UK - Nurse Lucy Letby, Faces 22 Charges - 7 Murder/15 Attempted Murder of Babies #24

[katydid23]

Which ones do you think don’t meat that criteria? I’ve got questions For baby i and o.

I think it's possible that some of the charges will not come to fruition. But if only some do, it is still a very long sentence.

 

[Tortoise]

11:24am

Mr Johnson moves on to the case of Child F, the first of the two babies the prosecution say Letby poisoned with insulin. Child L is the other child allegedly poisoned by Letby. Letby denies she did this. Mr Johnson previously told the court the cases of Child F and Child L would be part of the cross-examination process together.
Letby accepts the insulin readings which were shown for Child F - the insulin and insulin c-peptide numbers.

11:32am

Letby says "there may have been some discrepancies" in the blood sugar levels for Child F.
Mr Johnson says Prof Hindmarsh had told the court there would be discrepancies between a lab result and that taken from blood gas tests, 'of about 10-15%'.
Letby says she does not remember who put up the bag, as she did not recall, but as she had no recollection of it, it would have been her nursing colleague [who cannot be named due to reporting restrictions].
Letby says she co-signed the bag with [colleague].
LL: "To me, the other person who could have [put up the bag] would have been [my nursing colleague]."
Letby says: "I can't answer that" to Mr Johnson's suggestion Child F had been targeted with insulin poisoning.
Letby says she can accept insulin was given to Child F at some point. She says "if that's the evidence", then the insulin would have been administered via the TPN [nutrition] bag.
Letby accepts at the time of her arrest, she did not know or had heard about insulin c-peptide.
Mr Johnson says the ratio between insulin and insulin c-peptide from the result had shown insulin had been administered.
Letby says the TPN bag could have come from some other area than the neonatal unit.

11:37am

The nursing staff rota for August 4-5 is shown to the court. Child F is in room 2, with Letby's colleague the designated nurse. Letby was in room 2 as the designated nurse for another baby.
Letby says she cannot say how the insulin got in Child F, so "I don't think I can answer" if staffing levels played a part in the poisoning of Child F.
Mr Johnson says Letby was "very keen" to ask police about the TPN bag said to have had insulin in it.
LL: "Because I was being accused of placing insulin in the bag - I thought someone would have checked the fluids."
LL: "I wanted them to check the bag, yes - I thought it would have been standard practice [on the unit]."

Recap: Lucy Letby trial, June 5 - 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

 

[Tortoise]

17m ago11:29

'You remembered her because you tried to kill her'​

Letby is now being asked about Child K's parents.
The prosecution asks her: "Did you ever meet them?"
"I can't recall," Letby says.
But on 20 April 2018, Facebook data shows she searched for Child K's parents.
"Do you have a very good memory for names?" prosecution barrister Mr Johnson asks.
"Yes," says Letby.
The prosecution then put it to Letby: "You remembered her because you tried to kill her [Child K]."
"No," says Letby.
Mr Johnson asks why Letby told her defence lawyer "you still think of patients that you cared for" - when she hadn't directly cared for Child K.
"I think that is taking it out of context," Letby says,
She says it doesn't have to be a baby she directly looked after to remember them, and added she had played a part in her care.
She also said she had provided Child K with a morphine infusion at one point.
"A single morphine infusion was enough to fix her in your brain?" Mr Johnson asks.
He then asks Letby why she, therefore, cannot remember "standing over her" as Child K desaturated.
Letby says she cannot answer.

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

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

news.sky.com

 

[Tortoise]

11:42am

Mr Johnson says Letby had not been questioned about Child F and Child L in 2018, but was questioned about it in the following interviews. In it, Letby asked police about the nutrition bags said to have had insulin in.
NJ: "You knew very well the bags wouldn't have been kept, didn't you?"
LL: "No."
Letby had said to police if there had been concerns over the bags, they would have been kept.
NJ: "You knew no concern had been expressed, didn't you?"
LL: "I didn't know no concern had been expressed at the time of this interview, no."
Police had asked why Letby had asked about the nutrition bags.
Letby had said to police there may "have been an issue with something else."
Letby tells the court the issue may have been insulin coming from outside the unit. She says at that point it was not known where the insulin had come from, and it was not known if it was in the bags.

Recap: Lucy Letby trial, June 5 - 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

 

[GoodDayToYouSir]

NO, not necessarily. These are two very different qualities.

Conscientious
adjective

(of a person) wishing to do what is right, especially to do one's work or duty well and thoroughly.
"a conscientious and hardworking clerk"

Being a conscientious person entails the ability to set and keep long-term goals, be more deliberate about choices, act more cautiously, and take your obligations seriously.


Empathy:
the action of understanding, being aware of, being sensitive to, and vicariously experiencing the feelings, thoughts, and experience of another

the ability to sense other people's emotions, coupled with the ability to imagine what someone else might be thinking or feeling.

Have they proved them for any of the charges, in your opinion?

I suspect my reply to your question will get deleted …… but unless the defence has a medical expert about to offer up a compelling alternative theory as to why it was a natural event / caused by negligence not malice, then yes, I think the prosecution has proved some of the charges .

 

[GoodDayToYouSir]

Which ones do you think don’t meat that criteria? I’ve got questions For baby i and o.

On the medical evidence, I don’t think that c, d, h, j and K do at the moment.

 

[GoodDayToYouSir]

I think it's possible that some of the charges will not come to fruition. But if only some do, it is still a very long sentence.

It only needs conviction on one charge to be a whole life tariff, I suspect. Because she was a nurse , in a position of trust, victims were so vulnerable .

The police officer scum who murdered Sarah everard got a whole life tariff (same points about abuse of public trust ) , and that was even though he plead guilty so didn’t make anyone go through a full trial. So if LL is found guilty of even one, I suspect she would also get a whole life tariff. As it should be if she is guilty IMO.

 

[Sweeper2000]

On the medical evidence, I don’t think that c, d, h, j and K do at the moment.

What have you noticed in those cases?

I thought in the cases of baby I and o you have witnesses stating they saw the babies tummy swelling in front of their eyes, if that is true the swelling is obviously unrelated to air or milk etc. One was a nurse and the other the father of baby O who in the podcast is suppos To have said he definicely saw the babies stomach swelling and in the case of baby I it was a nurse who saw the same thing. I don’t know but to me that’s potentially a pattern. Indicating something other than foul play and would seem to be medical. I cannot remember if any of the doctors stated in court that that was new information to them and so would have to change the diagnosis. Eta, not necessarily change the diagnosis maybe just take that new info into account.

 

[katydid23]

Dan O'Donoghue
@MrDanDonoghue

Mr Johnson is now moving to the case of Child F - the prosecution say he was injected with insulin by Ms Letby. The court has been told that shortly after the baby received intravenous nutrients on 4 August 2015, his heart rate surged and his blood sugars plummeted.

The jury have heard that blood samples showed an "extremely high" insulin level and a very low C-peptide level in Child F, which a medical expert said had "only one explanation", that being that the child "received insulin from some outside source".

Ms Letby tells Mr Johnson that she accepts the insulin and c-peptide levels detected in the blood of Child F

Mr Johnson asks if Ms Letby agrees that someone targeted Child F and injected insulin into his feed bag - she says she 'can't answer that'. But says 'I accept that he was given insulin at some point yes'

Ms Letby says she 'can’t say where (the insulin) went in, whether on the unit or elsewhere'. She explains that bags are made up in a separate bit of the hospital Mr Johnson says Ms Letby does know where the insulin entered the bag, 'because you put it there' - she says 'no'

 

[katydid23]

What have you noticed in those cases?

I thought in the cases of baby I and o you have witnesses stating they saw the babies tummy swelling in front of their eyes, if that is true the swelling is obviously unrelated to air or milk etc. One was a nurse and the other the father of baby O who in the podcast is suppos To have said he definicely saw the babies stomach swelling and in the case of baby I it was a nurse who saw the same thing. I don’t know but to me that’s potentially a pattern. Indicating something other than foul play and would seem to be medical. I cannot remember if any of the doctors stated in court that that was new information to them and so would have to change the diagnosis.

I don't know if that is true, that someone seeing some more swelling happening negates the timeline. I don't think it is exactly like a balloon, and there is instant swelling that never goes up or down. The air bubble could have moved from one place to another, eventually settling in the stomach, which began to swell visibly minutes later.

 

[Highlandspring]

Further to this, there were at least a couple of incidences where she downplayed the babies’ signs of deterioration. Off the top of my head one of the triplets (?) who was being proposed to move up to a higher dependency room, and she pushed back on that, and also this recent case where the designated nurse felt the baby’s crying meant another deterioration was imminent and Letby played it down.

Yes, all LL's up-playing and downplaying of babies' physical states (states allegedly resulting from her attacks) seems like manipulation/power play. The disagreeing with Mel Taylor re moving baby O to nursery is like an escalation of her increasing sense of power, manipulation, callousness, all psychopathy traits.

Also agree with others who've discussed her talk of 'fate'. Maybe she had a few motives, depending on the child/family or incident involved, but seems like a lot of the enjoyment mentioned came from the 'gambles' she took, would they live or die? Too sickening to think about.

LL asking her dad to put a bet on the national soon after a collapse explained a lot when I heard the text inevidence. Must have significance anyway?

IMO

 

[Tortoise]

Where is this 30 seconds coming from? Have we heard about this before, that it would take 30 seconds? I thought Dr J saw the baby deteriorated into “the 80s”, which feels like it would happen in less than 30 seconds, in my completely non-medical mind.

"Dr Jayaram was troubled as the levels were falling and Nurse Letby had been the only person in the room."

The prosecution added: "On these monitors, all readings are set to default values in the neonatal unit.

"Saturation levels falling to the 80s, is a serious issue and if the machine is working properly, it would have an alarm if the saturation levels fell to the 80s, as Dr Jayaram noticed.

"There is an alarm pause button on the screen of the monitor - if you want to treat the child, you don't want the alarm going away. It will pause for one minute.

"Bearing in mind the rate displayed on the monitor, Dr Jayaram estimates the tube would have been dislodged between 30-60 seconds, and that is on the assumption the alarm had been cancelled once."

'TV doctor Ravi walked in on Lucy Letby 'attacking 98-minute-old baby''

A CONSULTANT paediatrician at the Countess of Chester Hospital walked in on neonatal nurse Lucy Letby 'trying to kill' a 1lb 8oz baby that had been…

www.chesterstandard.co.uk

 

[Tortoise]

12:12pm

Letby says she does not recall there were concerns for Child F's blood sugar level in her police interview in 2019.
Mr Johnson says she was aware at the time. Text messages are shown to the court with Letby messaging a colleague about a low blood sugar reading.
NJ: "Had you seen something like this before? Babies having loads of dextrose and still having low blood sugars?"
LL: "Yes."
NJ: "You were trying to [place it as natural causes]."
LL: "I don't think I was trying to provide an explanation."
Letby's message: "Wonder if he has an endocrine problem then."
Mr Johnson: "Does that mean natural causes then?"
LL: "Yes."
Mr Johnson asks about the security of nutrition bags in the fridge, under lock and key. He says they are not safe from someone with a key who can inject 'a tiny amount of insulin' into the bag.
LL: "The bags are sealed and you would have to break the seal to do that."
Mr Johnson asks if that would prevent someone from the previous shift from inserting insulin into the bag.
LL: "I can't say that as I wouldn't put insulin into a TPN bag."
Mr Johnson says the prescribed bag must have been 'tampered with' between 4pm on August 4 and 1am on August 5. The replacement bag was a generic one.
Mr Johnson describes how the insulin could be administered after the bag has been delivered to the ward. One method is after the cellophane wrap has been removed, to which he says that would mean there would be 'very few candidates' who could have done that.
NJ: "Why would you not put insulin in the bags?"
LL: "Because that would go against [all standard practice]."
NJ: "It is highly dangerous.
LL: "Yes."
NJ: "Life-threatening to a child."
LL: "Yes."
NJ: "Something that would never cross the minds of medical staff?"
LL: "At the time? No."

12:14pm

Letby says she "cannot answer" if Child F was deliberately poisoned as she does not know how the insulin got there, who was there, or why.

12:15pm

Mr Johnson asks about the Facebook searches for Child E and Child F's mother carried out in the months after August 4, 2015.
Letby says she got on well with the mother at the time, that she thought about Child E often, and wanted to see how Child F was doing.

12:22pm

Mr Johnson moves to the second insulin case, for Child L, who was a twin to Child M.
Letby's defence statement said she had done nothing wrong and had not deliberately harmed either twin.
Letby agrees this was a case when she challenged doctors if she believed the course of care being given was not correct.
Letby said in her defence statement the unit was "exceptionally busy" on April 9, 2016, the day after Child L and Child M had been born.
Letby said, at the time, she "could not understand" Child L's insulin levels at the time and "could not understand" why there was not an investigation at the time.

12:23pm

Letby denies 'using' the hypoclycaemic pathway not being followed as an 'opportunity' to attack Child L.

12:24pm

Letby says she accepts someone put insulin into the dextrose solution for Child L, and accepts there would be "no reason" for doing this, and that it would be "highly dangerous".

Recap: Lucy Letby trial, June 5 - 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

 

[katydid23]

Dan O'Donoghue
@MrDanDonoghue

Mr Johnson is now moving to the case of Child F - the prosecution say he was injected with insulin by Ms Letby. The court has been told that shortly after the baby received intravenous nutrients on 4 August 2015, his heart rate surged and his blood sugars plummeted.

The jury have heard that blood samples showed an "extremely high" insulin level and a very low C-peptide level in Child F, which a medical expert said had "only one explanation", that being that the child "received insulin from some outside source".

Ms Letby tells Mr Johnson that she accepts the insulin and c-peptide levels detected in the blood of Child F

Mr Johnson asks if Ms Letby agrees that someone targeted Child F and injected insulin into his feed bag - she says she 'can't answer that'. But says 'I accept that he was given insulin at some point yes'

Ms Letby says she 'can’t say where (the insulin) went in, whether on the unit or elsewhere'. She explains that bags are made up in a separate bit of the hospital Mr Johnson says Ms Letby does know where the insulin entered the bag, 'because you put it there' - she says 'no'

Mr Johnson asks Ms Letby 'why would you not put insulin in (a TPN bag)' She says 'that's against all practice. TPN does not have insulin in it' She agrees it would be 'highly dangerous' to add it

Mr Johnson asks Ms Letby if she 'accepts that (Child F) was poisoned deliberately' She says she 'can’t answer that' as she does not 'know who put (the insulin) there or why'

 

[Tortoise]

15m ago12:14

WhatsApp evidence contradicts Letby's account on baby's blood sugar​

Letby has denied being aware Child F had problems with his blood sugar - despite evidence that she texted a colleague about it.
"Do you remember telling the police in interview, you were not aware of there being a concern of Child F having blood sugar problems?" Mr Johnson asks for the prosecution.
"No," says Letby.
The court is then shown a transcript of Letby's police interview, where she tells police she was not aware the infant had problems with his blood sugar.
"You were aware though, weren't you, at the time?" Mr Johnson asks.
"No," says Letby.
The court is then shown a WhatsApp conversation between Letby and her colleague on 5 August 2015.
Letby: Did you hear what Child F's sugar was at 8?
Letby: 1.8
[Colleague]: S***!!!
Letby: Wonder if he has an endocrine problem then. Hope they can get to the bottom of it.
The prosecution claims Letby was trying to create the impression in the messages that the child's blood sugar collapse was the result of natural causes - not sabotage.
"Yes, the only other babies I had seen like that had a condition," Letby tells the court.
Letby says the nutrition bags she is accused of tampering with would have been secure - but a doctor has previously demonstrated to the trial how the tamper-proof bag could have been broken.

3m ago12:27

'Do you accept Child F was poisoned deliberately?'​

A nutrition bag must have been tampered with between 4pm on 4 August and 1am on 5 August in 2015 in the case of Child F, the prosecution claims.
The trial has already heard today of the baby's issues with blood sugar levels.
The bags are kept locked down on the unit, but "they are not secure from someone who has a key and wants to tamper with them," prosecution barrister Nick Johnson KC says.
"In order to get insulin into the bag once it has come up to the ward if it is still in the cellophane wrapper you have to get the insulin through the cellophane wrapper," Mr Johnson says.
This would have involved a needle through the tamper-proof cap and required not leaving a trace on the wrapper.
Letby agrees it would be highly dangerous and life-threatening to put insulin in one of the fluid bags.
"Do you accept Child F was poisoned deliberately?" Mr Johnson asks.
"I can't answer that," Letby says, adding that she cannot say how the insulin got there, who put it there, or why.

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

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

news.sky.com

 

[Tortoise]

1m ago12:31

'I can't answer that'​

Child L - like Child F - was allegedly also poisoned with insulin via his fluid bag of dextrose.
Letby previously told police she "did not accept" the accuracy of the tests performed in the wake of the alleged attack.
The prosecution asks if she now accepts the accuracy of the tests.
"Yes," she tells the court.
Mr Johnson says: "Somebody had put insulin into the dextrose."
"I can't answer that," Letby says. She agrees there would have been no legitimate reason for there to be insulin in the dextrose.
Mr Johnson then says: "There was insulin in at least one bag of dextrose that was attached to [Child L]."
"I am not sure without looking," Letby replies.
"At least one - we will come to the precise number later," Mr Johnson says. "Do you accept it was in a bag of dextrose at any point?"
"Yes, that is the evidence," Letby says.
Mr Johnson then asks if Letby agrees the insulin was added between midnight and 9.30am on 9 April 2016.
"I don't think I can answer that, I am relying on the expert opinion," says Letby.

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

 

[katydid23]

Dan O'Donoghue
@MrDanDonoghue
·

We're now moving to twin boys Child L and M born in April 2016. The court has heard that in the hours that followed Ms Letby's arrival on 9 April, Child L's glucose levels fell to abnormally low and he had to be given glucose in an attempt to correct hypoglycaemia.

The prosecution said blood tests revealed a very high level of insulin, which they said had been caused by the administering of synthetic insulin in a "deliberate act of sabotage" by Ms Letby.

Mr Johnson asks Ms Letby if she accepts somebody added insulin to Child L's dextrose - she says yes. She also accepts adding insulin would be 'highly dangerous'

Mr Johnson says this was a 'targeted attack' that the victim had been 'selected' - Ms Letby says she 'can't answer that'

 

[Tortoise]

Judith Moritz

@JudithMoritz
·
19m

Nick Johnson KC: "Do you accept that (nutrient) bags aren’t secure?"
Lucy Letby: "I think they are"
NJKC: "Secure in the sense they’re under lock and key?"
Lucy Letby: "Yes"
NJKC: "They’re not secure from someone who has the key and wants to tamper with them…"
LL: "No"

Judith Moritz

@JudithMoritz
·
18m

NJKC: "Why would you NOT put insulin into one of these bags?"
LL: "Because it’s against all practice"
NJKC: "It’s highly dangerous isn’t it?"
LL: "Yes"
NJKC: "Life threatening to a child of this age?"
LL: "Yes"

Judith Moritz

@JudithMoritz
·
17m

Nick Johnson KC: "Do you accept that insulin was either in the bag when it was hung or it was put into the bag shortly afterwards?"
Lucy Letby: "Yes"

Judith Moritz

@JudithMoritz
·
17m

NJKC: "So do you accept that baby F was poisoned deliberately?"
LL: "I can’t answer that because I don’t know how insulin got into the bag, or who put it there or why"

 

[Tortoise]

Judith Moritz
@JudithMoritz
·
11m

Nick Johnson KC now moves to begin asking Lucy Letby about baby L - the second baby who the nurse is accused of poisoning with insulin. She denies this.

Judith Moritz
@JudithMoritz
·
11m

It's alleged that Lucy Letby added insulin to the dextrose bag which was attached to baby L.

Judith Moritz
@JudithMoritz
·
8m

NJKC: "Do you accept that somebody put insulin into the dextrose?"
LL: "Yes"
NJKC: "And there was no legitimate reason for it"
LL: "Yes"
NJKC: "It’s highly dangerous"
LL: "Yes"
NJKC: "And the results of the blood test prove somebody put insulin into Baby L’s dextrose"
LL: "Yes"

Judith Moritz
@JudithMoritz
·
50s

NJKC "Do you remember me suggesting this was a targeted attack against baby L?"
LL "Yes"
NJKC "Because the same bag was hanging from 12pm on the 8th April, to 12pm on the 9th"
LL "Yes"
NJKC "It didn’t have insulin in it on the 8th"
LL "No"
NJKC "But it did on the 9th"
LL "Yes"

Judith Moritz

@JudithMoritz
·
4m

Nick Johnson KC: "So it follows that insulin was put into the bag whilst it was hanging doesn’t it…"
Lucy Letby: "I don’t know".

Judith Moritz

@JudithMoritz
·
3m

NJKC: "It follows that it was a targeted attack. The victim was selected."
LL: "I can’t answer that"
NJKC: "Well alright, somebody has injected insulin into the bag whilst it was hanging"
LL: "If that’s what the experts suggest, yes"
NJKC: "It is"

 

[Tortoise]

3m ago12:36

Letby says she can't say if infant was victim of 'targeted attack'​

Nick Johnson, the prosecution's barrister, suggests the attack on Child L was "targeted".
The same fluid bag was hanging next to the infant from midday on 8 April 2016 to midday on 9 April 2016.
There was no insulin recorded in the bag on 8 April.
"It follows that somebody has put [insulin] into the bag whilst it was hanging [next to the child]," Mr Johnson says.
"If that is what the experts suggest, yes," replies Letby.
"It is what the experts suggest," Mr Johnson says. "Therefore it follows it was a targeted attack, the victim has been selected."
"I can't answer that," Letby 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