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

[JosieJo]

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.

Regarding not knowing if the designated nurse had been behind curtain would be easy if she saw the Dr's leave .. but I agree the Dr's memory would not be bad on the day itself.
It's just if LL saw an opportunity and took it or not

 

[WaxLyrical]

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

With Dr J’s recollections, I am not entirely convinced by them, even the designated nurses’s recollections differ significantly from Dr J’s. And the fact he made no note of anything, anywhere, makes me wonder how he can even be certain that the event he is recalling is this specific event occurring with baby K.

With Baby E though, the mother’s memory will be (in my opinion) crystal clear, etched in her brain forever, not to mention corroborated by her husband and phone records.

JMO.

 

[WaxLyrical]

Regarding not knowing if the designated nurse had been behind curtain would be easy if she saw the Dr's leave .. but I agree the Dr's memory would not be bad on the day itself.
It's just if LL saw an opportunity and took it or not

Or possible they passed care over to letby directly when they were crash called elsewhere, I recall them saying they wouldn’t leave without passing care to a nurse?

But again, it feels like the sort of thing that would have been discussed on the day when apologies were made.

So many bloomin questions!

 

[katydid23]

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.

I don't read her testimony in that way. It sounds to me like she did admit to being there:


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'."
She denied dislodging the baby's ET tube and said it could slip if it was not secured properly.

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

Lucy Letby is accused of "interfering" with the baby's breathing tube two hours after her birth.

www.bbc.com

I don't see any denial of her being there in that room.

She described what happened---she thinks she was possibly waiting to see if Baby K self corrected. She would have raised the alarm if need be, but Dr J walked in and took over the emergency.

 

[katydid23]

With Dr J’s recollections, I am not entirely convinced by them, even the designated nurses’s recollections differ significantly from Dr J’s. And the fact he made no note of anything, anywhere, makes me wonder how he can even be certain that the event he is recalling is this specific event occurring with baby K.

With Baby E though, the mother’s memory will be (in my opinion) crystal clear, etched in her brain forever, not to mention corroborated by her husband and phone records.

JMO.

What about Letby's original testimony? She puts herself in that room, with Dr J walking in, and she even gives an explanation for why she was not immediately helping Baby K, who was deteriorating.

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'."
She denied dislodging the baby's ET tube and said it could slip if it was not secured properly.

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

 

[ColourPurple]

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.

It looks like the trolley detail was added after the other nurse had told the doctors had apologised, as like you say, no mention of it, or the doctors appears to have been mentioned in the police interviews. I wonder if Myer's did directly ask if they'd left the baby on a trolley, or just slipped the trolley part in as part of the sequence of what would normally happen, which is is how it appears in the quote

"Asked whether a monitor might sometimes be switched off during a cannulation, he replied: 'It shouldn't be'. He added: 'I can't remember what happened with the monitor seven years ago'.

Mr Myers pressed him further, asking whether a baby that had been on a treatment trolley should be put back into a cot.

'Yes,' said Dr Gibbs.

Mr Myers: 'And if a screen has been erected, that should be removed?'

Dr Gibbs: 'At some stage, yes'.

Mr Myers: 'If the monitor has been removed, it should be re-attached?'

Dr Gibbs: 'Yes, definitely'."


ALL JMO

 

[WaxLyrical]

What about Letby's original testimony? She puts herself in that room, with Dr J walking in, and she even gives an explanation for why she was not immediately helping Baby K, who was deteriorating.

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'."
She denied dislodging the baby's ET tube and said it could slip if it was not secured properly.

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

That’s what I’m saying, without knowing the questions she was asked, I don’t think we can say for certain she placed herself there at that specific incident.

She may have already said she wasn’t there. If the police say to her well Dr J saw you standing next to baby’s cot with dropping sats not doing anything, what do you say to that, we don’t know how the conversation went, was her response hypothetical (well even if he did see that, it wouldn’t be unusual as I’d probably look to see if a baby self corrects and I’d raise the alarm of a doctor needed to be called).

This could all be nonsense, and it may well be that’s she’s completely changed her testimony. But I don’t think we can say either way with the info available to us.

 

[Tortoise]

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.

The evidence was that the designated nurse was not in the room and returned when LL shouted for help. If she'd been there and then left, she would have been the one to leave her unattended. Also the mum had left the room while they were doing it. LL was in the room so why wouldn't she know the nurse wasn't there? The nurse didn't mention a trolley in the apology, only the monitor that she herself noticed was off when LL called her.

 

[Sundial]

Another point I found interesting yesterday, was LL mentioning that she was doing handover. I know we’ve discussed this in previous threads where we’ve not actually heard her mention this- up until now.

Whether it was true or not (one min her memory is not great with the specific babies care and the next contradicts it with LOTS of detail!!), it could also be lack of reporting.

JMO

 

[ColourPurple]

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.

She was in the same room as the baby so would know whether or not the nurse had been there to check behind the screen. Looking at it objectively the only person who knows whether the doctors did leave the baby on a trolley, behind a screen with no monitor on is LL. The other nurse arrived after LL so can only go by what LL told her.

At the time, the nurse and doctors would have had no reason to doubt LL's version of events. Now she's in the dock accused of 7 murders and 15 attempted murders of babies, some in arguably similar scenarios to this one, there's every reason to question her version of events. Particularly as she's now adding extra detail about wanting to make a formal complaint, that even the other nurse doesn't agree with. JMO

 

[ShireChe]

What about Letby's original testimony? She puts herself in that room, with Dr J walking in, and she even gives an explanation for why she was not immediately helping Baby K, who was deteriorating.

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'."
She denied dislodging the baby's ET tube and said it could slip if it was not secured properly.

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

Mr Myers says there is a point, alleged, when Dr Jayaram sees Letby by Child K, and Child K's tube is dislodged.

Mr Myers: "Did you interfere with [Child K's] tube?

Letby: "No."

Letby denies being at the cotside when Dr Jayaram entered room 1, and says she does not recall any conversation with Dr Jayaram that night.

Mr Myers refers to a police interview with Letby from July 2018. Letby was asked if she remembered Child K's deterioration - "No" was the answer. Letby said she recalled Child K only as she was a 25-week baby, which was unusual on the unit.

Letby was asked by police if she was present when Child K's ET tube dislodged. "I don't remember."

Letby says she signed for morphine to be administered to Child K. She tells the court she had no involvement with Child K beyond that point.

Letby says in police interview she was not by Child K's incubator at the time Dr Jayaram entered room 1.

She told police if the desaturations dropped to 80s, she would expect the alarm to go off for Child K.

She said to police: "I don't know why the alarm would not have sounded."

Letby was asked by police if she had turned off or deactivated the sound on the monitor. "No."

Letby tells the court "it does happen" that a tube can move "with an active baby".

She told police "tubes can slip if not properly attached".

Letby says if she was there, and had seen the observations drop and/or the tube slip she would have summoned help. She denies being there at that point, or having any involvement in the tube being dislodged, or 'just watching'.

She denies Dr Jayaram's report was accurate

 

[Tortoise]

Mr Myers says there is a point, alleged, when Dr Jayaram sees Letby by Child K, and Child K's tube is dislodged.

Mr Myers: "Did you interfere with [Child K's] tube?

Letby: "No."

Letby denies being at the cotside when Dr Jayaram entered room 1, and says she does not recall any conversation with Dr Jayaram that night.

Mr Myers refers to a police interview with Letby from July 2018. Letby was asked if she remembered Child K's deterioration - "No" was the answer. Letby said she recalled Child K only as she was a 25-week baby, which was unusual on the unit.

Letby was asked by police if she was present when Child K's ET tube dislodged. "I don't remember."

Letby says she signed for morphine to be administered to Child K. She tells the court she had no involvement with Child K beyond that point.

Letby says in police interview she was not by Child K's incubator at the time Dr Jayaram entered room 1.

She told police if the desaturations dropped to 80s, she would expect the alarm to go off for Child K.

She said to police: "I don't know why the alarm would not have sounded."

Letby was asked by police if she had turned off or deactivated the sound on the monitor. "No."

Letby tells the court "it does happen" that a tube can move "with an active baby".

She told police "tubes can slip if not properly attached".

Letby says if she was there, and had seen the observations drop and/or the tube slip she would have summoned help. She denies being there at that point, or having any involvement in the tube being dislodged, or 'just watching'.

She denies Dr Jayaram's report was accurate

she even contradicts herself in police interview. she says she doesn't remember if she was there, and then says she wasn't next to the incubator at what would be the same event.

But, depending on this being accurate wording, "she was not by Child K's incubator at the time Dr Jayaram entered room 1" she doesn't refute knowledge of Dr Jayaram entering the room.

 

[katydid23]

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.

It's not really that cut and dry. I will have to go find the doctor's testimony again. But one of them denied that they would have ever left the baby in that situation. And the other, Dr Gibbs said he had no recollection of doing so, but apologised if it happened that way.

The designated Nurse had just left the unit to go speak with the parents and had told others to keep an eye on Baby. So LL would know that she hadn't seen the baby in that situation.

Nurse Letby claims that she was the one that came upon the baby in this vulnerable circumstance----and she said she was the one to move her to the cot and to call for help. So that means that there were not any other witnesses to the event.

Excuse me if I am having a hard time believing her version of events.


ETA:

Lucy Letby raised alarm to save infant, baby deaths trial hears

The consultant in charge of the neonatal unit where Lucy Letby allegedly murdered seven babies admitted he had made 'a serious error' in leaving a sick infant alone with her monitor switched off.

www.dailymail.co.uk

Today, during a period of close cross-examination by Letby's barrister, Ben Myers, KC, agreed the error should never been made.

He insisted he could not recall either walking away from the monitor or offering an apology later in the day.
But he agreed with Mr Myers' assertion that 'it would be a serious error to leave a baby behind a screen with no monitor on'.
'Yes, he told the barrister. 'If we didn't speak to a nurse about that. I can't remember, but I shouldn't have done (it).


Dr Gibbs, who is now retired, said he accepted the accuracy of the nurse's recollection about leaving Baby G unattended. 'If that's what she says, it would have happened. I don't remember'.

Asked about her account of him and Dr Harkness leaving the monitor switched off, he again accepted it. 'If that's what she said, presumably that's what happened'.

Seven years after the event, he could not recall exactly what he did with the monitor. But he insisted: 'I would have checked she was stable at the time, otherwise I would not have left'.

He could not recall having a conversation with either Baby G's designated nurse or the manager in charge of the unit that day, Eirian Powell.
'If it had been a significant discussion usually the staff nurse would have recorded that…if something wrong had happened or there had been some worry.

'But if I'd been particularly concerned I should have recorded it in the medical notes and I didn't'.

 

[katydid23]

So I guess it comes down to Lucy's word against Javi's word. He says she was in that room with a collapsing baby, when he walked in and began the resuscitation.

She says she was nowhere near there and had no part in the resuscitation.

I wonder if either side will have witnesses and documentation to back their versions?

PLEASE, help me make sense of this:

Dr J is in room 1, performing a code red life saving emergency resuscitation. There would be alarms sounding and people running and urgently moving fast.

Meanwhile, LL is reportedly in room 2--doing feedings, observations and nappy changes.

SO I AM SUPPOSED TO BELIEVE THAT LUCY WOULD IGNORE THE URGENT LIFESAVING PROCEDURE GOING ON NEXT DOOR AND CONTINUE CHANGING DIAPERS AND WRITING NOTGES ANBD BOTTLE FEEDING?

"Letby says 3.30am would be a "rough time" of when it happened. The feed, observations, and a nappy change, could take half an hour - the quickest '20 minutes', the longest "up to an hour".
She says in this case, this could have taken "15-20 minutes".

Letby is then recorded, on the neonatal schedule, as caring for Child K after the event has taken place. The first recorded activity is for morphine administration, with Joanne Williams signing for the medication and Letby being a co-signer. Letby says this was because Child K was being reintubated and required morphine.
She does not recall being called to the nursery room.
She does not recall being involved in the subsequent events for Child K.
Letby is asked about a Facebook search for the surname of Child K, made on April 20, 2018, at 11.56pm.
Letby says: "You still think of patients you've cared for."
She says she does not recall why she looked up the name at that point.
Letby says that night "was a busy shift" but, asked whether she had done anything that night to merit questions about it years later, Letby says: "No."


Sky 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

 

[marynnu]

Re. Baby K's resus, there would have been several other staff involved as well as Dr. J and (allegedly) LL. Does anyone know if we've heard from them? Also, am I misremembering that Dr. J asked someone who was babysitting while the designated nurse was talking to parents?

 

[ColourPurple]

Re. Baby K's resus, there would have been several other staff involved as well as Dr. J and (allegedly) LL. Does anyone know if we've heard from them? Also, am I misremembering that Dr. J asked someone who was babysitting while the designated nurse was talking to parents?

With Baby K only being 25 weeks would it be normal to wait to see if she self corrected like you might with an older baby?

 

[katydid23]

With Baby K only being 25 weeks would it be normal to wait to see if she self corrected like you might with an older baby?

I just recently read the answer to your question:


Prosecution evidence, February 28th 2023, Day 63 - live updates Chester Standard - LIVE: Lucy Letby trial, Tuesday, February 28

Child K

Elizabeth Morgan, Agreed Evidence


The court now hears an agreed statement from Elizabeth Morgan, who says in her experience, it is very unlikely a nurse would leave the nursery of a baby if the baby's ET tube was not settled in a position and the baby was settled.
For a baby of this gestational age, it would be standard practice for a nurse to take corrective action, carry out checks and call for help if a desaturation was noted.
It would 'not be normal practice' to wait and see if the baby self-corrects, for a baby of this gestational age.

 

[marynnu]

With Baby K only being 25 weeks would it be normal to wait to see if she self corrected like you might with an older baby?

Personally I would have turned up the oxygen and listened to the chest, especially if there was poor/absent chest movement as Dr. J testified. Having said that, we now know LL wasn't as experienced in ITU as we maybe first thought, and having a 25-weeker was very unusual on this NNU. So I'm not sure much can be read into this response.

 

[Tortoise]

"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."

Recap: Lucy Letby trial, Wednesday, January 18

on the stand

"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."

Recap: Lucy Letby trial, Monday, May 15 - defence continues

"Asked about the second incident on 21 September, Ms Letby recalled seeing Child G was 'dusky and blue and not breathing' and that her monitor was "not on".

Ms Letby said Child G was on a 'procedure trolley' - used for procedures such as cannulation. She says the baby should not have been left alone on the trolley like that. When she discovered this she called for help

Ms Letby says the way Child G was left was 'not good practice at all', she said she was 'very concerned' by the fact she'd been left alone, on a procedure trolley with her monitor off. She raised her concerns with senior nurses

She said she wanted to submit an incident report on DATIX, but there was reluctance on behalf of colleagues to do this as the person responsible was a consultant - Dr John Gibbs"

Dan O'Donoghue




I would say it seems as if they put to her, in her last police interview, the fact that the other nurse told police she discovered LL with the baby with the monitor off. I don't know how she can go from that to what she said on the stand. Her memory improved since her police interview. JMO

 

[ColourPurple]

I just recently read the answer to your question:


Prosecution evidence, February 28th 2023, Day 63 - live updates Chester Standard - LIVE: Lucy Letby trial, Tuesday, February 28

Child K

Elizabeth Morgan, Agreed Evidence


The court now hears an agreed statement from Elizabeth Morgan, who says in her experience, it is very unlikely a nurse would leave the nursery of a baby if the baby's ET tube was not settled in a position and the baby was settled.
For a baby of this gestational age, it would be standard practice for a nurse to take corrective action, carry out checks and call for help if a desaturation was noted.
It would 'not be normal practice' to wait and see if the baby self-corrects, for a baby of this gestational age.

Thanks for that! I had it in the back of my mind that it wouldn't be normal practice. I think that would explain why she hasn't repeated that explanation in court then (whether she was saying it hypothetically in the police interview or not)

JMO