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

[bobbymkii]

IMO we are going to have blame of other hospital staff / management at the core of the defence.

staff - no
management - yes!

 

[Dotta]

IMO we are going to have blame of other hospital staff / management at the core of the defence.

On some other thread this tactic was called "spaghetti defence" haha
You know - throw spaghetti at the wall and see what sticks.

JMO

 

[notsure]

It seems odd that someone would remember the specifics of all the alleged incidents after all these years, especially when there were lots of other babies going in and out of the unit. If innocent, I would imagine I'd be saying "I can't remember" quite frequently, when questioned.

 

[katydid23]

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

That's good, and as it should be. But it does hamper the prosecution if the card swipe system does not fully explain the whereabouts of the defendant. IMO

 

[katydid23]

IMO we are going to have blame of other hospital staff / management at the core of the defence.

Not only blame, but boldly calling them dishonest or mistaken.

 

[Parker Knoll]

Oh dear - so many inconsistencies today it’s staggering and yet she ploughs on.
MOO.

 

[katydid23]

Can anyone remember if LL has always denied the exchange between herself and Dr Jayaram ?

"Mr Johnson, who read out part of Ms Letby's interviews to police, said: "She stated she would have raised the alarm if Dr Jayaram had not walked in and if she had seen the saturations dropping or that the tube had slipped.
"Miss Letby thought it possible that she was waiting to see if [Child K] self-corrected," he said.
"She explained that nurses don't always intervene straightaway if levels were not 'dangerously low'."

Lucy Letby: Nurse denied dislodging baby's breathing tube, trial hears

opening statements -

"In police interview, when Dr Jayaram's account was put to her, she said no concerns had been raised at the time.
She said the alarm had not sounded. She said Child K was sedated and had not been moving around.
She also did not recall either any significant fall in saturations or there being no alarm. She accepted that in the circumstances described by Dr Jayaram she would have expected the alarm to have sounded.
she denied dislodging the tube and said she would have summoned help had Dr Jayaram not arrived, saying she was "possibly waiting to see if she self-corrected, we don’t normally intervene straight away if they weren’t dangerously low".

Recap: Prosecution opens trial of Lucy Letby accused of Countess of Chester Hospital baby murders

I am still shocked that LL changes her story yesterday, about child K.

It does not seem like a good legal strategy----for a couple of reasons.

Number one, jurors don't like it when the defendant changes their story, especially in a big way.

And two, her original explanation----'I was standing watch to see if the baby would recover naturally, which often happens'--was a pretty sound explanation. I thought it could seem reasonable and Dr J would have no real answer for that.

SO her doing a 180 here in testimony, and ignoring her past testimony, that she was there but just watching to see what was happening, and now saying 'she had no reason to be in that room and does not recall ever being there'---it sounds very suspect now. Whereas it sounded reasonable initially.

She appears to be squaring off with Dr J, calling him out as being sorely mistaken or downright dishonest. That is a very bold move and I am not sure it is a winning strategy.

I don't think that others will find fault with Dr J being concerned about the sudden surge in patient collapses and deaths.

 

[Cluedoneit]

Not only blame, but boldly calling them dishonest or mistaken.

I think she may have messed up here. What’s the chances that doctors, nurses and parents are all mistaken about events but she has almost perfect recall if she’s just another nurse on the ward at the time?
All the prosecution has to point out is why is her memory so much better than everyone else if these were just ordinary days at work for her?
For the parents, these events were unique, the staff at the most had 7 events to remember, and for most these were the first time babies had exhibited those symptoms in their entire careers, but Letby has 22 such events in just under a year? If innocent why are they so memorable now when she had very little memory when questioned 2 years later?

 

[katydid23]

I am still shocked that LL changes her story yesterday, about child K.

It does not seem like a good legal strategy----for a couple of reasons.

Number one, jurors don't like it when the defendant changes their story, especially in a big way.

And two, her original explanation----'I was standing watch to see if the baby would recover naturally, which often happens'--was a pretty sound explanation. I thought it could seem reasonable and Dr J would have no real answer for that.

SO her doing a 180 here in testimony, and ignoring her past testimony, that she was there but just watching to see what was happening, and now saying 'she had no reason to be in that room and does not recall ever being there'---it sounds very suspect now. Whereas it sounded reasonable initially.

She appears to be squaring off with Dr J, calling him out as being sorely mistaken or downright dishonest. That is a very bold move and I am not sure it is a winning strategy.

I don't think that others will find fault with Dr J being concerned about the sudden surge in patient collapses and deaths.

To add another thought about WHY she wanted to change her testimony---did she want to make it appear as though Dr J was targeting her ?

If she was nowhere near the baby at that time, and the doctor is testifying that he saw her standing by the cot, and he is accusing her of shutting off the alarm monitor, and maybe tampering with the breathing tube, then he is lying and framing her. Is that why she changed her original testimony---so that she could imply he was framing her?

That would be a good strategy---if only she hadn't already told the police, in formal interviews, that she had been standing there at the cot when Dr J walked in.

 

[katydid23]

I am going back through her earlier police interviews and comparing and contrasting with her recent testimonies in court.

Here is a summary of her 3 Baby G interviews with police:
Wednesday January 18th 2023 - Live Updates Chester Standard


Day 40 of Prosecution Evidence

Baby G

Lucy Letby's Police Interview Summaries


Nicholas Johnson KC is now relaying Letby's interviews with police. Letby recalls Child G and could not remember why she had taken over care of her.
She said "sometimes babies vomit, but not very often is it a projectile vomit".
She said she was not involved in Child G's feed. She recalled she may have gone over to Child G when she heard vomiting.
She was asked about the significance of the air in the NGT. She says sometimes air is taken in when babies vomit.
She said she was not sure of the cause of the air in Child G's abdomen.
She was asked about the "profound desaturation" on September 7, 2015. She could not clearly recall who was there at the time, or where she was at the time.

For September 21, 2015, Letby had a "vague recollection" of the shift.
She said it was a "busy shift" and she was "looking after other babies as well" at that time.
She said there had been "no issue" with the 9am feed, and could not clearly recall the vomit at 10.15am.

She was later re-interviewed. For September 7, Letby could not recall any concerns with Child G prior to the event.
She said there were two possibilities - that Child G had received more than 45mls of milk, or there was undigested milk in the stomach. She denied force-feeding milk or administering air to Child G.

For September 21, Letby agreed Child G's stomach would have been empty when the feed began. She denied intentionally harming the baby girl.

In the third police interview, Letby was asked again about the September 21, 2015 incident. She said she remembered going behind the screen and seeing Child G. She did not recall seeing a monitor which had been switched off. She denied switching the monitor off.
She agreed it was bad practice to switch the monitor off, and "someone had made a mistake" in switching the monitor off and leaving the child behind a screen unobserved.

11:41am

That concludes the evidence for Child G.

Recap: Lucy Letby trial, Wednesday, January 18




Court Testimony May :

The court hears evidence about the second incident on September 21.
Letby says parents would be allowed and in the unit at about 3pm that day. Letby says for this incident, she remembers being 'conscious there were other parents' in the room.

Screens were put up as "normal practice" for privacy, as Child G was having cannulation following her event.
The note records: 'Numerous failed attempts then at cannulation. Finally inserted by Dr Gibbs. Without fluid for 6 hours, as [nil by mouth]. Blood sugars were stable throughout....further significant apnoea/brady/desat following cannulation requiring Neopuff and 100% oxygen. Help summoned...'
Letby says she discovered the desaturation, and called for help. She said Child G had been behind the screen for some time, and had been looking after her other designated babies. She says she was aware the cannulation process took some time, but was not present to see it taking place as it was behing the screens.
A long line chart is shown to the court, which noted the cannula was inserted at the 7th attempt.
Letby said she cannot recall why she went in, but saw behind the screen that she was alone. She was 'dusky and blue and not breathing'.
The monitor was "not on".

Letby says Child G was on the 'procedure trolley' - used for procedures such as cannulation. Letby says the baby should not have been left alone on the trolley like that.
She says she picked up Child G and put her back in her cot, applied Neopuff and called for help.
Letby says she did not know why the monitor was off.
The nurse colleague "froze" and got someone else to help. Another nurse, Caroline Bennion, came in.
Letby said she was "very concerned" about three issues - a baby being unattended on a procedure trolley, alone behind screens, and with a monitor switched off.
Letby said she raised those concerns with a nursing colleague, and was keen to file a 'Datix report'. The nursing colleague was less keen, Letby says, to raise the issue, as the procedure had been carried out by Dr Gibbs.
Letby said she "took assurances" the issues would have been dealt with as discussed.

LIVE: Lucy Letby trial, Monday, May 15 - defence expected to continue​

There was no mention of the baby being left on a trolley during her first 3 police interviews.

Yesterday in court she was very adamant that it was a serious concern. Did she just forget about it until now?

 

[katydid23]

2:10pm

The trial is now resuming following its lunch break. Benjamin Myers KC is continuing to ask Lucy Letby questions in relation to Child H.
The second event is being discussed. For the night of September 26-27, Lucy Letby was the designated nurse for two babies in room 2. Nurse Christopher Booth was the designated nurse for Child G in room 2, and Nurse Shelley Tomlins was the designated nurse for Child H in room 1.
The court is shown nurse Tomlin's notes for that shift, which include: '...around 2030 [Child H] had profound desat and brady, air entry no longer heard and capnography negative therefore ETT removed and Drs crashbleeped. New ETT sited...on second attempt...'
This event is something, the court hears, Letby is not being blamed for.
'2145 - Desaturation to 40% despite good air entry and positive capnography. ETT suctioned quickly with thick blood-stained secretions noted. [Child H] recovered quickly after...'This was also not an event Letby was blamed for, Mr Myers tells the court.

2:12pm

'0055 - profound desaturation to 40% despite equal bilateral air entry and positive capnography. ET suction yielded nil secretions. [Child H] then went bradycardiac at 0107 to 40bpm and required chest compressions and adrenaline at 0108. Saline bolus given at 0112...'
Letby is asked if she had any involvement with this event.
Letby: "No."

2:14pm

'0330 - profound desaturation to 60s, again requiring neopuffing with no knwon cause for desat....copious amounts of secretions yielded orally, pink tinged. Small amount of ET secretions gained, again pink tinged. Heart rate mainly nomral during desat. Recovered slowly.'
Letby is asked if she had any awareness of any of the events, including at 0055, the event Letby is being blamed for by the prosecution.
Letby: "No."

Recap: Lucy Letby trial, Monday, May 15 - 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, is…

www.chesterstandard.co.uk

Here is an interesting tidbit from Dr Gibbs, being asked about Baby H and the collapses:

Chest compressions from nursing staff were under way when consultant paediatrician Dr John Gibbs arrived to the first collapse.

Three doses of adrenaline were administered to help stimulate the heart of the youngster and her heart rate eventually rose to a safe level after 22 minutes of resuscitation.

Philip Astbury, prosecuting, asked the now retired doctor: “Was the use of adrenaline in those circumstances a commonplace occurrence?”

Dr Gibbs replied: “No. It was becoming more common as events continued on the unit with repeated collapses of babies. Until 2015, uncommon.”

Adrenaline for babies in cardiac arrest rare until 2015, nurse trial told | ITV News

 

[katydid23]

This was my worry when the nurse came forward during court to say she remembered the consultant apologised for leaving monitor off ...its only LLS word that that happened.

Forgetting to attach a monitor is one thing but leaving a tiny baby on a procedure trolley ?

She never mentioned the baby being left on the trolley during her three police interviews. I think that is odd if it was so upsetting.

She just testified that she put the baby back on the cot herself. No mention of it during her previous three formal police interviews.

 

[Jazmania]

In her testimony yesterday when Letby denied being in room 1 when Dr Jayaram walked in, she said she had initially said the same thing in her police interview. Yet the summary we have of her interviews has her saying that she must have been waiting to see if the baby self corrected. It would be really helpful to have more detail about exactly how her story changed over the three interviews to the one she is now presenting to the court.

 

[katydid23]

Defence Case Continued 15th May 2023

Child I

Mr Myers moves on to the case of Child I, a baby girl born on August 7, 2015 at Liverpool Women's Hospital at a gestational age of 27 weeks.
She was transferred to the Countess of Chester Hospital on August 18. 'Active problems' noted by Dr Sally Ogden at the time of transfer included 'preterm, [respiratory distress syndrome], establishing feeds, jaundice, suspected sepsis'.
September 5-6, 2015, saw a number of events where Child I deteriorated and she was transferred to Liverpool. Mr Myers says Letby is not being blamed for those events.
Child I was transferred back to the Countess later that month, and on September 30, at 4pm, Child I had vomiting, brady, apnoea and desaturation, followed by a similar event later that day.
Another event happened on October 13 with Child I deteriorating. The following morning, Child I deteriorated and required resuscitation.
She was transferred to Arrowe Park on October 15 before returning to the Countess on October 17. Child I had a desaturation on October 22, and died the following morning.

Letby is asked if she had a recollection of Child I. Letby says she does.
She was a baby "with us for many months and got to know her [and the family] really well."
She had 'complex problems' which required frequent transfer to Liverpool. Child I's abdomen "was always more distended than normal" and there were occasions when that distention would increase, Letby tells the court.
Letby confirms to Mr Myers she looked after Child I on many occasions.

A radiograph from August 23, 2015, is shown to the court. Mr Myers says this had been part of what experts classed as a 'suspicious event', with a clincial note at the time recording 'non-specific gaseous distention of the abdomen which is suggestive of [NEC]' in Child I.
A record of Letby's work shifts shows Letby was not in work that day.

Mr Myers refers to the next events for Child I.
Nursing notes by Ashleigh Hudson on October 13 are shown to the court.
The notes include: '...'pale, pink in colour but well perfused.
0322- when in the nursery, neonatal nurse Lucy Letby noticed that [Child I] looked quite pale., when turning the light on for closer examination, we found [Child I] to be very pale in colour and not moving. Apnoea alarm in situ, had not sounded, breathing was shallow and rr appeared low....monitoring commenced....30% neopuff O2 commenced...chest compressions commenced at 0325, no heart rate heard...'
Lucy Letby's note, 'written for care given from 0345' - '[Child I] noted to be pale in cot by myself at 0320, S/N Hudson present. Apnoea alarm in situ and had not sounded...full resuscitation commenced as documented in medical notes'.
A nursing shift rota is shown for October 12-13, with Lucy Letby in room 1, designated nurse for one baby. Ashleigh Hudson was designated nurse for three babies in room 2, including Child G and Child I.

Letby says she cannot recall looking after Child I prior to 3.20am. She recalls going with Ashleigh Hudson the room 2 together, and noticing Child I looked pale.
"Ashleigh was doing something on the worktop...with her back to the cot. I was in the doorway, talking to Ashleigh."
Mr Myers: "What was the illumination level like?"
Letby: "I can see clearly enough that [Child I] was pale in the cot. [Child I] was in front of a window. At no point is any nursery in complete darkness.
"The only time we have that is in room 4, for babies preparing to go home.
"It's important we need to see them visually.
"We need to see the monitors and the babies themselves."
Letby adds the colour level of a baby "is one of the most important things we assess".
"I could see her face and her hands...she just looked very pale.
"I said to Ashleigh she looked very pale and we turned the lights up". Letby says she cannot recall if the light had been on a dimmer switch, but the lighting was turned up.
Child I was "very unwell" so care was given.
The apnoea alarm had not gone off as, Letby says, Child I was 'gasping' and occasionally taking in air.
Letby says she and Ashleigh Hudson called for help.

I am going back through her earlier police interviews and comparing and contrasting with her recent testimonies in court.

Here is a summary of her 3 Baby G interviews with police:
Wednesday January 18th 2023 - Live Updates Chester Standard


Day 40 of Prosecution Evidence

Baby G

Lucy Letby's Police Interview Summaries


Nicholas Johnson KC is now relaying Letby's interviews with police. Letby recalls Child G and could not remember why she had taken over care of her.
She said "sometimes babies vomit, but not very often is it a projectile vomit".
She said she was not involved in Child G's feed. She recalled she may have gone over to Child G when she heard vomiting.
She was asked about the significance of the air in the NGT. She says sometimes air is taken in when babies vomit.
She said she was not sure of the cause of the air in Child G's abdomen.
She was asked about the "profound desaturation" on September 7, 2015. She could not clearly recall who was there at the time, or where she was at the time.

For September 21, 2015, Letby had a "vague recollection" of the shift.
She said it was a "busy shift" and she was "looking after other babies as well" at that time.
She said there had been "no issue" with the 9am feed, and could not clearly recall the vomit at 10.15am.

She was later re-interviewed. For September 7, Letby could not recall any concerns with Child G prior to the event.
She said there were two possibilities - that Child G had received more than 45mls of milk, or there was undigested milk in the stomach. She denied force-feeding milk or administering air to Child G.

For September 21, Letby agreed Child G's stomach would have been empty when the feed began. She denied intentionally harming the baby girl.

In the third police interview, Letby was asked again about the September 21, 2015 incident. She said she remembered going behind the screen and seeing Child G. She did not recall seeing a monitor which had been switched off. She denied switching the monitor off.
She agreed it was bad practice to switch the monitor off, and "someone had made a mistake" in switching the monitor off and leaving the child behind a screen unobserved.

11:41am

That concludes the evidence for Child G.

Recap: Lucy Letby trial, Wednesday, January 18




Court Testimony May :

The court hears evidence about the second incident on September 21.
Letby says parents would be allowed and in the unit at about 3pm that day. Letby says for this incident, she remembers being 'conscious there were other parents' in the room.

Screens were put up as "normal practice" for privacy, as Child G was having cannulation following her event.
The note records: 'Numerous failed attempts then at cannulation. Finally inserted by Dr Gibbs. Without fluid for 6 hours, as [nil by mouth]. Blood sugars were stable throughout....further significant apnoea/brady/desat following cannulation requiring Neopuff and 100% oxygen. Help summoned...'
Letby says she discovered the desaturation, and called for help. She said Child G had been behind the screen for some time, and had been looking after her other designated babies. She says she was aware the cannulation process took some time, but was not present to see it taking place as it was behing the screens.
A long line chart is shown to the court, which noted the cannula was inserted at the 7th attempt.
Letby said she cannot recall why she went in, but saw behind the screen that she was alone. She was 'dusky and blue and not breathing'.
The monitor was "not on".

Letby says Child G was on the 'procedure trolley' - used for procedures such as cannulation. Letby says the baby should not have been left alone on the trolley like that.
She says she picked up Child G and put her back in her cot, applied Neopuff and called for help.
Letby says she did not know why the monitor was off.
The nurse colleague "froze" and got someone else to help. Another nurse, Caroline Bennion, came in.
Letby said she was "very concerned" about three issues - a baby being unattended on a procedure trolley, alone behind screens, and with a monitor switched off.
Letby said she raised those concerns with a nursing colleague, and was keen to file a 'Datix report'. The nursing colleague was less keen, Letby says, to raise the issue, as the procedure had been carried out by Dr Gibbs.
Letby said she "took assurances" the issues would have been dealt with as discussed.

LIVE: Lucy Letby trial, Monday, May 15 - defence expected to continue​

There was no mention of the baby being left on a trolley during her first 3 police interviews.

Yesterday in court she was very adamant that it was a serious concern. Did she just forget about it until now?

I JUST FOUND a reference to the trolley mistake in a Daily Mail article last December. Too late to edit my post...

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...larm-save-infant-baby-deaths-trial-hears.html


Apparently she did make that accusation back then, but reporters didn't include it in their trial tweets?

Is she really the one who found the baby on the trolley, behind the screen with no monitor on? Any other witnesses to that?

According to Lucy, she was the one who found that emergency situation and moved the baby to the cot and called for help.

 

[ShireChe]

I think its important to clarify her testimony for Child K and I don't think it has changed. She denied being there originally, but said what she would have been doing if those situations had happened

Whether it's true or not is another matter entirely.

 

[katydid23]

She never mentioned the baby being left on the trolley during her three police interviews. I think that is odd if it was so upsetting.

She just testified that she put the baby back on the cot herself. No mention of it during her previous three formal police interviews.

It wasn't mentioned by any reporters by tweet in terms of her police interviews----but I did find one Daily Mail article which mentioned the accusation that a doctor must have left a baby alone behind a screen on a trolley, with no monitor.

But Letby has said that she was the one who found the baby and moved them to safety----so was it even true?

 

[WaxLyrical]

I think the original reporting is so sparse that it’s basically impossible to determine at this point where, and indeed if, her testimony has changed. Her police interviews have been discussed for hours and hours in court and we’ve seen tiny snippets here and there, the odd tweet, long conversations reduced down to a single headline. Even for Baby K, which seems at first glance to be a 180, when you look back and she says she “would have” been looking for a self-correct, it feels impossible to interpret this without knowing the exact question and what the preceding discussion was.

Even since the whole ‘don’t know what an air embolus is’ saga, which was completely misleading, I’ve taken most of what’s been reported by the press about the police interviews with a big dose of salt.

JMO.

 

[JosieJo]

Defence Case Continued 15th May 2023

Child I

Mr Myers moves on to the case of Child I, a baby girl born on August 7, 2015 at Liverpool Women's Hospital at a gestational age of 27 weeks.
She was transferred to the Countess of Chester Hospital on August 18. 'Active problems' noted by Dr Sally Ogden at the time of transfer included 'preterm, [respiratory distress syndrome], establishing feeds, jaundice, suspected sepsis'.
September 5-6, 2015, saw a number of events where Child I deteriorated and she was transferred to Liverpool. Mr Myers says Letby is not being blamed for those events.
Child I was transferred back to the Countess later that month, and on September 30, at 4pm, Child I had vomiting, brady, apnoea and desaturation, followed by a similar event later that day.
Another event happened on October 13 with Child I deteriorating. The following morning, Child I deteriorated and required resuscitation.
She was transferred to Arrowe Park on October 15 before returning to the Countess on October 17. Child I had a desaturation on October 22, and died the following morning.

Letby is asked if she had a recollection of Child I. Letby says she does.
She was a baby "with us for many months and got to know her [and the family] really well."
She had 'complex problems' which required frequent transfer to Liverpool. Child I's abdomen "was always more distended than normal" and there were occasions when that distention would increase, Letby tells the court.
Letby confirms to Mr Myers she looked after Child I on many occasions.

A radiograph from August 23, 2015, is shown to the court. Mr Myers says this had been part of what experts classed as a 'suspicious event', with a clincial note at the time recording 'non-specific gaseous distention of the abdomen which is suggestive of [NEC]' in Child I.
A record of Letby's work shifts shows Letby was not in work that day.

Mr Myers refers to the next events for Child I.
Nursing notes by Ashleigh Hudson on October 13 are shown to the court.
The notes include: '...'pale, pink in colour but well perfused.
0322- when in the nursery, neonatal nurse Lucy Letby noticed that [Child I] looked quite pale., when turning the light on for closer examination, we found [Child I] to be very pale in colour and not moving. Apnoea alarm in situ, had not sounded, breathing was shallow and rr appeared low....monitoring commenced....30% neopuff O2 commenced...chest compressions commenced at 0325, no heart rate heard...'
Lucy Letby's note, 'written for care given from 0345' - '[Child I] noted to be pale in cot by myself at 0320, S/N Hudson present. Apnoea alarm in situ and had not sounded...full resuscitation commenced as documented in medical notes'.
A nursing shift rota is shown for October 12-13, with Lucy Letby in room 1, designated nurse for one baby. Ashleigh Hudson was designated nurse for three babies in room 2, including Child G and Child I.

Letby says she cannot recall looking after Child I prior to 3.20am. She recalls going with Ashleigh Hudson the room 2 together, and noticing Child I looked pale.
"Ashleigh was doing something on the worktop...with her back to the cot. I was in the doorway, talking to Ashleigh."
Mr Myers: "What was the illumination level like?"
Letby: "I can see clearly enough that [Child I] was pale in the cot. [Child I] was in front of a window. At no point is any nursery in complete darkness.
"The only time we have that is in room 4, for babies preparing to go home.
"It's important we need to see them visually.
"We need to see the monitors and the babies themselves."
Letby adds the colour level of a baby "is one of the most important things we assess".
"I could see her face and her hands...she just looked very pale.
"I said to Ashleigh she looked very pale and we turned the lights up". Letby says she cannot recall if the light had been on a dimmer switch, but the lighting was turned up.
Child I was "very unwell" so care was given.
The apnoea alarm had not gone off as, Letby says, Child I was 'gasping' and occasionally taking in air.
Letby says she and Ashleigh Hudson called for help.

I JUST FOUND a reference to the trolley mistake in a Daily Mail article last December. Too late to edit my post...

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...larm-save-infant-baby-deaths-trial-hears.html


Apparently she did make that accusation back then, but reporters didn't include it in their trial tweets?

Is she really the one who found the baby on the trolley, behind the screen with no monitor on? Any other witnesses to that?

According to Lucy, she was the one who found that emergency situation and moved the baby to the cot and called for help.

Thank you for this

 

[WaxLyrical]

It wasn't mentioned by any reporters by tweet in terms of her police interviews----but I did find one Daily Mail article which mentioned the accusation that a doctor must have left a baby alone behind a screen on a trolley, with no monitor.

But Letby has said that she was the one who found the baby and moved them to safety----so was it even true?

We have to look at this situation objectively. LL was not the designated nurse. If the designated nurse had been looking after this baby, or had even checked on the baby, there would be no question on whether that baby was on a trolley.

So if LL was lying, she would also have to know that the designated nurse had not looked behind the screen once to check the baby.

The concerns were raised to a manager on the same day, and on that same day the doctors apologised for the trolley and for the monitor being off. Their memories may be hazy now, but they weren’t hazy then.

JMO.

 

[JosieJo]

I think the original reporting is so sparse that it’s basically impossible to determine at this point where, and indeed if, her testimony has changed. Her police interviews have been discussed for hours and hours in court and we’ve seen tiny snippets here and there, the odd tweet, long conversations reduced down to a single headline. Even for Baby K, which seems at first glance to be a 180, when you look back and she says she “would have” been looking for a self-correct, it feels impossible to interpret this without knowing the exact question and what the preceding discussion was.

Even since the whole ‘don’t know what an air embolus is’ saga, which was completely misleading, I’ve taken most of what’s been reported by the press about the police interviews with a big dose of salt.

JMO.

Yes I agree it's very difficult...the only thing that does seem clearer is that she denies remembering both baby Es mum and Dr Jayaram version of events...the two people who potentialy almost "caught her in the act" despite having good memory of most other things