She couldn't alter the computerised records without it leaving a trail (if at all) and she obviously couldn't take those computerised records home BUT what she could do, while she was still working on the ward was to write down info from the file onto her handover sheet and take THAT home with her. So the handover sheet would then contain info from the computerised file.
I think that is what the prosection is suggesting she did here:
A handover sheet for June 28, 2016 is shown which, the court hears, is outside the indictment period so no names of babies are shown to the court on this document.
The court hears there is handwriting on the rear of this note, which mentions Child O, and again the document features medical observations and notes.
Baby O died on 23rd June, so the notes relating to him on the back of the 28th June handover sheet can't have been taken whilst doing observations of him on that shift, suggesting the handwritten notes may have been copied from somewhere else on that shift, or were possibly in relation to something discussed about him on that shift. Hard to know without seeing what the notes said. If they were observations of him, like temperature etc then they must have been copied from other historical records.
Of course you could argue that she could have written the notes on the handover sheet at any point once she had it at home, but her routine appears to have been to write notes and observations on the back of the handover sheet during the shift. And if the info did contain observations and notes for Baby O then it would have had to have come from somewhere with records of those. The logical explantion IMO is that she wrote the notes on the back of the 28th June handover sheet, during that shift.
The trial of Lucy Letby, who denies murdering seven babies at the Countess of Chester Hospital neonatal unit and attempting to murder 10 more, is…
www.chesterstandard.co.uk
All JMO
