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

[ShireChe]

Letby denies falsifying paperwork as an alibi​

The prosecution claims Lucy Letby altered paperwork to make it appear as if she were looking after another baby when Child D collapsed on 22 June 2015.
The baby collapsed three times before she died.
"I have not falsified any paperwork," Letby says.
"Child D died because you injected her with air, didn't you?" Nick Johnson KC, for the prosecution, asks.
"No," Letby replies.
"I did not give her air."
"Did you think the paperwork wouldn't tie you to Child D at the time she collapsed?" Mr Johnson asks.
After asking him to rephrase the question, Letby says: "No, I had other babies. I wasn't caring for Child D."
"Did you take the decision to say 'No I didn't remember her' to avoid answering questions?" Mr Johnson asks.
Letby says she tried to be as cooperative as possible with the police.
The prosecution points out that Letby has previously said she has a good memory for names.
Mr Johnson tries to continue with questioning but Letby requests a break.
Before a break is granted, Mr Johnson first asks Letby about her previous claim that it is possible to take hand and footprints from a baby before they die.
(Letby previously told the court this is what she was helping Child C's parents do, which is why she was in the room as he was dying.)
But a document shown to the court says these are usually taken after death. Letby says it is not unusual for it to be done before a child dies.
"You shouldn't have been having anything to do with Child C at this point, should you?" Mr Johnson 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

We'll see what post lunch brings...but this does seem a bit of a strange line of questioning. I assume Mr Johnson must know whether those things were done for babies post death or not in other cases not involving LL or in general at COCH.
If doing this is unusual I expect him to state this after lunch, if not then I'm not sure why he's raising it.

ETA: I found it a bit strange, because I thought it would have been a perfect thing to leave her with before heading off for lunch, if indeed that's what he's going to say post lunch

 

[Legal]

I think it's possibly different charts

A blood gas record is shown for Child D at 1.14am.

NJ: "That was done by you, wasn't it?"

LL: "I don't know."

NJ: "That's your writing, isn't it?"

LL: "It could be?"

Mr Johnson asserts it is.

Letby: "It looks like my writing, yes."

Mr Johnson asks why it isn't signed by her.

"It's just an oversight, like the next line [which also isn't signed], it's an error."

and

Observations for Child D are shown, including readings at 1.15am. It is signed by Caroline Oakley.

Mr Johnson says Caroline Oakley had told the court she got those details for the 1.15am observation "from the girls".

Letby says she does not remember that bit of evidence.

Letby says she does not recall who was looking after Child D when Caroline Oakley was on her break.

Recap: Lucy Letby trial, May 19 - cross-examination 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

Thank you!

 

[Legal]

No, they need to go through all of her evidence. She gave evidence in chief for 5 days. But they won't be repeating topics because her barrister would complain it's already been asked.

It was in the US but I just double checked and Jodi Arias was on the stand for 18 days!

I'm getting flashbacks of JA's "fog" from this testimony!

 

[ColourPurple]

We'll see what post lunch brings...but this does seem a bit of a strange line of questioning. I assume Mr Johnson must know whether those things were done for babies post death or not in other cases not involving LL or in general at COCH.
If doing this is unusual I expect him to state this after lunch, if not then I'm not sure why he's raising it

Baby C was the little boy who survived for over 5 hours after they "failed to revive" him. I'm wondering if he's going to suggest that the reason she tried to allegedly hurry the parents up "you've said your goodbyes", and possibly did the footprints while Baby C was still alive, was because she wanted to be the one to do it and was worried he may pass away after she'd finished her shift. JMO

Letby, who denies the charges, is said to have caused the collapse of child C at about 11.15pm on 13 June by inserting air into the boy's stomach via a nasogastric tube.

Jurors at Manchester Crown Court heard medics failed to revive him and that "token resuscitation" took place until the arrival of a Church of England vicar to baptise the boy and a Catholic priest to perform a blessing.

However, signs of life reappeared during the wait for the ministers with "occasional gasps of breathing" and "feeble heart beats" noted as the parents cuddled their son.

An on-call consultant could not explain the "fairly minimal" signs of life but explained to child C's parents the chance of him recovering was "remote" and the prospect of him not suffering profound brain damage was "extremely remote".

Palliative care was provided and no further gasps or heartbeat were heard some five hours after the christening and child C was pronounced dead at 5.58am on 14 June, the court heard.

When interviewed about child C, Letby said she found the boy's death "quite hard because he lived several hours (after the collapse)" and she had "not seen that before".

Lucy Letby trial hears how victim lived for a few hours after alleged attack by nurse

The 32-year-old told police she found it "quite hard" when the premature baby continued to breathe and had "feeble heartbeats" after his collapse.

news.sky.com

 

[Sweeper2000]

Just so everyone knows I think the consensus is that everyone thinks they have a good memory but rarely do.

Human memory unreliable even in short term, study finds

‘Memory is shaped by what we expected to see, right from the formation of the first memory trace’

www.independent.co.uk

Although memory can be hazy at times, it is often assumed that memories of violent or otherwise stressful events are so well-encoded that they are largely indelible and that confidently retrieved memories are likely to be accurate. However, findings from basic psychological research and neuroscience studies indicate that memory is a reconstructive process that is susceptible to distortion. In the courtroom, even minor memory distortions can have severe consequences that are in part driven by common misunderstandings about memory, e.g. expecting memory to be more veridical than it may actually be.

The Neuroscience of Memory: Implications for the Courtroom

Although memory can be hazy at times, it is often assumed that memories of violent or otherwise stressful events are so well-encoded that they are largely indelible and that confidently retrieved memories are likely to be accurate. However, findings from ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

I would Argue there isn’t a natural precedent for particularly good memory recall with the exception of identification for things such as plants not sequences of events.

 

[Jazmania]

We'll see what post lunch brings...but this does seem a bit of a strange line of questioning. I assume Mr Johnson must know whether those things were done for babies post death or not in other cases not involving LL or in general at COCH.
If doing this is unusual I expect him to state this after lunch, if not then I'm not sure why he's raising it.

ETA: I found it a bit strange, because I thought it would have been a perfect thing to leave her with before heading off for lunch, if indeed that's what he's going to say post lunch

I think it would be hugely inappropriate to start collating a memory box and doing hand and footprints before the baby had even died surely? I would think that would be very upsetting for a parent and therefore not policy. The point is that she had no reason to be in the family room at that time.

 

[ShireChe]

Baby C was the little boy who survived for over 5 hours after they "failed to revive" him. I'm wondering if he's going to suggest that the reason she tried to allegedly hurry the parents up "you've said your goodbyes", and possibly did the footprints while Baby C was still alive, was because she wanted to be the one to do it and was worried he may pass away after she'd finished her shift. JMO

Letby, who denies the charges, is said to have caused the collapse of child C at about 11.15pm on 13 June by inserting air into the boy's stomach via a nasogastric tube.

Jurors at Manchester Crown Court heard medics failed to revive him and that "token resuscitation" took place until the arrival of a Church of England vicar to baptise the boy and a Catholic priest to perform a blessing.

However, signs of life reappeared during the wait for the ministers with "occasional gasps of breathing" and "feeble heart beats" noted as the parents cuddled their son.

An on-call consultant could not explain the "fairly minimal" signs of life but explained to child C's parents the chance of him recovering was "remote" and the prospect of him not suffering profound brain damage was "extremely remote".

Palliative care was provided and no further gasps or heartbeat were heard some five hours after the christening and child C was pronounced dead at 5.58am on 14 June, the court heard.

When interviewed about child C, Letby said she found the boy's death "quite hard because he lived several hours (after the collapse)" and she had "not seen that before".

Lucy Letby trial hears how victim lived for a few hours after alleged attack by nurse

The 32-year-old told police she found it "quite hard" when the premature baby continued to breathe and had "feeble heartbeats" after his collapse.

news.sky.com

I agree that's what they are going to be suggesting, but surely it's more of a factual thing and can actually be verified with the hospital and staff. In a case that has such few actual concrete facts, it'd be nice to have something

 

[ShireChe]

DBM

 

[Jazmania]

Just so everyone knows I think the consensus is that everyone thinks they have a good memory but rarely do.

Human memory unreliable even in short term, study finds

‘Memory is shaped by what we expected to see, right from the formation of the first memory trace’

www.independent.co.uk

Although memory can be hazy at times, it is often assumed that memories of violent or otherwise stressful events are so well-encoded that they are largely indelible and that confidently retrieved memories are likely to be accurate. However, findings from basic psychological research and neuroscience studies indicate that memory is a reconstructive process that is susceptible to distortion. In the courtroom, even minor memory distortions can have severe consequences that are in part driven by common misunderstandings about memory, e.g. expecting memory to be more veridical than it may actually be.

The Neuroscience of Memory: Implications for the Courtroom

Although memory can be hazy at times, it is often assumed that memories of violent or otherwise stressful events are so well-encoded that they are largely indelible and that confidently retrieved memories are likely to be accurate. However, findings from ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

I would Argue there isn’t a natural precedent for particularly good memory recall with the exception of identification for things such as plants not sequences of events.

This is true. However it would be unusual for an event that she described at the time as being extremely upsetting - to the extent that colleagues suggested she take time off and go to therapy - to be completely forgotten about just 3 years later. It suggests that she lied to police at interview about not recalling baby D. Memory can never be relied upon as being completely accurate. However it is very unlikely that adults would have completely false memories - like baby E's mother and Dr Jayaram. Also, it is unlikely that traumatic events like the death of a baby would be completely forgotten about in such a short period of time. Albeit she did witness a lot of deaths that year.

 

[Jazmania]

Agreed. But they must know this? Other babies have died that weren't part of this case. They must actually know

Yes I believe they probably do know. Perhaps they will recall another nurse to testify about it.

 

[Tortoise]

I think it would be hugely inappropriate to start collating a memory box and doing hand and footprints before the baby had even died surely? I would think that would be very upsetting for a parent and therefore not policy. The point is that she had no reason to be in the family room at that time.

Very insensitive I would say.

 

[Tortoise]

Yes I believe they probably do know. Perhaps they will recall another nurse to testify about it.

"Mr Johnson says the checklist is 'for staff following neonatal death'."

Recap: Lucy Letby trial, May 19 - cross-examination 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

 

[ColourPurple]

I agree that's what they are going to be suggesting, but surely it's more of a factual thing and can actually be verified with the hospital and staff. In a case that has such few actual concrete facts, it'd be nice to have something

I'd say the general rule is, if Johnson's asking her something... he already knows the answer!

JMO

 

[WaxLyrical]

Baby C was the little boy who survived for over 5 hours after they "failed to revive" him. I'm wondering if he's going to suggest that the reason she tried to allegedly hurry the parents up "you've said your goodbyes", and possibly did the footprints while Baby C was still alive, was because she wanted to be the one to do it and was worried he may pass away after she'd finished her shift. JMO

Letby, who denies the charges, is said to have caused the collapse of child C at about 11.15pm on 13 June by inserting air into the boy's stomach via a nasogastric tube.

Jurors at Manchester Crown Court heard medics failed to revive him and that "token resuscitation" took place until the arrival of a Church of England vicar to baptise the boy and a Catholic priest to perform a blessing.

However, signs of life reappeared during the wait for the ministers with "occasional gasps of breathing" and "feeble heart beats" noted as the parents cuddled their son.

An on-call consultant could not explain the "fairly minimal" signs of life but explained to child C's parents the chance of him recovering was "remote" and the prospect of him not suffering profound brain damage was "extremely remote".

Palliative care was provided and no further gasps or heartbeat were heard some five hours after the christening and child C was pronounced dead at 5.58am on 14 June, the court heard.

When interviewed about child C, Letby said she found the boy's death "quite hard because he lived several hours (after the collapse)" and she had "not seen that before".

Lucy Letby trial hears how victim lived for a few hours after alleged attack by nurse

The 32-year-old told police she found it "quite hard" when the premature baby continued to breathe and had "feeble heartbeats" after his collapse.

news.sky.com

Yes I think we should keep in mind that pretty much everyone testified that they’d never known a baby to live so long after resuscitation attempts ceased. So it was unprecedented in that sense.

I would think there is some kind of protocol to move a child into a cold cot as soon as practicable? I’m just thinking from the perspective of preservation for post mortems etc. I wouldn’t be surprised if there was an air of awkwardness and just generally unawareness of what to do by some of the nurses.

Also, while I appreciate people are raising Letby’s seeming arrogance at questioning the decision to put Sophie Ellis in charge of Baby C, I think I would be horrified if my own child was placed into the care of a brand new nurse in these circumstances, irrespective of whether they had oversight. At this point he weighed little over 700g, waaaay below the threshold for COCH, was having black aspirates, had a lung infection .. I’d be expecting their most competent and/or senior nurse to be on the case for that, not using the baby as training for a new start.

JMO.

 

[Sweeper2000]

This is true. However it would be unusual for an event that she described at the time as being extremely upsetting - to the extent that colleagues suggested she take time off and go to therapy - to be completely forgotten about just 3 years later. It suggests that she lied to police at interview about not recalling baby D. Memory can never be relied upon as being completely accurate. However it is very unlikely that adults would have completely false memories - like baby E's mother and Dr Jayaram. Also, it is unlikely that traumatic events like the death of a baby would be completely forgotten about in such a short period of time. Albeit she did witness a lot of deaths that year.

We do have an example of something like it though, the mother that testified she saw ll hovering when actually she was miles away. Good example of the mind filling in the blanks.

 

[ColourPurple]

Yes I think we should keep in mind that pretty much everyone testified that they’d never known a baby to live so long after resuscitation attempts ceased. So it was unprecedented in that sense.

I would think there is some kind of protocol to move a child into a cold cot as soon as practicable? I’m just thinking from the perspective of preservation for post mortems etc. I wouldn’t be surprised if there was an air of awkwardness and just generally unawareness of what to do by some of the nurses.

BIB - Not while they're still alive though.

Also, while I appreciate people are raising Letby’s seeming arrogance at questioning the decision to put Sophie Ellis in charge of Baby C, I think I would be horrified if my own child was placed into the care of a brand new nurse in these circumstances, irrespective of whether they had oversight. At this point he weighed little over 700g, waaaay below the threshold for COCH, was having black aspirates, had a lung infection .. I’d be expecting their most competent and/or senior nurse to be on the case for that, not using the baby as training for a new start.

JMO.

The shift leader has said that Sophie was considered competent and able to take care of Baby C.

 

[Sweeper2000]

Does anyone know what Mr Johnson is on about when he said dr marnerides was not the only doctor to find an air bubble?

could have sworn that isn’t true or isn’t accurate wording?

 

[WaxLyrical]

BIB - Not while they're still alive though.

The shift leader has said that Sophie was considered competent and able to take care of Baby C.

Of course the shift leader would say that.

I’m not sure many of us here would be happy with a new nurse in a level 2 unit being responsible for our 700g premature baby that is ill. But maybe I’m wrong.

 

[Jazmania]

We do have an example of something like it though, the mother that testified she saw ll hovering when actually she was miles away. Good example of the mind filling in the blanks.

Yes but I doubt this is a completely false memory. It's more likely that either LL was hovering at a different time, and she was mistaken about the time. Or it could be a different nurse not LL was hovering, and she was therefore mistaken as to identity. It's unlikely that the entire event was false.

 

[ColourPurple]

Of course the shift leader would say that.

I’m not sure many of us here would be happy with a new nurse in a level 2 unit being responsible for our 700g premature baby that is ill. But maybe I’m wrong.

Personally I'd just want a competent, caring nurse. It wasn't like she'd just walked in off the street and onto a hospital ward that day.