Letby's defence statement said she did not believe she had any involvement with Child D until the baby girl's collapse.
Letby says she was affected by Child D's death, as were all staff on the unit.
In police interview, Letby had said she could not recall Child D.
Letby recalls looking after two babies in room 1 on the night of June 21-22. Caroline Oakley was the designated nurse for Child D and a baby in room 2.
Letby accepts "from time to time" she would have been alone in room 1 as Caroline Oakley split her time caring for the two babies between the two rooms.

11:35am

Part of a statement from Child D's mother is read out.
Letby disputes she was the nurse who held a phone to Dr Andrew Brunton's ear while resuscitation efforts were going on.
Letby says she can recall there was such an incident, as it was talked about after the event. She agrees it happened, but she disagrees it was her who made the phone call.
Mr Johnson asks about a series of Countess nursing staff's descriptions of the "unusual" skin discolouration and an 'odd' rash. Some of them said it was something they had not seen before.
Letby says she does not dispute the staff's descriptions, but cannot comment on what they did or did not see.
NJ: "Do you still not remember [Child D]?"
LL: "I didn't recall at the time of my police interview, no."
NJ: "Do you remember her now?"
LL: "Yes."
NJ: "Do you remember the circumstances surrounding her death?"
LL: "No."
Letby messaged a colleague on June 22: '...[Child D] came out in this weird rash looking like overwhelming sepsis'.
Letby said she had not seen the type of rash often before, but she had seen something similar in her training years before.
The message added: 'Then collapsed and had full resus. So upsetting for everyone. Parents absolutely distraught, dad screaming'
Mr Johnson asks if Letby was lying to police when she said she didn't remember Child D.
Letby: "No."
Letby's message added: 'Andrew [Brunton] and Liz [Newby] said it'll be probably be investigated'.
'Hmm well it's happened & that's it. Got to carry on...'
Mr Johnson said he had earlier asked if that was Letby's reaction to Child D's death.
Letby: "I don't think it was meant in the context you are suggesting...we've got to move forward...it's not meant to be any insensitivity to the parents or [Child D]."

11:54am

The trial is resuming following a short break.
Mr Johnson asks about the Facebook search for Child D's mother on June 25, 2015. He asks how she remembers the name of Child D's mother if she did not recall Child D in police interview in 2018.
Letby says she recalled the name of the mother in June 2015.
NJ: "You have got a good memory for names?"
LL: "Yes."
NJ: "You carry them in your head?"
LL: "Yeah."
NJ: "Would you say you've got a good memory?"
LL: "Yeah."

12:06pm

Letby is asked about messages she had exchanged with Minna Lappalainen on June 26 in which she said: "What I have seen has really hit me tonight."
Minna Lappalainen suggests a counsellor for Letby.
LL: "I can't talk about it now, I can't stop crying..."
The reply suggests Letby take time off and consider if she should be at work during this time. Letby replies she has to keep carrying on working after saying "I just have to let it all out".
NJ: "This was a very memorable time of your life, wasn't it?"
LL: "Yes."
Messages between Letby and a colleague are exchanged.
The colleague said there was "something odd" about what had happened.
Letby is asked if 'What do you mean?' was what she really thought, as per her response.
NJ: "Were you worried that people were starting to put two and two together?"
LL: "No."
Letby had messaged: "Odd that we lost 3 in different circumstances?"
Letby tells the court the circumstances were different.
The colleague: "I dunno. Were they that different?
"Ignore me. I'm speculating."
The colleague says there was talk of doing a joint post-mortem for three babies who had died.
Letby searched for the father of Child D on October 3, 2015.
"You didn't really forget [Child D], did you?"
LL: "I didn't recall specific details in interview."
Mr Johnson says Facebook does not archive the name searches beyond a certain number, so every time Letby searched a name, it would be from memory. Letby accepts that.
Letby says Child D "did not have appropriate treatment at the start of her life" and that "may have had an impact" on her later in life.
NJ: "The [lack of antibiotics early on] don't cause an air embolus, do they?"
LL: "No."

12:10pm

Letby is asked if Caroline Oakley's notes showed Child D was stable prior to the collapse.
"Do you accept the evidence that [Child D's designated nurse in room 1] Caroline Oakley was on a break when [Child D] collapsed?"
Letby says she cannot recall. "I cannot say either way because I don't know."
"Do you want to make any further comment about it?"
"No."
Letby accepts that if Caroline Oakley was on a break, the other nurse in room 1 was herself.
Kathryn Percival-Ward had also given evidence saying Caroline Oakley was on a break, Mr Johnson tells the court.
NJ: "Do you accept that Caroline Oakley was on a break?"
LL: "Yes."

12:14pm

The neonatal schedule is shown to the court.
Mr Johnson says there is nothing for Letby's name between 1am and 1.30am - the latter when Child D collapsed.
A blood gas record is shown for Child D at 1.14am.
NJ: "That was done by you, wasn't it?"
LL: "I don't know."
NJ: "That's your writing, isn't it?"
LL: "It could be?"
Mr Johnson asserts it is.
Letby: "It looks like my writing, yes."
Mr Johnson asks why it isn't signed by her.
"It's just an oversight, like the next line [which also isn't signed], it's an error."

12:24pm

Observations for Child D are shown, including readings at 1.15am. It is signed by Caroline Oakley.
Mr Johnson says Caroline Oakley had told the court she got those details for the 1.15am observation "from the girls".
Letby says she does not remember that bit of evidence.
Letby says she does not recall who was looking after Child D when Caroline Oakley was on her break.
An infusion chart is shown where Child D is given a saline bolus. Letby says the handwriting in the 'date and time started' column is likely to be hers.
"Did you take the opportunity while Caroline was out to sabotage [Child D]?"
"No."
Mr Johnson says "You were standing over her when the alarms went off, weren't you?"
LL: "I don't recall."
Mr Johnson says who the 'candidates' could have been. One of the nurses says she wasn't there in evidence. Another is Kathryn Percival-Ward, and Letby agrees she could have been there. Another nurse is discounted.
Letby says she cannot recall if it was her who was in room 1.
A fluid balance chart is shown to the court, with the note 'oral secretions++'. Letby says the handwriting "could" be hers.
Letby said it could have been something she had documented alongside Caroline Oakley.
Mr Johnson suggests Letby was "babysitting" Child D.
Letby adds she "cannot comment" if she had been in nursery room 1 throughout.
The neonatal schedule is shown to the court.
Letby denies she has "ever" falsified paperwork to make it look like she was doing one activity at one time when doing another.

12:27pm

The schedule shows Letby was involved in giving medications to Child D before the second collapse at 3am.
NJ: "Do you remember that?"
LL: "No."
An infusion for Child D is made by Letby and Caroline Oakley at 3.20am.
NJ: "[Child D] died because you injected her with air, didn't you?"
LL: "No, no...I did not give her air."

12:28pm

Letby said she was looking after other babies, "not just [Child D]".
LL: "I tried to be as co-operative as I could be [to police in interview]."

12:32pm

Letby asks for a break.
Mr Johnson says he just requires to tidy up something which should take two minutes, in the case of Child C.
He refers to the bereavement checklist.
Letby says hand and footprints were taken before death in certain cases.
Mr Johnson says the checklist is 'for staff following neonatal death'.
The judge says there will be an early lunch break, and court will resume at 1.45pm.

2:50pm

The judge, Mr Justice James Goss, has entered the courtroom.
The judge is informing members of the jury the trial will not resume today. He says the adjournment is for reasons that should not concern them.
The next day the trial will be held, as planned, will be Wednesday, May 24.
Members of the jury are being reminded not to conduct independent research or communicate with anyone involved in the case.

3:32pm

That concludes our coverage from today.
The Standard will be back at Manchester Crown Court on Wednesday, May 24, for further live coverage throughout the day as Lucy Letby's cross-examination is expected to resume.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sky News - Lucy Letby murder trial latest: Questioning ends early - after 'baby killer' nurse accused of 'faking hospital notes' for alibi

5h ago11:14

Recap: Who is Child D?​

Child D is a girl and Lucy Letby is charged with her murder.
The prosecution says she died after an intentional injection of air into the bloodstream and collapsed three times in the early hours of 22 June 2015.
On the third collapse, she could not be revived.
Letby later searched for the parents on Facebook.
A reminder - there are strict reporting restrictions in place which mean that none of Letby's alleged victims or their families can be identified.

5h ago11:19

Letby left alone with Child D before she collapsed​

Like the previous child, Child D was not Lucy Letby's allocated baby to care for at the Countess of Chester hospital.
"Were you affected at all by the death of Child D?" Nick Johnson KC, for the prosecution, asks.
"We were all affected on the unit that night," Letby says.
"Would you answer for yourself and not others?"
"Yes."
Letby told the police she could not remember much about Child D.
"That is not true, is it?" Mr Johnson says.
The court is then shown a map of the unit. Child D was in nursery one. Letby was looking after another baby in the same room, but because her colleague was also looking after a child in another room, Letby agrees she would have been "left alone" with Child D "from time to time".
Letby says she had very little contact with Child D, but the prosecution says this is disputed by Child D's mother.
She previously told the court Letby was the nurse holding the phone to the doctor's ear as he tried to resuscitate her.
"I have no memory of doing it," Letby says.
"Do you dispute it?"
Letby says she cannot confirm it either way because she has no memory of it. She can confirm there was such an incident - and the wrong mother was phoned when Child D collapsed.

5h ago11:40

Child D's dad 'was screaming', Letby says in texts to colleague​

A colleague of Lucy Letby has previously told the court that Child D, a girl, had an "unusual" rash - it was "a deep red-brown, different from mottling, different from what I had seen before".
Asked if the nurse was mistaken about what she saw, Letby says: "No."
She says she does recall the particular rash.
"And you still cannot recall Child D?" Mr Johnson says.
Letby says she did not recall Child D at the time of the police interview but does remember her now - though she does not remember the circumstances of her death.
The court is then shown a series of messages between Letby and a colleague.
Letby: "We had such a rubbish night. Our job is just far too sad sometimes."
Colleague: "No, what happened."
Letby: "We lost [Child D]."
Colleague: "What!!!! But she was improving What happened."
Colleague: "Wanna chat? I can't believe you were on again. You are having such a tough time."
Letby: "Messed about a couple of times & came out in this weird rash looking like overwhelming sepsis."
Letby: "Then collapsed & had full resus. So upsetting for everyone. Parents absolutely distraught, dad screaming."
Letby then tells her colleague the case will "probably be investigated".
"When you told police you didn't remember Child D, that was a lie, wasn't it?" Mr Johnson asks Letby.
She denies she lied.

4h ago11:42

'Well it's happened and that's it': Text Letby sent after Child D's death​

The court is shown a final text from Letby, sent after Child D's death.
"Hmm well it's happened & that's it. Got to carry on. I finish for nearly 2 weeks after next Fri, so I'll keep ploughing on."
The prosecution has claimed this is evidence she wasn't affected by Child D's death.
"You were enjoying this, weren't you, Lucy Letby?" Nick Johnson KC, for the prosecution, asks again.
"No."

4h ago11:43

Court adjourned for break​

The court has been adjourned for a short break. Proceedings will begin again shortly.

4h ago11:58

Court resumes with Letby's Facebook searches​

Proceedings are under way again after a short break.
Nick Johnson KC, for the prosecution, begins by showing Lucy Letby's Facebook search history.
At 9.51pm on 25 June 2015 - three days after Child D died - Letby searched for the baby's mother on the social media site.
Mr Johnson asks why, if Letby did not recall Child D, she was able to recall the name of her parents to search for them on Facebook.
"Have you got a good memory for names?" Mr Johnson asks.
"Yes."

4h ago12:06

'Something odd about that night': Colleague's text to Letby after baby's death​

More texts between Lucy Letby and one of her colleagues are being shown in court.
Letby tells her she is feeling awful.
Colleague: "Just think carefully about whether you should be working if you feel so bad."
Colleague: "Maybe you need to take time off."
Letby: "Work is always my priority I won't let it affect it. I just haven't let myself cry over it until now... Once I've let it out tonight my head will be clearer."
Her colleague then questions some of the deaths.
Colleague: "Yeah there is something odd about that night and the other three that went so suddenly."
Letby: "What do you mean?"
Letby: "Odd that we lost three and in different circumstances?"
Colleague: "I dunno. Were they that different?"
Colleague: "Ignore me. I am speculating."
Letby texts back and tries to explain the differences between the children.

4h ago12:07

Letby searched for baby's father three months after death - despite saying she didn't remember her​

Three months after the death of Child D, the court is told, Lucy Letby searched for her father on Facebook.
When first interviewed, Letby told police she could not remember Child D.
"You didn't really forget Child D, did you?" asks Nick Johnson KC, for the prosecution.
Letby says Child D died because she did not receive the right treatment at the start of her life.

4h ago12:22

Letby says she does not recall standing over baby as alarms sounded​

Lucy Letby is being questioned about why she didn't sign some of Child D's medical records.
"It's just an error that happens from time to time," she tells the court.
Child D's designated nurse was absent when the infant collapsed.
"Did you take the opportunity while [colleague] was absent to sabotage Child D?" Nick Johnson KC, for the prosecution, asks.
"No."
When the alarms sounded, Letby was found standing over Child D - she tells the court she cannot recall this.
"I would have been in nursery one with my babies but other staff may have been in and out of the nursery as well."


4h ago12:39

Letby denies falsifying paperwork as an alibi​

The prosecution claims Lucy Letby altered paperwork to make it appear as if she were looking after another baby when Child D collapsed on 22 June 2015.
The baby collapsed three times before she died.
"I have not falsified any paperwork," Letby says.
"Child D died because you injected her with air, didn't you?" Nick Johnson KC, for the prosecution, asks.
"No," Letby replies.
"I did not give her air."
"Did you think the paperwork wouldn't tie you to Child D at the time she collapsed?" Mr Johnson asks.
After asking him to rephrase the question, Letby says: "No, I had other babies. I wasn't caring for Child D."
"Did you take the decision to say 'No I didn't remember her' to avoid answering questions?" Mr Johnson asks.
Letby says she tried to be as cooperative as possible with the police.
The prosecution points out that Letby has previously said she has a good memory for names.
Mr Johnson tries to continue with questioning but Letby requests a break.
Before a break is granted, Mr Johnson first asks Letby about her previous claim that it is possible to take hand and footprints from a baby before they die.
(Letby previously told the court this is what she was helping Child C's parents do, which is why she was in the room as he was dying.)
But a document shown to the court says these are usually taken after death. Letby says it is not unusual for it to be done before a child dies.
"You shouldn't have been having anything to do with Child C at this point, should you?" Mr Johnson says.

4h ago12:39

Court breaks for early lunch​

Lucy Letby requested a break so the court has now adjourned for an early lunch.
It will resume at 1.45pm.

2h ago13:55

Court delayed​

There is a delay to this afternoon's proceedings - court will not restart for at least 30 minutes.
We will bring you more updates as we get them.

1h ago14:52

Court ends early with Letby in dock​

Court has temporarily resumed but only so the judge, Mr Justice Goss, can formally adjourn it for the day.
"I have made the decision that we shouldn't continue this afternoon," Justice Goss tells the jury.
Lucy Letby did not return to the witness stand but was back behind the glass-fronted dock.
Court will resume next Wednesday at 10.30am

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

BBC Blog - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-65602988

Posted at 11:2111:21

Letby asked next about baby D​

Judith Moritz
Inside the courtroom
Nick Johnson KC now turns to asking Lucy Letby about the next baby, baby D, a girl, who the nurse is charged with murdering in June 2015.
When she gave evidence earlier in the trial, the mother of baby D told the court that Letby had been there when her daughter was being resuscitated, and was holding a phone to the ear of a doctor who was trying to save the baby.
Today, Letby says she has no memory of that.
Johnson asks if she disputes that it happened. She says she has no memory of it.

11:29

I can't comment on what other nurses saw, says Letby​

Judith Moritz
Inside the courtroom
Nick Johnson KC now begins asking Lucy Letby about a rash which other nurses reported seeing on baby D.
Letby says: "I can't comment on what they did or didn't see."
Johnson asks: "Do you dispute it?"
Letby replies: "It’s the term 'dispute' I am a little unsure of. I can't comment on what anyone else says they saw."
Johnson then challenges her: "Well, you were there weren’t you?"
She replies: "I wasn’t there for the whole event, no."

Posted at 11:3311:33

Do you remember baby D, prosecutor asks​

Judith Moritz
Inside the courtroom
Prosecutor Nick Johnson now asks Letby: "Do you still not remember baby D?"
She replies: "I didn’t recall her at the time of my police interview, no."
Johnson responds: "Do you remember her now?"
Letby says: "Yes."

11:42

Court shown text about 'absolutely distraught' parents​

Judith Moritz
Inside the courtroom
The court is shown a text message that Lucy Letby sent to another nurse, the morning after baby D died.
She wrote: "Parents absolutely distraught, dad screaming."
Nick Johnson KC challenges Letby: "When you said that you didn’t really remember baby D, that was a lie wasn’t it?"
She replies: "No, I didn’t have any great recollection of the events."
Johnson adds: "This was a dramatic and shocking incident wasn’t it?"
To which Letby responds: "Yes."
The prosecutor continues: "You remembered it very well when you spoke to the police didn’t you?"
"No," Letby says.
Johnson: "You’re enjoying all of this aren’t you Lucy Letby?" Letby: "No."

Posted at 11:5711:57

Prosecution resumes questioning about baby D​

Judith Moritz
Inside the courtroom
The court is resuming. The judge is in place, Lucy Letby is back in the witness box, and the jury are in. Nick Johnson KC is back on his feet, continuing to ask the nurse about baby D.
Johnson tells Letby that he's been told to keep his voice up, as the proceedings are being beamed to other courtrooms.
He asks her if she'll say if she finds it intimidating, as that's not intended. Very quietly, she replies: "Yes."
Letby is speaking very quietly. She's not looking at Johnson, who's standing at a right angle to her. Instead she's looking straight ahead of her, towards the jury.

12:03

'I can't stop crying,' Letby texted colleague​

Judith Moritz
Inside the courtroom
Nick Johnson KC asks Lucy Letby if she'd say she has a good memory. She says yes.
The court then sees WhatsApp messages, which Letby exchanged with another nurse a few days after baby D died.
She says "I can't stop crying", and her colleague suggests that she sees a counsellor and takes time off.
Letby says back: "Work is always my priority."

12:09

Nurse remarked to Letby about sudden death of three babies​

Judith Moritz
Inside the courtroom
The court is now shown more WhatsApp messages, this time between Lucy Letby and a different colleague.
The other nurse remarks that it's odd that three babies had all died suddenly on the unit that month.
Nick Johnson KC asks Letby: "Were you worried people starting to put two and two together?"
She answers: "No."
Johnson says that more than three months after baby D died, Letby searched for the baby's father on Facebook.
He asks her: "You didn’t really forget baby D did you Lucy Letby?"
She replies: "I didn’t recall specific events about her."

12:19

Letby asked about night of baby D's death​

Judith Moritz
Inside the courtroom
Lucy Letby says she believes that a delay in giving antibiotics contributed to the death of baby D.
NIck Johnson KC says: "They don’t guard against air embolus do they though...antibiotics?"
She replies: "No."
On the night of baby D's death, Letby was responsible for two other babies in nursery one (the intensive care room).
Another nurse, Caroline Oakley, was the designated nurse for baby D. Oakley has given evidence that she was on a break when baby D collapsed.
Asked if she accepts this, Letby says: "Yes."

Posted at 12:2612:26

'Did you take the opportunity to sabotage baby D?'​

Judith Moritz
Inside the courtroom
Nick Johnson KC presses Letby about baby D, asking: "Were you looking after baby D while she [Caroline Oakley] was on a break?"
Letby responds: "No."
Johnson asks: "Who was?"
"I don't recall who was allocated to look after her," she says.
Johnson then asks: "Did you take the opportunity whilst Caroline Oakley was absent to sabotage baby D?" Letby replies: "No."
"When the alarms went off you were standing over her weren’t you?" the prosecutor says.
To which Letby replies: "I don’t recall."
"You had been in nursery one throughout, hadn’t you?" Johnson asks.
Letby responds: "I can't comment on that. I don't know for certain."

Posted at 12:3912:39

Letby denies falsifying paperwork​

Judith Moritz
Inside the courtroom
The court sees Lucy Letby's writing recorded on nursing records for a different baby, at the time that baby D collapsed.
Nick Johnson KC asks: "Were you really doing that as baby D was collapsing?"
Letby says: "I can’t give a definitive time."
Johnson continues: "Or have you tried to make the paperwork look like you were doing something else at the time of baby D’s collapse?"
Letby denies this, saying: "No, I’ve not falsified any paperwork."
Johnson asks for clarification: "Ever?"
She says "no", to which Johnson replies: "Well, we’ll come to that."
The prosecutor then says: "Baby D died because you injected her with air, didn't you?" Letby again says: "No."
Johnson adds: "Did you think that the paperwork wouldn’t tie you to baby D at the time of her collapse?"
Letby replies that she was looking after other babies too.

Posted at 12:4312:43

Court breaks for early lunch at Letby request​

Judith Moritz
Inside the courtroom
Lucy Letby has just asked for a break.
She is told that she will be allowed a break, but before she has one she is asked about the matter of taking hand and footprints of a baby after death.
The nurse says that sometimes it's done before the baby dies.
Nick Johnson KC says: "I am going to suggest to you that that is untrue, that you are lying about it." She says: "I do not agree."
The court has now risen for an early lunch break and will reconvene at 1.45pm.

Posted at 14:5514:55

Jury told hearing will not continue for rest of today​

Judith Moritz
Inside the courtroom
We are now back in court, but Lucy Letby is in the dock, rather than being in the witness box. The jury has just come back in.
The judge, Mr Justice Goss, apologises to them for the delay. He tells them that for reasons with which they should not concern themselves, we are not going to continue with the hearing for the rest of today.
He tells the jury that they will not be needed back at court until it's next scheduled to sit on Wednesday next week.
He reminds them not to research the case themselves, away from the evidence they hear at court.
That is the end of proceedings for today. The trial will continue next Wednesday.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dan O'Donoghue BBC Tweets - Dan O'Donoghue

We're now moving to Child D. The court has previously heard from the girl's mother, who said her daughter looked "lifeless" when she was born on 20 June and she had been concerned about her getting an infection, but antibiotics were not given.

The prosecution accepted the failure to give antibiotics was a "legitimate target of criticism", but Child D had been "responding well to treatment and was not expected to deteriorate".

However, on 21 and 22 June, she collapsed several times and despite resuscitation attempts, she was pronounced dead. Medical experts for the prosecution agreed her deterioration and an unusual rash were caused by an injection of air.

Mr Johnson is quoting evidence, that the jury has previously heard, on what nursing staff saw prior to Child D's collapse

One nurse said she saw the baby covered in an 'odd rash', another said it was a 'deep, red, brown...different form mottling'

Ms Letby says 'I did not see that'

Mr Johnson is currently taking the court back over WhatsApp messages Ms Letby exchanged with a colleague in June 2015 after the deaths of three children on the unit

Mr Johnson asks Ms Letby what she believed led to Child D's death. She says it could have been an issue of 'medical competence', as Child D did not receive relevant antibiotics at start of her life. Mr Johnson says that antibiotics 'don't guard against air embolism'

Mr Johnson has pulled up a blood gas chart for Child D, Ms Letby has accepted she filled in an entry for the baby girl shortly after 1am on 22 June 2015, but did not sign. She says this was an oversight and points out it had been done elsewhere on the form by other nurses

Mr Johnson puts it to Ms Letby that she was caring for the girl while her designated nurse was on a break - she does not accept this. Mr Johnson says while the nurse was on her break Ms Letby took the opportunity to 'sabotage' the baby girl

Mr Johnson is taking the court over various medication charts. He asks Ms Letby if she tried to make paperwork look like she was doing something else while Child D collapsed. She responded 'no I’ve not falsified any paperwork'. He asks 'ever'? 'no', she says

Mr Johnson says to Ms Letby Child D 'died because you injected with air didn’t you' She responds, 'no, I did not give her air'

Judge Mr Justice James Goss apologises for the delay in returning after lunch, he says we're 'not going to proceed any further this afternoon for reasons with which needn't concern yourselves' Court will next sitting on Wednesday

 

[Tortoise]

Episode 35, The Gang of Four

www.mailplus.co.uk

The Trial of Lucy Letby: Episode 35, The Gang of Four​

In this episode Caroline and Liz explain what happened in court when the prosecution began questioning Lucy Letby for the first time.

 

[Tortoise]

Chester Standard Updates - https://www.chesterstandard.co.uk/news/23543140.live-lucy-letby-trial-may-24---cross-examination-continues/

Defence Case Wednesday 24th May 2023 - LUCY LETBY'S CROSS-EXAMINATION

CHILD E

10:43am

Nicholas Johnson KC, for the prosecution, will now cross-examine Lucy Letby.
He first asks about the 'conspiracy gang' of four doctors, as Letby previously said there was in the Countess of Chester Hospital last Thursday.
Here was our story about it last Thursday: Letby: ‘Gang of four’ consultants pinned baby deaths on me
He clarifies a minor matter about it.
Mr Johnson KC asks about the case of Child E.
Letby says: "Possibly yes" to the question if there was medical incompetence that led to Child E's death, in that the night shift team "could have reacted sooner" to the child's bleed.
She says once Child E was bleeding at 10pm, a transfusion could have been made sooner.
She says the "collective team" were responsible.

10:53am

Letby says it was "an important thing to know" that plumbing issues were a potential contributory factor to the decline of babies' health in the unit.
She said "raw sewage" would come out of the sinks in nursery room 1, as flowback from another unit.
Mr Johnson asks if Letby ever filled in a Datix form for that. Letby says she did not.
Mr Johnson says Letby did fill in a Datix form for Child E.
The form is shown to the court. It is dated August 4, 2015, at 5.53am, which is when the form was signed and filed.
It is classed as a 'clinical incident'.
The risk grading was 'high potential harm'. Letby says she is "not sure about that", as it also says 'Actual harm: None (No harm caused).
It refers to the death of Child E at 1.40am. 'Description: Unexpected death following GI bleed. Full resus unsuccessful. Time of death 01:40.'
The baby's history is recorded in the events leading up to his death. It was filled in by the incident review group panel.
Letby's input on the panel is reporting the incident on the first page of the nine-page report.

10:56am

Letby is asked if she remembers sending a text message to Jennifer Jones-Key saying it was "too Q word" on August 2, 2015. Letby says she cannot recall, but accepts that would be something she could send.
The 'Q word' is 'quiet', the court hears.
Letby says "there is always something to do", but "sometimes they can be long nights if you haven't got many babies".
She says she enjoyed being busy "when it was managed".

11:01am

Letby is asked why she, and not Child E's designated nurse Melanie Taylor, signed a correction to a prescription for Child E. Letby says it's standard practice for two nurses to administer prescriptions, and corrections on the form are not based on seniority. She agrees she was keen to raise issues if they needed correcting.
NJ: "Had you fallen out with Melanie Taylor by this stage?"
LL: "No."
Letby denies she had fallen out with anyone.
She agrees she had confidence in her clinical competencies.
NJ: "Do you agree you were a cut above some other nurses, including Mel?"
LL: "No."

11:08am

A nursing note for Child E from the evening of August 3, 2015 is shown. Letby agrees he was progressing well, although he needed insulin.
Letby agrees Child E at this stage showed no sign of gastro-intenstinal problems.
A rota is shown to the court, showing Letby was the desingated nurse for Child E and Child F in room 1. No other babies/nurses were allocated in that room that night.
Letby is asked if there was anything wrong with this arrangement. Letby: "No."
Mr Johnson says when Letby was giving evidence to Mr Myers, she said when the mother arrived at the unit, she was "bringing milk". Letby says she does not recall from her memory. Mr Johnson says that was what she said on May 5.
Letby: "I can't recall right here right now."
Letby says she cannot remember it specifically, but accepted that version of events. "I don't have any clear memory."
Mr Johnson refers to the transcript from that day, in which Letby told Benjamin Myers KC she believed Child E's mother had arrived at the unit bringing expressed breast milk.
Letby says: "I said 'I think' she brought expressed breast milk." She says it's the same thing.

11:15am

Mr Johnson asks about the significance of 9pm that night. Letby says: "I don't know what you mean."
Mr Johnson says it's the mother's evidence that she knew Child E was due a feed at 9pm, so came down to the unit for that feed.
Mr Johnson says Letby's recollection that Child E's mother brought milk with her fixes the time as being 9pm.
Letby: "I don't agree."
Mr Johnson asks about the 16ml 'mucky aspirate', which Letby agrees was taken before 9pm.
Mr Johnson asks where the milk for the 9pm feed was coming from.
Letby says the milk would come from the milk fridge in nursery room 1. She says she does "not remember" where the milk would come from for this feed specifically.
No feed was recorded for 9pm.
Mr Johnson says the SHO did not record no feed for 9pm, having said in evidence that would be the sort of thing he would record for a baby.
Letby says sometimes doctors don't record such notes.

11:25am

Letby is asked why the 'large vomit of fresh blood' is not recorded on the observation chart for 10pm. Letby says she recorded it in her nursing notes, and Dr David Harkness was present when it happened.
Letby is asked why she waited over an hour for the observation of the aspirate to be raised with the doctor.
LL: "I don't recall speaking to a doctor", but Letby recalls speaking to an SHO on the phone about it.
Letby says there was no observation of blood prior to 10pm.
NJ: "Was [Child E's mother] telling the truth about you?"
LL: "In what sense?"
NJ: "In the sense of what you said to her - when she says she came down to see her boys, she saw [Child E] with blood around his lips."
Child E's mother's illustration of what she says was present on Child E's lips is shown to the court.
NJ: "Did you ever see anything like that?"
LL: "[Child E] did have blood like that - after 2200."
Letby adds "there was no blood prior to that."
Letby accepts she was alone in room 1 when the mother came down. She says that would have been around the handover time at 8pm.
NJ: "You are not telling the truth about that, are you?"
LL: "Yes I am."
Letby says she does not accept causing an injury to harm Child E. She denies at any stage 'having a fall out' with Child E's mother.
Letby says she has never seen a baby with blood like that around her mouth in her career. She agrees it was "wholly exceptional".
She denies telling Child E's mother the cause of the bleed was via insertion of the naso-gastrinal tube. She says the insertion could cause "a small amount of blood" from the tube.

11:29am

Letby is asked if she recalls telling police in the case of Child N that NG Tubes can cause bleeding. Letby says it does cause blood, but not in the mouth.
Mr Johnson says Letby has said that previously it can cause oral bleeding. Letby: "Ok."
She denies saying that happened in this case.
She says "medically speaking", "any baby" could have a bleed like the sort seen by Child E.
A text message from Letby to Jennifer Jones-Key is shown: "...He had massive haemhorrhage could have happened to any baby x"
Letby says "at the time" it was thought Child E could have NEC, and "any baby could have had the condition [Child E] had."

11:37am

Letby is asked to look at her defence statement.
She says Child E's mother had come down with some expressed milk. The statement is dated February 2021.
Letby, in her statement, said "This may have been later than 2100".
Mr Johnson says Letby is now ruling out a time before 2200.
Letby says she cannot say it definitively, but there was no blood prior to 2200.
Letby is asked why she did not mention the vomit when blood went down the NG Tube in her defence statement.
Mr Johnson says Letby is lying by adding additional detail afterwards. Letby denies this.
Mr Johnson asks about the 'mucky aspirate' for Child E, asking if that is 16ml of 'bile', as per Letby's defence statement. Letby says there was bile in the mucky aspirate.
Mr Johnson says there is a difference between 'bile-stained' and 'bile'. Letby accepts 'there was 16ml of bile' in her defence statement is "an error".
She is asked why she put that in, in those terms.
LL: "I don't know."
Letby says this is a clarification of her earlier statement.
NJ: "You are lying, aren't you?"
LL: "No."

11:40am

The defence statement also refers to 'blood in the nappy' for Child E after he died. Mr Johnson says if that has been heard in her evidence. Letby says she cannot recall.
Letby says it is written in her nursing notes, and nothing was done about it as Child E was deceased by that time.
Letby is asked to look at her nursing notes.

11:57am

The court is resuming following a short break, during which time Letby has had chance to look at her nursing notes.

12:04pm

Mr Johnson says Letby's nursing notes for Child E, as read by Letby during the break, do not record blood in the nappy.
Letby says she could not recall her notes specifically at this time.
Mr Johnson reads about what other medical staff observed following Child E's collapse.
Dr David Harkness recorded, for Child E's observations following the collapse, 'kind of strange purple patches that appeared on the outside of his tummy'. Letby says it was purple, but not patches.
Letby said the other parts were 'more pale' than the pink described by Dr Harkness.
Dr Harkness said he'd only ever seen it before with Child A.
Letby disagrees. She says it was "not the same".
Asked to explain the differences between the two, Letby says it was a "solid block of purpleness" for Child E, and a "more mottled look" for Child A.
Letby agrees it was over the abdomen, but disagrees the purple patches moved around.

12:06pm

Mr Johnson reads through another doctor's observations, who said she had not seen the discolouration, but Dr Harkness was "animated" when he was describing what he had seen to her.
Letby says she was not there for any conversation between the two of them.

12:16pm

Letby is asked to read her retrospective nursing note for Child E, which described Child E's collapse and subsequent decline until he died in his parents' arms at 1.40am.
The note would have been made with reference to medical notes, Letby tells the court.
Letby is asked to look at an observation chart and a blood gas chart.
Letby says when things are going on, it would be standard practice to write, also, on the back of handover sheets or spare bits of paper.
Letby is asked about a "purple band" of discolouration she had recorded for Child E. In her police interview, Letby accepts struggling to recall the size of it at that time.
Mr Johnson says for May 5's evidence, Letby said it was a "red horizontal banding across his abdomen", and only on the abdomen.
Letby agrees with Dr Harkness it was on the abdomen, but does not agree with Dr Harkness's observation it was patches.

12:21pm

Letby is asked to look at a chart showing aspirates for Child E, which included 'minimal aspirates' prior to the collapse.
Letby agrees that showed no signs of gastro-intenstinal issues for Child E, until the 9pm reading of 16ml 'mucky' aspirate, in her writing.
Letby "cannot recall" why Belinda Simcock had written in the 10pm aspirates column. Letby "assumes" the blood came out following those 10pm readings.
"Why was Belinda there at all?"
"I can't say for sure."
Letby says Belinda had come to assist for the 16ml aspirate observed an hour earlier.
Letby says she "cannot say" why Belinda was carrying out observations at that time.

12:28pm

Letby says she "cannot explain" why the blood aspirate is not recorded in the aspirate chart, but is in her nursing notes.
Letby is asked to read a note on the schedule for Child E, in which it is said Belinda Simcock gave a feed to a child in room 2 at 10pm.
Letby says she cannot recall why Belinda Simcock had come to room 1 for the 10pm readings.
Mr Johnson asks if Belinda Simcock was brought in to sign paperwork at the time of the collapse to cover for Letby's actions. Letby denies this.
Letby said Belinda Simcock had carried out the drip readings for Child E, and signed it, as specific information like that is not passed on from one nurse to another.

12:31pm

Letby is asked if she recalls who rang Child E's mother when Child E collapsed.
She said it would have been a "collective decision" to contact the midwifery staff.
Letby accepts Child E's mother made a phone call at 9.11pm, but does not accept the evidence of the conversation about Child E 'bleeding from his mouth' and there was 'nothing to worry about'.
Benjamin Myers KC, for Letby's defence, rises to say Letby cannot say what was or was not said in a phone call she was not part of.

12:37pm

NJ: "You killed [Child E], didn't you?"
LL: "No."
NJ: "Why in the aftermath were you so obsessed with [Child E and F's mother]?"
LL: "I don't think I was obsessed."
Letby says she "often" thought of Child E and Child F.
Mr Johnson says the name of Child E and F's mother was searched for nine times, and the name of the father once.
Letby said she searched "to see how [Child F] was doing."
One of the searches was when Child F was on the neonatal unit.
Letby said the other searches were made after Child F had left the unit, so "collectively" what she had said was correct.
Mr Johnson says Letby was looking for the family's reaction. Letby disagrees.
One of the searches is on Christmas Day. "Didn't you have better things to do?"
Letby said the family were on her mind.

 

[Tortoise]

Sky News Updates - https://news.sky.com/story/lucy-letby-murder-trial-latest-former-nurse-tells-court-why-she-repeatedly-searched-for-dead-babys-mother-on-facebook-12868375

Defence Case Wednesday 24th May 2023 - LUCY LETBY'S CROSS-EXAMINATION

CHILD E

3h ago10:50

Letby blames raw sewage on nursery floor for baby deaths​

Nick Johnson, for the prosecution, begins - following a four day break in proceedings - by asking Letby "whether or not there is anything you have said that you wish to review in the light of the time you have had to think about it?"
She replies: "No."
He then moves on to the case of Child E. He asks Letby if she believes his death was the result of incompetence in the neonatal unit.
She says: "Collectively the doctors could have acted sooner to react to his bleeding issue."
"When are you suggesting that something that wasn't done should have been?" Mr Johnson asks.
Letby says: "Once Child E was profusely bleeding after 10pm, maybe a blood transfusion could have been given sooner, maybe that would have made a difference."
She says she attributes this mistake to the "medical team collectively".
Letby then says it is an "important factor to note there were often plumbing issues within the unit".
Letby is asked what this has to do with the death of Child E - or any of the children involved.
She says there was "raw sewage coming out of the sinks and running onto the floor in the intensive care unit".
She says this could have had an effect as well as staff being unable to properly wash their hands.

2h ago11:02

'I enjoyed being busy': Letby complained night shift was 'too quiet'​

On the night shift from 1 to 2 August 2015, Letby was the designated nurse for Child F.
Letby sent a message to one of her friends complaining about the shift at 10.35pm.
"Yeah it's fine bit too q word really," she wrote.
Letby says this is a reference to it being quiet.
"Sometimes the shifts, they can be long nights if you haven't got as many babies on the unit," she tells the court.
"Do you enjoy it when it [is] busy?" Nick Johnson, for the prosecution, asks her.
"I enjoy when it [is] busy, yes," Letby says.
She clarifies she "enjoyed being busy when it was managed".
Letby is asked if she had fallen out with her colleague (who cannot be named for legal reasons) by this stage. The court is shown a medical sheet where Letby had corrected something the colleague had written.
"You were not afraid to confront medical staff if you thought they had got it wrong?" Nick Johnson asks.
"Yes," Letby says, agreeing that she was confident in her clinical competencies.

2h ago11:21

Child E was 'making very good progress' before he died​

On 3 August 2015, Child E was recorded as making very good progress. He would be dead less than 24 hours later.
"I wouldn't say he was very well, but yes he [was] making progress with his feeds," Letby tells the court.
The twins were the only occupants of nursery one - and Letby was the only nurse in this specific room. All other babies were elsewhere being looked after by other staff.
"You had the nursery to yourself?" Nick Johnson, prosecuting, asks.
"I was the only nurse allocated babies, yes," Letby replies.
Child E's mother brought expressed breast milk to the unit to feed her children - Letby is now asked about what happened when she appeared.
She says she does not remember. Nick Johnson then reads a transcript from her questioning by her defence lawyer, Ben Myers, from last week.
Myers: Do you recall why she had come down?
Letby: I don't recall specifically no.
Myers: Did she have anything with her?
Letby: I think she brought breast milk down.
He asks why Letby was unable to answer the question a few minutes ago.
The insinuation is the mother brought the milk at 9pm - at the time it was believed Child E was already bleeding, and when he was due a feed.
Letby says she believes Child E's mother came down later.
Letby says she spoke to an on-call doctor about omitting his 9pm feed. But the prosecution is suggesting this "conversation never happened".

2h ago11:43

Child E had 'blood around his mouth' an hour before Letby called a senior doctor​

The prosecution claims Letby didn't escalate the bleeding suffered by Child E until an hour after it had started.
"If I had seen blood at any point I would have escalated that to someone," Letby says.
"Do you agree that blood was never escalated to anyone until 10pm?" Nick Johnson, prosecuting, asks.
"Yes because there wasn't blood prior to 10pm," Letby says.
But Child E's mother, when she came down to see her boys at 9pm, claimed she saw Child E with blood around his lip.
The court is shown an artist's impression of what she remembered, with blood indicated around the mouth and chin of Child E.
Child E's mother claims Letby was the only person present when she went down at 9pm.
"When Child E's mother came down at 9pm I suggest you had inflicted an injury to cause bleeding," Nick Johnson says.
"I do not accept that, no," Letby replies.
"At any stage, did you fall out with Child E's mother?"
"No," says Letby.
Letby says she has never seen blood like that seen on Child E before. She agrees it is "wholly exceptional".

2h ago11:45

'Not a lot I can do': What Letby texted colleague after Child E's death​

"Is it your view any baby could have a bleed like Child E?" Nick Johnson, prosecuting, asks.
"Do you mean is it medically possible?" Letby asks in response.
"I am asking if it is your view that any baby can have a bleed like Child E," he clarifies.
"Medically speaking, yes," Letby says,
The court is then shown a text Letby sent to a colleague on the evening of 4 August 2015 - hours after Child E's death.
The text says: "Not a lot I can do really. He had a massive haemorrhage could have happened to any baby x."
The prosecution claims Letby falsified the records around the time Child E started bleeding, delaying treatment.
Child E's mother claims she visited her son at 9pm, at which time she spotted bleeding. Letby claims it must have been later as that is when she says she first spotted blood and called a senior doctor.
Child E's mother says a phone call made to her husband timestamps her visit to the unit - this would mean the infant had started bleeding an hour before Letby called for help.
"My case is there was no blood prior to 10pm," Letby says. "I don't remember Child E's mother coming down prior to that."
The prosecution says she is "lying about the detail" of what happened with Child E.

2h ago11:47

'You are lying, aren't you, Lucy Letby?'​

Letby is asked as to why her case "has changed" since she gave a full statement to the police. A number of details, the prosecution claims, now contradict what she is saying in court.
"You are lying, aren't you Lucy Letby," Nick Johnson asks, not for the first time referring to her by her full name.
"No," Letby replies.
She is then asked about a statement she made claiming there was blood in Child E's nappy after his death.
She says she wrote something about this in her nursing notes.
The prosecution then hands her a copy of her nursing notes - a short break is called so Letby can reread her notes.
Court is adjourned for 15 minutes.

1h ago12:05

Letby contradicts own nursing notes​

Before the break, Letby was handed a copy of her nursing notes from the night Child E died.
She previously claimed she had recorded in her notes there was blood in his nappy. Letby now tells the court her notes show she did not write anything about blood in Child E's nappy.
"You knew that wasn't true," Nick Johnson, prosecuting, asks.
"No, I couldn't recall my notes specifically at that time."
The prosecution claims Letby has repeatedly falsified medical notes - this being another example of how her recollection of events has changed.

1h ago12:19

Child E died in his parents' arms​

The court is then shown Letby's nursing notes from the night Child E died, which were completed at 4.51am and written "in retrospect" for the care given from 8pm the previous night.
They outline the different medical interventions he was given throughout the night.
Child E eventually died at 1.40am in his parents' arms.
The prosecution asks if Letby remembers all of this information in her head. She is then asked what she wrote down specifically at the time things were happening.
She says she "can't recall".
Letby says: "It was usual practice when things were ongoing [that] we wrote on the back of the handover sheet or any piece of paper that was around at the time."

1h ago12:32

Letby accused of using colleagues to cover up 'sabotage'​

Lucy Letby is now being asked about further omissions to her nursing notes on the night Child E died.
"Sometimes we don't document everything," she tells the court.
She is then asked if, in the "excitement of sabotaging" Child E, she overlooked certain details.
"No," she replies.
Letby's colleague was feeding a child at 10pm in another room at the time Letby claims Child E began bleeding. (This is a source of disagreement - the prosecution has previously claimed he began bleeding an hour earlier).
"Why were you asking her to do observations on Child E?" Nick Johnson asks.
Letby says she does not recall.
"Is it so at the time of his collapse you had someone else's writing and signature on the paperwork?" Mr Johnson asks.
"No."
Then Mr Johnson says: "You got other people to write things on charts to cover up what you were doing."
"No, that is not correct," Letby replies.

1h ago12:44

Letby accused of 'being obsessed' with Child E's mother​

Letby accepts Child E's mother made a phone call at 9.11pm, at which time she told her husband she had seen bleeding around her son's mouth.
The prosecution claims this as proof Child E started bleeding much earlier than the nurse says. Letby has previously told the court she believed Child E's mother must have visited the unit much later than she says. The prosecution says the call time disputes this.
"She told her husband Child E was bleeding from the mouth. You don't accept that?" Nick Johnson, prosecution barrister, asks.
"No," Letby replies.
The prosecution claims Child E's mother was told by Letby there was nothing to worry about and to leave the neonatal unit.
Mr Johnson: "You killed Child E, didn't you?"
Letby: "No."
Mr Johnson: "You injected him with air."
Letby: "No."
Mr Johnson: "Just as you had done with other babies before."
Letby: "No."
Mr Johnson: "Why in the aftermath were you so obsessed with Child E's mother?"
Letby: "I don't believe I was obsessed with Child E's mother."
She is then asked about why she searched for her repeatedly on Facebook.
"I often thought about [children E and F]," Letby says.
She searched for their mother nine times, and their father once. Letby said she did this to see how Child F was - he was the surviving twin.
But one of the searches took place after the death of Child E and while his twin brother was still in the neonatal unit.
Mr Johnson says she was "looking for a reaction".
Searches include one that took place at 11.26pm on Christmas Day.
"Didn't you have better things to do?" the prosecution asks.
She says she often thought of them and believed she had a good relationship with their mother.

https://news.sky.com/story/lucy-let...ws-blog-12868375?postid=5956663#liveblog-body

 

[Tortoise]

Dan O'Donoghue BBC Tweets - https://twitter.com/MrDanDonoghue

Defence Case Wednesday 24th May 2023 - LUCY LETBY'S CROSS-EXAMINATION

CHILD E

Jury are now in court and Ms Letby is back in the witness box for the fourth day of cross examination. Mr Johnson asks Ms Letby if she would like to review anything she has said previously, she said no

Mr Johnson is turning to Child E. He was born prematurely in late July 2015 and initially needed breathing support, but later stabilised. The court heard that on 3 August, his mother heard him crying and found him with "blood coming out of his mouth".

The child's mother told the jury she recalled Ms Letby was standing at a nearby work station. Child E later deteriorated and despite medical efforts, later died on 4 August.

A medical expert for the prosecution said the blood loss he suffered could have been the result of an "inappropriate" use of a medical tool and his death was the result of internal bleeding and an injection of air.

Ms Letby is asked if medical incompetence contributed to Child E's death, she said 'possibly yes'

Asked to clarify, she says it could have been the responsibility of the medical team on that night. She says the doctors 'could have acted sooner' to respond to Child E's bleeding issue

Ms Letby also goes on to say that a 'contributing factor' could have been the unit being dirty - she says that the neonatal unit had a plumbing issues, with sewage coming out of sinks in nursery one

She says 'potentially that’s not a safe working environment' - Mr Johnson asks if she ever reported this via a a DATIX form, she says 'not personally no'

Jury are currently being shown a DATIX form that was raised by Ms Letby in relation to Child E. It contains a history of the baby boy, what happened and has contributions from consultants who reviewed the case

Ms Letby says the extent of her contribution on the form was reporting his death

Mr Johnson is now pulling up a timeline of events. He says Ms Letby was working the nightshift on August 2 to 3 2015 - he shows the court a text Ms Letby sent to a friend at 22:35 on 2 August in which she said the unit was 'too q word’

Ms Letby says it 'sometimes gets very quiet' on the unit and there can be a of 'sitting round'. She said she was 'there to help babies' She adds 'sometimes shifts can be long nights if you haven’t got as many babies on unit'

Mr Johnson asks her if she enjoyed being busy, she said she 'enjoyed being busy when it was managed'

Mr Johnson asks Ms Letby if she was confident in her abilities as a nurse, she says 'yes'. He asks her if she felt she was a 'cut above' some of the other nurses, she says 'no'

We're now moving to the nightshift of August 3/4 2015. Ms Letby was the designated nurse for Child E and F (who were twins) in nursery one

Mr Johnson is focusing in on evidence from Child E's mother. She previously told the court she went down to the neonatal unit to give her son a feed at around 2100 on August 3

Child E's mother said she found her son acutely distressed and bleeding from his mouth. She said: "I could hear my son crying. I walked over to the incubator to see he had blood coming out of his mouth. "I was panicking, I felt like there was something wrong."

Ms Letby has disputed this, saying Child E's mother came down later - Mr Johnson has put it to her that Child E was due a feed at 2100 and that the mum called her husband after she had witnessed him in distress at 2100

Ms Letby says she doesn't recall timings

Mr Johnson asks her if she had seen blood around the lips and mouth what she would have done. She says if she had 'seen blood at any point I would have escalated that to somebody'. But she says 'there wasn't blood prior to 22:00'

Mr Johnson asks Ms Letby if she believes Child E's mother is 'telling the truth' in her testimony - the court is reshown a diagram of a baby, that Child E's mother annotated, showing where the blood was around his mouth

Ms Letby says that Child E 'did have blood around his mouth after 22:00...he did have blood on his face yes'

Mr Johnson accuses Ms Letby of 'not telling the truth'. She says she is. He puts it to her that Child E was bleeding as a result of her inflicting an injury on him, she said: 'I don't accept that, that did not happen'

Mr Johnson has spent the last 10minutes going over what Ms Letby said in her defence statement as of Feb 2022 vs now in the witness box. Mr Johnson has accused Ms Letby of changing her case, she denies this

Mr Johnson says 'you are lying aren’t you Ms Letby', she says 'no'

Mr Johnson is now going back over what doctors reported seeing on Child E's skin at the time of his collapse. They described seeing a rash/patches on the infant (this the prosecution say is a symptom of air embolism)

Ms Letby says she does not agree what was seen on Child E was in 'patches'.

Mr Johnson says 'you had injured (Child E) hadn’t you and that’s why he was bleeding'. 'No', Ms Letby says

Mr Johnson puts to Ms Letby that Child E's mother made a phone call to her husband at 21:11, in which she and her husband say she was upset and raising concern over the blood around their child's mouth.

Ms Letby accepts a phone call was made. But does not accept what Child E's parents have said was said during the call (as she doesn't accept there was any blood prior to 22:00)

Mr Johnson asks Ms Letby about Facebook searches carried out for the parents of Child E and F - one of which was on Christmas Day. He asks her if she didn't have anything better to do - she says she often thought of the twins

 

[Tortoise]

Judith Moritz BBC Tweets - https://twitter.com/JudithMoritz

Defence Case Wednesday 24th May 2023 - LUCY LETBY'S CROSS-EXAMINATION

CHILD E

Nick Johnson KC starts to ask about the next baby in the trial - baby E - a boy, who Lucy Letby is accused of murdering on August 4th 2015. She denies this.

Lucy Letby tells the court that "It's a contributory issue if the unit is dirty. We used to have raw sewage coming out of the sinks in nursery one (intensive care). That’s not a safe working environment, I’m not sure what impact that could have on a poorly baby".

Nick Johnson KC asks nurse Letby if she ever made a formal complaint notification to the hospital authorities about raw sewage coming out of the sinks. She says she didn't.

Nick Johnson KC: "Were you very confident in your abilities?"
Lucy Letby: "In my clinical ability? Yes"
NJKC: "Did you think you were a cut above some of the other nurses?"
LL: "No"

Lucy Letby agrees that baby E did not have any gastro-intestinal problems before she came on duty.

Earlier in the trial, the court heard evidence from baby E's mother who says she came into the unit to bring expressed milk for her son at 9pm, and discovered that her son was bleeding. Lucy Letby disputes this and says the bleed happened later.

Nick Johnson KC: "I’m going to suggest that when baby E's mother came down at 2100 hours you had inflicted an injury on him"
Lucy Letby: "No I do not accept that, it did not happen"
NJKC: "And that’s why he was screaming"
LL: "No"

Lucy Letby denies that she told baby E's mother that the bleeding could have been caused by his nasogastric tube.
Nick Johnson KC: "You’re lying about that, aren’t you?"
Lucy Letby: "No"

It's the prosecution case that Lucy Letby falsified records in the case of baby E. The nurse denies this.

Lucy Letby asked why some of her case has changed between making her defence statement, and appearing in court now. LL: "I don’t think it has changed, I just think there has been some clarification of some points"
NJKC: "You are lying aren’t you Lucy Letby?"
LL: "no"

Lucy Letby is asked about a discrepancy between her nursing notes and a separate chart.
Says "That’s an error on my part. Sometimes we don’t document everything as accurately as we need to"
NJKC: "Was it in the excitement of sabotaging baby E you overlooked it?"
LL: "No"

Court sees that another nurse's initials are on the paperwork at the time of baby E's collapse.
Nick Johnson KC says "That’s what you do isn’t it? You get other people to write things in on charts to cover up what you were doing?"
Lucy Letby says "No that’s not correct"

Nick Johnson KC: "You killed baby E didn’t you?"
Lucy Letby: "No"
NJKC: "You injected him with air"
LL: "No"
NJKCL: "Just as you had done with other babies before"
LL: "No"
NJKC: "Why in the aftermath were you so obsessed with Baby E’s mother?"
LL: "I don’t think I was obsessed"


Lucy Letby asked why she searched for baby E's mum on Facebook.
Says "She was on my mind and when I think of people I often search for them"
NJKC: "You were looking to see what reaction you’d got from this grieving family weren’t you?"
LL: "No"

NJKC: "Didn’t you have better things to do on Christmas day than to search (online) for baby E’s mother?"
LL: "No I often thought of babies E and F"
NJKC: "Because you killed one and tried to kill the other"
LL: "No because I thought me and their mum had a good relationship"

 

[Tortoise]

Andy Gill BBC Tweets - https://twitter.com/MerseyHack

Defence Case Wednesday 24th May 2023 - LUCY LETBY'S CROSS-EXAMINATION

CHILD E

Lucy Letby says staffing levels did not contribute to to the death of an alleged victim Baby E. But she says medical incompetence by the team on that night was a factor. “Collectively the drs cd have acted sooner to react to his bleeding issue.”

The prosecution say, based on Baby E’s mother’s evidence, that Miss Letby failed to report that he was bleeding from the mouth as early as she could have done. Miss Letby says “No I don’t agree with that.”

Miss Letby says one of the issues the neonatal unit had to deal with was raw sewage flowing back from the operating theatres. But she agrees she didn’t fill in a form to report this issue.

Lucy Letby agrees that on the evening before she came on a night shift - the night that Baby E died- there was no suggestion he had any gastro intestinal problems. It’s alleged that Miss Letby murdered E by injecting him with air.

Mr Johnson suggests that the evidence of E’s mum concerning the timing of when she, the mum, went to the unit to take expressed breast milk, shows that she saw E with blood on his mouth before Lucy Lebty says that (the bleeding) happened.

Mr Johnson says “when [E’s mum] came down [to unit] at 9pm you had inflicted an injury on [him]”. Miss Letby says “No I do not accept that. That did not happen.” Mr Johnson adds “and that’s why he was screaming.” Miss Letby says “No.”

Mr Johnson alleges that Lucy Letby falsified records about what happened to Baby E and that there are inconsistencies in what she told police about what happened and what she says now, “You are lying Miss Letby.” She replies “No.”.

Mr Johnson asks why there’s a gap in some of Miss Letby’s nursing notes. “In the excitement of sabotaging [Baby E] you overlooked it ?” Lucy Letby replies “No.”

“You get other people to write things on charts to cover up what you were doing” says Mr Johnson. “That’s not correct.” replies Miss Letby.

 

[Tortoise]

Chester Standard Updates - https://www.chesterstandard.co.uk/news/23543140.live-lucy-letby-trial-may-24---cross-examination-continues/

Defence Case Wednesday 24th May 2023 - LUCY LETBY'S CROSS-EXAMINATION

CHILD G

12:41pm

Mr Johnson tells the court he is now looking at the case of Child G. He will go 'out of sequence', chronologically, and deal with Child F at a later point.
Letby says she cannot recall what Child G's due date would have been [Child G having been born at a gestational age of 23 weeks and 6 days on May 31, with the date of one of the events "not standing out" to her.
A message from Letby's phone to a colleague: "Due date today!"
Letby says she knew at the time [September 21, 2015].
Letby says the date of the event for Child G was "a coincidence".

12:43pm

Letby says Child G had "extreme prematurity" which had complications requiring additional care.
Letby disagrees that Child G was "fine" by the time she came to the Countess of Chester Hospital, saying she had a number of ongoing issues.

1:00pm

Letby denies that Child G was ready to go home by the date of the first event on September 7, saying babies in the special care room, nursery 4, can still be there for several weeks.
Letby says Child G had a number of previous problems including relating to feeding, and had sepsis.
Letby says Child G was on oxygen and had feeding issues by September 7, 2015.
Mr Johnson asks Letby to look at Child G's nursing records for her days leading up to her projectile vomit. Letby agrees there is nothing "unusual" in those days.
Feeding charts are shown for Child G for September 5 and 6. Child G is being fed expressed breast milk via the NGT or bottle. Letby agrees the picture is looking good for Child G from these charts.
Mr Johnson says the feed at 11pm on September 6 would not have been done twice by mistake. Letby says she has never suggested that has happened.
Letby agrees the observations for Child G before 2am on September 7 are "good".
NJ: "You knew this was day 100 of [Child G's] life, didn't you?"
LL: "Yes."
NJ: "It was a big day for her."
LL: "Yes."
Letby agrees she and other nurses would celebrate 100-day-old babies on the unit, and a banner had been prepared to mark the occasion.
A staffing rota for the night shift of September 6-7 is shown to the court. Letby is in room 1 as the designated nurse for one baby, and Ailsa Simpson is the designated nurse for one other baby in room 1. A nursing colleague is in room 2 as the designated nurse for Child G.
Letby rules out staffing levels or staff incompetence as a contributory factor in Child G's death.
Asked if anyone had made a mistake, Letby says "potentially", Child G had been overfed by a nursing colleague, but that was not what she was saying had happened.
Letby: "I can't say for definite that didn't happen. I'm not saying she did do that, but it is a possibility."
Letby says it is a "possibility" the amount of milk was mismeasured when calculating the feed.
NJ: "Are you suggesting it's a realistic possibility?"
LL: "No."

2:17pm

Nicholas Johnson KC continues to cross-examine Lucy Letby in the case of Child G.
Letby says it was a "possibility" Child G was overfed by a nursing colleague, but adds: "I don't believe that happened."
Mr Johnson says to overfeed Child G twice as much would have taken twice as long.
Letby says 45mls of milk feed would take around 15-20 minutes.
Letby refers to medical experts Dr Evans and Dr Bohin that overfeeding was a possibility.
Mr Johnson describes what Letby had seen, including that Child G's abdomen was "firm and red", with the sight of that and vomit on the floor leaving her "shocked".
"That was a clear recollection you had last week, giving evidence?"
Letby says that happened at approximately 2.15am.
Her nursing note is shown to the court: '[Child G] had large projectile milky vomit at 0215. Continued to vomit++. 45mls milk obtained from NG tube with air++. Abdomen noted to be distended and discoloured. Colour improved few minutes after aspirating tube, remained distended but soft...to go nil by mouth with IV fluids...'
Letby says she disagrees with the evidence of Dr Sandie Bohin, saying a pH reading of 4 can be obtained from milk aspirated from the stomach.

2:27pm

A photo of Child G's cot, with circles marking where the vomit fell outside of the cot, is shown to the court.
Letby is asked to look at her police interview for Child G.
Letby said it was in her cot.
NJ: "This was an extraordinary vomit, the likes of which you had not seen in your career."
LL: "I have, but not in neonates."
Letby says it's an "oversight" she had not mentioned the extent of the vomit in police interview.
Letby says Child G was "still vomiting" when she went in to see Child G with Ailsa Simpson.
NJ: "You were not there with her, were you?"
LL: "Yes I was."
Letby is asked to look at her police interview. She says at the time of the vomit she did not remember where she was, then went into the room where Child G was.
Letby is asked why there is no mention of Ailsa Simpson in the interview. Letby says she was describing her own response.
The neonatal schedule is shown to the court for Child G.
Mr Johnson says Letby deliberately misstated the time at which Child G had her vomit [at 2.15am], and says it was different. Letby disagrees.

2:33pm

Mr Johnson refers to Dr Alison Ventress's notes 'Called to r/v [Child G] at 2.35'.
He says that is an accurate time, and Letby had misstated the time so Letby's colleague could instead be blamed for overfeeding, and Letby overfed Child G.
Letby: "That's not true."
Mr Johnson asks where the air came from before 'Neopuffing'. Letby says she cannot say without looking at the nursing notes.
Letby's note: '...45mls milk obtained from NG Tube with air++...'
The note does not mention Neopuffing. Letby says that is "an oversight".
Mr Johnson: "The truth is that you injected [Child G] with milk and air, didn't you?"
Letby: "No."

2:41pm

Letby is asked to look at her second police interview for Child G.
In it, Letby said air had got in through the feeding syringe.
She tells the court it had been suggested to her as a possibility.
Mr Johnson refers to Child G's 3.15am collapse, with Dr Alison Ventress recalling 'blood-stained fluid coming up'.
Letby denies inserting something into Child G's airway and/or causing the deterioration.
Dr Ventress and a doctor colleague said '100ml of air/milk' had been aspirated from Child G following the 6.05am desaturation.
Letby says she does not recall the 100mls coming out, and asks if it was documented.
Dr Alison Ventress's note is shown to the court. It includes '...NG aspirated as abdo appeared v large ~100mls aspirated...'
Letby: "I don't know how the air got there. It's after Neopuffing."
She accepts the note as an account of what happened.

2:43pm

Letby is shown nursing notes made for the following day shift by a colleague. Letby agrees there are no signs Child G had a build-up of fluid or air from the notes made.

2:45pm

Mr Johnson refers to the second bout of vomiting on September 21, 2015. Letby said she thought she recalled the mother was there as it was during visiting time.
Letby had said she did not believe it was an emergency, and did not recall Child G "going blue".
Asked if she agrees with Child G's father that Child G was "not the same" after the first deterioration, Letby replies: "I can't comment on that, nobody knows their babies like the parents do."

2:47pm

Mr Johnson asks why Letby was giving Child G the 9.15am feed on September 21.
Letby: "She wasn't awake and she was due her immunisations."
Letby says, "feeding wise", she had no concerns with Child G. She said there was an ongoing issue with Child G's low temperature.

2:50pm

For that September 21 day shift, the court is shown the rota, and Lucy Letby was the designated nurse for Child G that day in room 4, along with two other babies.
Lucy Letby was also responsible for a fourth baby 'rooming in with parents'.
NJ: "Did it annoy you that you were in nursery room 4?"
LL: "Not at all."
Mr Johnson says that Letby, when giving evidence, aspirating can interrupt digestion. Letby said when fully aspirating, that can happen.
She tells the court on this occasion, NGT feeds would be preferable for babies receiving immunisations as they can be quite unwell after them and may need rest.

2:57pm

The court is shown a feeding chart for Child G. A 40ml feed of expressed breast milk was given at 9.15am, signed by Letby.
After the feed, there were 30ml 'two projectile milk vomits', Letby noted. Child G also had a large bowel motion, 'loose, watery green', and there was a 'review by Drs'. The note is signed by Letby. She says she cannot recall which doctors carried out the review from that note.
The 9am reading is recorded on the observation chart for the temperature. Mr Johnson suggests there are two 'dots' in that column recording temperatures. Letby says she cannot recall what the line is below the dot.
NJ: "Did you go back and cook the charts to make it look like [Child G] was declining?"
LL: "No."
Letby says both dots are "in the normal range".
Letby: "I haven't misdocumented anything." Two dots are recorded in the 3am column [when Letby was not on shift], and Letby suggests someone else has misdocumented.

3:01pm

Letby's notes for that day are shown to the court.
They include... 'at 1015 x2 large projectile milky vomits, brief self resolving apnoea and desaturation to 35% with colour loss. NG tube aspirated - 30mls undigested milk discarded. Abdomen distended, soft. Drs asked to review. Temperature remains low, tachycardiac >18bpm since vomit.'
Mr Johnson says it's "not an innocent coincidence" that Child G deteriorated one hour after being fed by Letby.
Letby: "Yes it is."
Letby is asked to look at her defence statement. It included: "I did not shout for help as I did not think this was an emergency."
Letby is asked if she sought to minimise what had happened. LL: "No."
Mr Johnson refers to Dr Peter Fielding's note. It says: "[Child G] had an episode @~10.20 where she had 2 projectile vomits witnessed by nursing staff...nurse called for help."
Letby denies 'minimising' events, saying this was a "self-correcting" event for Child G.

3:07pm

Letby sent in a text to her work colleague: '...looked rubbish when I took over this morning and then she vomited at 9 and I got her screened'
Mr Johnson says that text has two lies in it. Letby accepts she got the time wrong but says she was not asked about Child G's colour. Mr Johnson says Child G was doing well.
Mr Johnson shows a nursing colleague's note from the previous night shift and Letby's nursing note from that day shift. "Any suggestion [Child G] was looking 'rubbish'?"
Letby says Child G looked 'pale', but didn't use "rubbish", in clinical notes.
Letby denies deliberately falsifying times or making up negative observations for Child G.
Letby denies "passing off responsibility to other people", as suggested by Mr Johnson.
NJ: "In fact, you are the person causing all these problems."
LL: "No I'm not."

3:30pm

The trial is resuming after a short break.
Mr Johnson asks Letby to look at her defence statement for the 3.30pm incident for Child G.
Letby said she looked round the screen and saw Child G's monitor was off, she was alone, and behind the screen.
Mr Johnson asks if that was correct.
Letby: "Yes."
The statement adds Letby wanted the matter of Child G being left alone on the procedural trolley behind the screens by a doctor, but a nursing colleague did not want to report this.
Letby agrees it was "an innocent coincidence" that she was the only nurse in the room at this time.
Mr Johnson said Letby had told in evidence that Letby was preoccupied with other babies in the room she was caring for, while doctors tried to cannulate Child G behind screens "for some time".

3:40pm

The court is shown a neonatal schedule for Child G and other babies for September 21. Letby is recorded as having three duties for other babies in the 90 minutes prior to Child G's collapse. One of the three events was for a differently designated nurse's baby in room 2.
Letby says that does not mean she was not preoccupied with the babies, and may have been dealing with their families or other duties.
Letby is asked about the event and her looking behind the screen, that Child G was 'dusky, blue and not breathing'.
Letby is asked if that was true. "Yes."
Letby agrees she picked Child G up, put her in a cot and Neopuffed her. She says the Neopuff equipment would not stretch to the trolley.
A nursing colleague "froze" and went to get a separate nursing colleague.
Letby said, in evidence, she was "very concerned" by what had happened.
Mr Johnson says one thing not mentioned in the defence statement was Letby moving Child G from the trolley to the cot. He asks why Letby had not mentioned that. Letby says she cannot say.
Mr Johnson says Letby "took advantage of a situation that presented itself". Letby: "No."

3:51pm

Mr Johnson says when the cannulation process was taking place, Letby must have been in the room. Letby says she would not have been there all the time.
One of the charts is shown for a baby that Letby was looking after, with the chart requiring readings that took 'about 5 minutes' to make.
Letby says she was "in and out of the nursery all day", on activities that did not require being cotside. She says she does not recall "at any point" being told by doctors they had finished with the cannulation process for Child G.
Letby says it would have been "up to the doctors" to remove the screens and make sure Child G was safely back in her cot following the cannulation.

 

[Tortoise]

Sky News Updates - https://news.sky.com/story/lucy-letby-murder-trial-latest-former-nurse-tells-court-why-she-repeatedly-searched-for-dead-babys-mother-on-facebook-12868375

Defence Case Wednesday 24th May 2023 - LUCY LETBY'S CROSS-EXAMINATION

CHILD G

3h ago12:51

Child G 'attacked' as she was due to go home​

Child G was born extremely premature, at a different hospital, before being moved to the Countess of Chester.
Letby initially claims she did not remember Child G's due date.
But a September 2015 text shown to the court says: "Due date today!"
"By the time she arrived at Chester [Hospital], she was fine, wasn't she?" Nick Johnson, barrister for the prosecution, asks.
"I don't agree she was fine, she had a number of ongoing issues," Letby replies.
The prosecution says Child G was due to go home when she first collapsed - she was in nursery four, the one for the lowest dependency babies.
Letby disputes this.
"Are you exaggerating her problems?" Mr Johnson asks.
"No," Letby replies.
She says Child G was still being tube fed and needed a higher level of care. But the prosecution asks Letby what specific problems the infant may have had that meant she wasn't due to go home imminently.
"As of the 7 September, what were the unusual problems that Child G had?" Mr Johnson asks.
"I can't answer that," says Letby.

3h ago13:04

Child G was doing good before she collapsed​

Letby has claimed Child G still needed oxygen - but charts from the time show this was removed two days prior.
"I know she was back on it by the 7 September," Letby says.
"Of course, she was because by that point she had brain damage," prosecution lawyer Mr Johnson replies.
He then asks: "Would you agree, all the signs on the 5th are good?"
"Yes."
Letby also agrees Child G's vitals were "good" the following day.
"Do you agree the picture shown by the data is a good one?" Mr Johnson asks.
"Yes."
Child G first collapsed as she celebrated a particular life milestone - which the staff had been planning to mark.
A text Letby sent to a colleague after the first collapse is show to the court.
It said: "Awful isn't it. We'd all been sat at desk at start of night making banner".

3h ago13:05

Letby says 'possibility' her colleague overfed Child G​

Letby says there is "a possibility" her colleague overfed Child G.
In the first incident, the infant was fed an excessive amount of milk and vomited out of her cot onto a nearby chair.
"I don't believe she would have but potentially she mis-measured the amount of mls," Letby says.
Mr Johnson asks her if this is a "realistic possibility".
"No," she says.

2h ago14:26

Silence as Letby does not reply to prosecution question​

Nick Johnson, the prosecution barrister, is continuing to question Letby's claims her colleague (who cannot be named for legal reasons) overfed Child G.
"To have fed Child G twice as much presumably would have taken twice as long?" Mr Johnson asks.
"Yes," Letby replies.
Letby says the experts presented evidence of overfeeding.
"How would they know? Which experts?" Mr Johnson asks.
Letby takes a sip of her water and does not reply to this question, staring straight ahead in silence.
Mr Johnson then asks about the scene when Letby and her colleagues discovered Child G had vomited onto the floor.

1h ago14:46

Letby: 'I haven't lied... it was an oversight'​

The court is shown a picture of Child G's cot.
Where the vomit splatter reached is indicated on the image. Child G vomited out of her cot, onto the floor and onto a blue armchair positioned nearby.
Letby is asked if she had ever seen this before.
"Not in a neonate, no," she says.
In her police interview, Letby described the "large milky vomit" as down Child G's clothes - but did not specify where else it had gone.
Nick Johnson, for the prosecution, asks why she lied to the police, considering it was something she had never seen before in her career so would have "stuck in her mind".
"I haven't lied, it was in her cot, I just haven't in that moment specified where else it went," she says.
She adds that she wasn't "not telling the truth - it's an oversight I haven't mentioned it in interview".

1h ago14:46

Letby tried to cast suspicions on her 'best friend'​

The prosecution now says Letby "misrepresented" the time Child G vomited - which she says was 2.15pm.
Letby claims she and a colleague (who cannot be named for legal reasons) were at the nursing station at the time Child G collapsed.
But notes from the unit show this colleague was feeding a different baby at 2.15pm - and the length of time it would have taken for her to defrost and warm that baby's milk would have made it impossible to be where Letby says she was.
This colleague also says she was called to Child G at 2.35pm.
The prosecution says Letby changed the time to try to point suspicion in the direction of the colleague, who was her "best friend".
"No," Letby says.
"You deliberately overfed her," says Mr Johnson.
"No, that's not true," Letby says.

1h ago14:47

Child G's attacks had 'echoes' of earlier infant deaths​

Child G's attacks had "echoes" of the deaths of babies C and E, prosecuting barrister Nick Johnson says to Lucy Letby.
Mr Johnson: "You inserted something into Child G's airway, didn't you?"
Letby: "No."
Mr Johnson: "You caused the bleeding, as you did with many of these children."
Letby: "No, that's not true."

1h ago14:48

'Were you looking to finish her off?': Letby returned to neonatal unit after shift​

After Letby finished her shift, she returned to the neonatal unit later that day - she claims to sign some paperwork.
"You went to visit Child G didn't you?" Nick Johnson, the prosecution barrister, asks.
"I didn't visit Child G, no. I went to do what I needed to do," she says, adding that she was sorting some documentation.
"Were you looking for an opportunity to finish her off?" Mr Johnson asks.
"No," Letby says.
Mr Johnson asks Letby about a statement from Child G's father that, on 7 September, she was no longer the same baby.
"I can't comment on that," Letby says - saying that nobody knows their own child like the parents.

1h ago15:00

Letby accused of changing temperature chart after Child G collapsed​

Next Nick Johnson, the prosecution barrister, moves on to the shift Letby worked on 21 September 2015.
During this shift, Letby was caring for three babies - including Child G - in nursery four at the Countess of Chester Hospital. This is for the babies that were the lowest level of dependency.
Mr Johnson asks Letby if she was annoyed to have been allocated to this room, while less qualified nurses were put in higher dependency rooms.
"Not at all, no," she says.
The court is then shown a copy of Child G's temperature chart. Under the 9am slot, there appear to be two markers.
Letby says she cannot explain why this is, or what the additional mark is on the chart.
"Did you go back after the event and cook the chart to make it look like Child G was declining before she vomited?" Mr Johnson says.
"No," she says.
She says someone may have written it down incorrectly but adds: "I haven't mis-documented anything."

1h ago15:21

'She likes to celebrate in style': What Letby texted after Child G collapsed​

Nick Johnson, the prosecution barrister, tells Letby it's not an "innocent coincidence" that a large amount of milk had to be removed from Child G an hour after Letby had fed her.
"Yes. it is," Letby says.
Clinical notes from the time say Letby "called for help", but Letby has previously claimed she didn't call for help because she didn't believe it was an emergency.
The prosecution says this is because she retrospectively "sought to minimise" what had happened to Child G.
Child G first collapsed as she celebrated a significant life milestone on the unit.
A text Letby sent to a colleague after the event is shown to the court.
It reads: Oh she likes to 'celebrate the big ones in style' :-(

1h ago15:28

Letby says Child G 'looked rubbish' when she came into her care​

Letby complained to a colleague that Child G "looked rubbish" when she took over her care on 21 September 2015.
"Are you trying to persuade your mates on the unit this was one of those things, that this was a child sickening for an infection?" Mr Johnson asks.
Letby denies this.
In the text, Letby also tells her colleague the infant collapsed at 9am, not 10am. She denies she changed the time to avoid suspicion.

51m ago15:37

'An innocent coincidence' Letby was alone with Child G when she collapsed​

Staff on the unit did not like to report doctors when they got things wrong, a previous statement from Lucy Letby (which is being read to the court) says.
When Child G collapsed on a second occasion, Letby was the only one in the room.
"That is, you would say, an innocent coincidence?" Nick Johnson, the prosecution barrister says.
"Yes," says Letby.

44m ago15:45

Child G was 'dusky blue and not breathing' when Letby found her​

Lucy Letby says Child G should not have been left behind a screen, on the trolley and without a monitor on when she was in nursery room four.
The infant was "dusky blue and not breathing" when Letby spotted her behind the curtain, according to a statement being read to the court.
Letby tells the court this is true.
"You said the monitor was not on," Mr Johnson, for the prosecution, says.
"It was not on," Letby agrees.
Letby also agrees she picked up Child G, put her in a cot and started using a neopuff before calling for help. She says she moved the infant to the cot because the child's trolley was not close enough to the medical equipment.
"It wasn't because you had moved her to the cot and you had taken the option to sabotage her?" Mr Johnson asks.
"No," says Letby.
"Knowing the doctors had left her behind the screen," Mr Johnson continues.
"No," says Letby.
"You took advantage of a situation that presented itself," he adds.
"No," says Letby.

32m ago15:57

Letby 'took advantage' of finding child alone​

Nick Johnson, the prosecution barrister, once again asks Letby if she "took advantage" of finding Child G alone.
"No, that was how I found Child G," she says. She says the infant had been left "inappropriately" on a trolley.