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

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
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. [BBM]
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."

WOW!

So, she's admitting going to the NNU on days off and late at night when not on shift and the prosecution can show that there was no record of her having swiped in on at least one occasion where she admits she was there outside shift times!
 
WOW!

So, she's admitting going to the NNU on days off and late at night when not on shift and the prosecution can show that there was no record of her having swiped in on at least one occasion where she admits she was there outside shift times!
And that it was quieter at night, with presumably less people to question what she was doing there. It sounds as though she was coming and going as she pleased. Never mind the charges against her, this sounds like extremely troubling behavior in any event.
 
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. [BBM]
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."


Oh my god this is insane. I’m gobsmacked, it’s massively helped the prosecution that she took the stand IMO. We’re finding out so much that we haven’t already heard!

Getting her to admit she’s been on the unit when she wasn’t on shift is absolutely huge for the prosecution. She had opportunity to be around the babies without leaving evidence of her actually being there.

Wasn’t there the insulin case where the baby declined overnight while LL wasn’t on shift and BM was saying ‘it couldn’t have been LL, she wasn’t on shift - now we know she could well have been there IMO.
 
WOW!

So, she's admitting going to the NNU on days off and late at night when not on shift and the prosecution can show that there was no record of her having swiped in on at least one occasion where she admits she was there outside shift times!
He is doing so much damage in such a short amount of time!

I can't believe some of the stupid replies she is giving him so easily.
 
Evidence in chief yesterday -

2:42pm

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.

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

One for Mr Myers' bin.
 
And what normal person would do a 12 hour night shift, ending at 7.30am (if i remember rightly), leave at 10am staying an extra 2.5 hours and then come back that same night when they weren't even working!!!

If I had paperwork to finish I would have stayed till I got it done or come in early the following shift.
 
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. [BBM]
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."

This is madness imo. Can’t imagine what the jury BM must be thinking but personally- I’m quite taken aback by some of her responses tbh.
Moo
 

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.

https://news.sky.com/story/lucy-let...vidence-12868375?postid=5930745#liveblog-body



 
She must have insisted on taking the stand, there's no way she would have been advised to, so she must have thought she would put up a good performance? I really can't understand what she could have been thinking. She has had years to consider her responses to these questions.
 
She must have insisted on taking the stand, there's no way she would have been advised to, so she must have thought she would put up a good performance? I really can't understand what she could have been thinking. She has had years to consider her responses to these questions.

Exactly. I could think of a perfectly reasonable response re. Baby K, for example, just off the top of my head.
 
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.

 
OK BUCKLE YOUR SEATBELTS---HERE WE GO.....





Dan O'Donoghue

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'
 
11:56

Court returns, and Letby is asked about tube feeding​

ee1f1e45-2687-4090-816e-cd3f8b8e263c.jpg

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."

 
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."

 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
68
Guests online
420
Total visitors
488

Forum statistics

Threads
608,242
Messages
18,236,747
Members
234,325
Latest member
davenotwayne
Back
Top