UK - Nurse Lucy Letby, Faces 22 Charges - 7 Murder/15 Attempted Murder of Babies #21

[marynnu]

Letby: Staff were 'panicked' about caring for baby with haemophilia​

Lucy Letby says staff on the Countess of Chester neonatal unit were "panicked" at having Child N on the ward with his condition.
She tells the court she herself had not encountered a baby with haemophilia before and she "doesn't think anyone" was familiar with how to deal with it.
Ben Myers KC, her barrister, pulls up a text Letby sent to a colleague about Child N on 2 June 2016, where she says: "Everyone bit panicked by seems of things although baby appears fine."
Asked about this, Letby says "all nursing staff, medical staff... were panicked by the condition Child N had and how they were going to manage that".

Lucy Letby trial: Facebook searches of nurse accused of murdering babies read out in court

Lucy Letby, a former neonatal nurse, has been back in court for another day of cross-examination by the prosecution on Friday. She is accused of the murder of seven babies and the attempted murder of 10 others, and denies all the charges.

news.sky.com

Everybody panicking except LL I wonder?

 

[Tortoise]

Letby denies attacking Child N in early hours​

Court documents show Letby was on duty during the night shift of 2-3 June 2016.
Child N crashed shortly after 1am that night, according to notes from a doctor.
"Was that the result of you performing some sort of attack on the baby?" her barrister Ben Myers KC asks.
Letby replies "no" and says she did not have involvement with Child N. The former nurse adds she did not know there had been an incident with the infant.
"Swipe data" shows Letby entered the neonatal unit at 1.15am on 3 June.

Lucy Letby trial: Facebook searches of nurse accused of murdering babies read out in court

Lucy Letby, a former neonatal nurse, has been back in court for another day of cross-examination by the prosecution on Friday. She is accused of the murder of seven babies and the attempted murder of 10 others, and denies all the charges.

news.sky.com

 

[Tortoise]

Dan O'Donoghue

@MrDanDonoghue
·
6m

Mr Myers is currently asking Ms Letby about what was also happening in her life at the time of these incidents. He pulls up messages to a colleague and a friend, the three were going on holiday together and sending messages about packing

Dan O'Donoghue

@MrDanDonoghue
·
4m

Ms Letby said she and her friends were 'excited' and 'looking forward' to going away to Ibiza. Mr Myers asks, in between planning her holiday if - as the prosecution allege - she was killing babies, 'no, that did not happen' she says

 

[Tortoise]

3:46pm

The shift rota for June 2-3 is shown to the court. Lucy Letby is on duty. She says she has no memory of the shift.
A note by Dr Jennifer Loughanne for Child N at 0110: 'desat, unsettled...got upset, looked mottled, dusky, sats down to 40% - 100% O2. On my arrival 40% O2. screaming, poor trace on sats probe, pink, attempt to settle, crashed bleeped away. On return...sats 100%, asleep...'
Letby denies having any involvement in the incident.
A note by nurse Christopher Booth for Child N: '...One episode whilst I was on my break, whereby infant was crying++ and not settling. He becae dusky in colour, desaturating to 40s. Responded tofacial oxygen within 1-2 minutes. Crying subsided within 30 minutes...'
Letby again denies having any involvement in this event for Child N.
A neonatal schedule for June 2-3 is shown to the court. She tells the court she was doing feed/observations for one baby and assisting in prescriptions for another baby. Neither of them are Child N.
The event is recorded for Child N at 1am. Letby is next recorded on the schedule at 2.30am.
"Did you know there had been an incident with [Child N]?"
"No."
Swipe data is shown that Letby entered the neonatal unit at 1.15am. The court has heard swipe data is collected when staff members enter the unit, not exit. Letby tells the court she may not have been in the unit at 1am.
"The allegations against you are of the most grave nature, aren't they?"
"Yes."
In June 2016, Letby is asked about 'concerns outside of work' - Letby said she had "an active life" with hobbies and friends.
Instant messages are shown to the court, from the morning of June 13, in relation to packing for a holiday Letby took with a friend and a nursing colleague.
The discussion refers to a series of Love Island and who hosted Love Island/Temptation Island. Mr Myers explains to the court who Abbey Clancy is.
Mr Myers asks if Letby was thinking about killing babies during that time. Letby denies that was the case.

Recap: Lucy Letby trial, Tuesday, May 16 - defence continues

The trial of Lucy Letby, who denies murdering seven babies at the Countess of Chester Hospital neonatal unit and attempting to murder 10 more,…

www.chesterstandard.co.uk

 

[Tortoise]

'Were you planning to kill babies?'​

Before moving to the further incidents involving Child N on 15 June 2016, Ben Myers KC asks his client about her life at the time.
"What were concerns in your life? What did you occupy yourself with?"
Lucy Letby says she had "a very busy life" outside of work, where she had "lots of hobbies" and "used to meet with friends a lot".
The court is shown texts between Letby, a colleague and a friend, who had planned a holiday together starting 16 June.
Letby tells the court she was "happy to go to work" before the holiday but was "excited to have the time off".
Mr Myers asks Letby: "In that time were you planning to kill babies?"
"No," she replies.
"That's what the prosecution say."
"That didn't happen," she says.

Lucy Letby trial: Facebook searches of nurse accused of murdering babies read out in court

Lucy Letby, a former neonatal nurse, has been back in court for another day of cross-examination by the prosecution on Friday. She is accused of the murder of seven babies and the attempted murder of 10 others, and denies all the charges.

news.sky.com

 

[Tortoise]

Mr Myers asks Letby how important it was for her to treat these babies.
"Very important - I took the job extremely seriously...we want to make sure the babies go home."

"Very important - I took the job extremely seriously...we want to make sure the babies go home."

All these we statements are very noticeable. She should naturally be answering questions about herself, not others. It looks like wanting to divert attention from herself, to me.

IMO

 

[Tortoise]

4:02pm

A shift pattern for Letby for June 2016 shows Letby worked long day shifts on June 8, 10, 11, 13, 14 and 15.
A doctor colleague says, on June 14: "Am I right in thinking you'll have done 6 long days in the last 8? No wonder you're tired"
Letby says at the end of her June 14 shift, for the handover of Child N's care to Jennifer Jones-Key: "I don't recall there being any concerns at that time" for Child N.
A nursing note by Lucy Letby for June 14 is shown to the court. It includes: '...repeat SBR this morning on downward trend but not yet >50 below treatment line but otherwise ready for home'.
Letby says Child N was being treated for jaundice and required further phototherapy. Once that was complete, he was ready to go home.
Jennifer Jones-Key notes: '...baby very unsettled early part of night. Inoticed that just after 0100 feed baby looked very pale, mottled and veiny. Abdomen slightly bigger - seen by NNU nurse Belinda Simcock, advised to place baby on saturation monitor...after 30 mins noted to be having desaturations to low 80s, no intervention required but quite frequent. Rest of observations within range....baby looked worst this morning...10% dextrose commenced...'
Letby agrees Child N deteriorated during the night.
'...at 0715 baby crying and dropped saturations - seen by NNU nurse Lucy. Neopuff given with 100% oxygen...noted to be mottled all over body and blue in colour and cold to touch. Decision made to transfer to nursery 1... At handover baby dropped saturations again and required Neopuff. Care handed over to NNU nurse Lucy Letby'.
Swipe data shows Letby and a colleague entering the neonatal unit before 7.15am, in time for the 7.30am shift.
Letby recalls she went to nursery room 3 to talk to Jennifer Jones-Key "She was a good friend of mine" - as part of getting ready to work. The handover had not yet taken place "not that I'm aware of".
She said the chat happened and "within minutes" Child N's monitor went off and Child N appeared mottled. Letby says Jennifer Jones-Key was tending to another baby. Letby says she was within the doorway and had not entered the room.
Child N was in a cot by the doorway. Letby said she went straight over to him and he was a 'bluish colour' and she called for help.
Letby says Jennifer Jones-Key finished what she was doing and came over to help.
A registrar doctor came over almost immediately to help. Child N recovered from the initial episode but deteriorated again "very quickly".
"His colour was not good, he was mottled, and the decision was taken to move [Child N] to room 1".
Letby says she had been in the unit for "minutes".
The docotr said the decision was made to intubate Child N.
Letby tells the court she got the equipment ready for intubation, including routine drugs.

4:10pm

A neonatal schedule shows Letby assisted in the administration of medication for Child N at 8am-8.06am.
Letby is asked if she saw blood at some point during the intubation process. Letby says she does recall that, but cannot recall at what point that was.
The doctor's notes: 'Attempted intubation x3...using size zero blade. Blood present at oropharynx. Unable to visualise tracheal inlet. Suction did not clear the view. Intubation abandoned due to blood present...oropharynx...trauma due to repeated attempts.'
Letby recorded in her notes: '...unable to intubate - fresh blood noted in mouth and yielded via suction ++'
Letby tells the court her interpretation of the note is the blood would have appeared after the attempt to intubate.

Recap: Lucy Letby trial, Tuesday, May 16 - defence continues

The trial of Lucy Letby, who denies murdering seven babies at the Countess of Chester Hospital neonatal unit and attempting to murder 10 more,…

www.chesterstandard.co.uk

 

[Diddly1]

So far from LL’s testimony the parents are wrong, the Dr’s are wrong and the other nurses are all wrong, basically everyone is lying except Lucy

 

[marynnu]

"Very important - I took the job extremely seriously...we want to make sure the babies go home."

All these we statements are very noticeable. She should naturally be answering questions about herself, not others. It looks like wanting to divert attention from herself, to me.

IMO

I disagree. This way of expressing yourself is normal in a ward environment.

 

[ColourPurple]

Mr Myers asks Ms Letby: 'Did you know that there had been an incident with (Child N)?', she says 'no'. Door swipe data from the time shows Ms Letby enters the unit at 01:15hrs that morning - 10mins after Child N's collapse

Well that's not much use without knowing when she swiped out before that. If guilty, and if Dr J is to be believed she is capable of attacking a baby within minutes of their DN leaving and an attack itself would be very quick.

JMO

 

[ColourPurple]

Swipe data is shown that Letby entered the neonatal unit at 1.15am. The court has heard swipe data is collected when staff members enter the unit, not exit. Letby tells the court she may not have been in the unit at 1am.

And equally, she may have been!

How frustrating! If it only records swiping in and not out, you could literally swipe out a minute before, then swipe back in and nobody would know how long you'd been out of the ward for!

 

[Marie Bell]

And equally, she may have been!

How frustrating! If it only records swiping in and not out, you could literally swipe out a minute before, then swipe back in and nobody would know how long you'd been out of the ward for!

Presumably then, there would have been further entry swipes, and it would have been in evidence had there had been one in the immediate period before. I don't see why this is *frustrating* if one views the trial impartially/objectively.

 

[ColourPurple]

Presumably then, there would have been further entry swipes, and it would have been in evidence had there had been one in the immediate period before. I don't see why this is *frustrating* if one views the trial impartially/objectively.

It's frustrating that it doesn't record a swipe out time, which essentially makes the swipe in time of little value. For anybody who is interested in facts and interested in knowing whether LL was in or out of the NNU at a certain time, that lack of detail is frustrating!

ETA in response to the first part of your post- as they've explained it wouldn't record whether she'd just swiped out minutes before or hours before. It would only record the previous time she'd swiped in, not what time she'd swiped out between the two swipe ins.

 

[Tortoise]

I disagree. This way of expressing yourself is normal in a ward environment.

She isn't in a ward environment she's in court, and she is not being asked what her colleagues wanted. It's a matter of defending herself, not what any nurse thinks in general, which is irrelevant to her case.

 

[Blondiexoxo]

Haven’t had time to catch up fully on todays testimony yet but this just caught my eye:

The shift rota for June 2-3 is shown to the court. Lucy Letby is on duty. She says she has no memory of the shift.

And then….

A neonatal schedule for June 2-3 is shown to the court. She tells the court she was doing feed/observations for one baby and assisting in prescriptions for another baby. Neither of them are child N.

How can you claim to have no memory of a shift, then go on to tell the court what you were doing at a certain time on said shift?

 

[marynnu]

She isn't in a ward environment and she is not being asked what her colleagues wanted. It's a matter of defending herself, not what any nurse thinks in general, which is irrelevant to her case.

I know, but it's still about the workplace which was so central to her life. I still say 'we' when referring to common practice where I worked 7 years ago!

 

[Tortoise]

4:17pm

A 3pm note on a fluids chart records '3ml fresh blood' as an aspirate. Letby says she did recall seeing blood in the afternoon. The note is signed by a nursing colleague of Letby - the other hourly observations are signed by Letby.
1ml fresh blood is noted by Letby at 10am and 6pm.
'Blood++' is also recorded by Letby on a note, which the court hears is "after 8am". "Blood in mouth" is recorded at 9am.

4:27pm

Mr Myers refers to police interviews Letby had. Letby says none of what was discussed in the questioning referred to any blood seen on Child N prior to the 8am intubation.
She told police the "airway issue" was from 3pm-4pm, in attempts at intubation, and recalls, from memory, seeing blood prior to 4pm.
Letby denies saying she saw blood prior to 8am.

Recap: Lucy Letby trial, Tuesday, May 16 - defence continues

The trial of Lucy Letby, who denies murdering seven babies at the Countess of Chester Hospital neonatal unit and attempting to murder 10 more,…

www.chesterstandard.co.uk

 

[Blondiexoxo]

Notice for the insulin poisoning allegations, she is ‘unsure’ of who exactly hung the bag up, both times it’s ‘it would have either been me or *colleague*’ slipping colleagues names in here, there and everywhere! Are we supposed to believe that everyone else wasn’t following the rules but ‘nice Lucy’ did everything right?

Can’t wait to hear cross examination, I’m expecting it either tomorrow afternoon or Thursday morning. Will be interesting to follow, I hope they’ve been taking notes of every single answer she’s given…

 

[Tortoise]

I know, but it's still about the workplace which was so central to her life. I still say 'we' when referring to common practice where I worked 7 years ago!

But if you were being asked if you wanted to harm babies it would be more usual to answer for yourself, not others. IMO

 

[Marie Bell]

It's frustrating that it doesn't record a swipe out time, which essentially makes the swipe in time of little value. For anybody who is interested in facts and interested in knowing whether LL was in or out of the NNU at a certain time, that lack of detail is frustrating!

ETA in response to the first part of your post- as they've explained it wouldn't record whether she'd just swiped out minutes before or hours before. It would only record the previous time she'd swiped in, not what time she'd swiped out between the two swipe ins.

I'm interested only in what's in evidence and whether the prosecution is able to prove its case.