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

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.



Judith Moritz

@JudithMoritz

Lucy Letby trial: the case is continuing. The nurse is beginning her 12th day in the witness box, and is still being cross-examined by prosecution lead Nick Johnson KC. He's now asking her about babies L & M - twin boys - who Lucy Letby denies trying to kill in April 2016.

Lucy Letby is wearing a black pinstripe suit. She's flanked in the witness box by two female prison officers who sit at either side. She's looking straight ahead of her, towards the jury, and not at Nick Johnson who's asking her questions. She's speaking softly.

It's alleged that Lucy Letby poisoned one twin (baby L) with insulin and injected air into the other twin (baby M).
 
10:32am

The trial is now resuming, with the 12 members of the jury in attendance.
Nicholas Johnson KC is continuing to cross-examine Lucy Letby, turning to the case of Child M.
Letby confirms there is nothing she wishes to change in her evidence given in cross-examination so far.

10:36am

Mr Johnson says for Child M, Letby - in her defence statement - said Child M 'was slotted into a space' in nursery room 1 which was 'full'.
Child M was 'apnoeic', and it was not known if he had a desaturation.
A crash call was put out, and Child M was turned around in an incubator by a nursing colleague, to get him on to a monitor.
Letby added she did not notice any skin colour changes in Child M at the time.

10:45am

Letby said in her statement she had written notes on Child M's resuscitation on a paper towel which ended up in her pocket and were taken home with her.
Letby tells the court it would have been used to write up [nursing] notes.
Letby says Child L and Child M 'stood out' in her mind at the time, as they were the first twins delivered where she was the allocated nurse.
Letby agrees Child M was 'not an intensive care baby' and had been doing well.
Asked if staffing levels were a contributory factor in Child M's collapse, Letby says the "unit was very stretched" during the April 9 shift. She adds she does not know what caused Child M's collapse.
Asked to clarify by Mr Johnson, she says it "was a potential" factor.
Letby tells the court Child M had been in a corner unit in a full nursery, and "as nursing and medical staff we were very stretched that day".
Staffing "was not at a great level".
Letby says she "does not know" what caused Child M's collapse, so rules out a mistake by staff. She says it is "hard to say" if staff competencies were a factor in the collapse.

10:47am

Mr Johnson says Dr Ravi Jayaram observed skin colour changes in Child M at the time of the collapse.
He says "because [Child M] was darker skinned, it was more obvious."
He said Child M was pale with pink 'blotches' on the torso that would 'appear and disappear'. He said he noted the most 'obvious' patches on the abdomen.
"I noted them when I got there at the start of the resuscitation".
He added he had only seen that once before, in the case of Child A.
Letby says "I did not see anything like that, no".

 
Yeah I think it was noted in evidence that she had career aspirations to become an ANNP ( not that that's a crime!)
Regards the desat, it was more her reaction to it rather than the desat itself I think.
If RJ's account was to be believed, she was literally ' caught with her hands in the cookie jar'
She should not have been staring staight at him as he entered the room, her back should have been to him, if that makes sense, because she was dealing with the baby.

Just out of interest, why do you say she would have had her back to Dr. J?
 
10:51am

Letby is asked if the lighting was an issue in nursery room 1.
Letby had told police in interview the lighting was "poor" in room 1, and she tells the court she has an independent memory of that event. Child M was "in a darker corner of the nursery", Letby tells the court.
She added to police: "I do remember his [Child M] colour being harder to assess as he was an Asian baby."
Letby tells the court the colour change, if any, was more difficult for her to see.

10:53am

Mr Johnson asks why was it necessary for Child M to be in a corner of room 1 if there were four babies in there for a capacity of four.
Letby says there always needs to be an incubator free for emergency admissions in room 1.
There were four babies in nursery room 2, three in nursery 3 and four in nursery 4.
The court hears the neonatal unit was "at effective capacity".

 
27m ago10:37

Child M: Twin left brain-damaged​

Lucy Letby is first asked if there is anything she has previously told the court that she would wish to "amend".
"No," she says.
"Do you give that some thought at the end of each day?" Nick Johnson KC, the prosecution barrister, asks.
After a pause, she replies: "Yes."
"You reflect on the evidence you have given?" he asks.
"As much as I can remember," she says.
Earlier this week, the court was told about Child L, who was allegedly poisoned with insulin.
Now the prosecution turns to his twin, Child M, who was also allegedly attacked by Letby - this time having air injected. He survived but was left brain-damaged.

17m ago10:46

Neonatal unit was 'very stretched' when Child M collapsed, says Letby​

After Child M collapsed, Letby made notes on a paper towel "that remained in my pocket and ended up at home with me", according to a previous police statement.
Nick Johnson KC, for the prosecution, asks Letby what she means by this.
"I am saying I wrote notes on a paper towel, yes," she says. "And at the end of the day it came home with me in my pocket."
"Where had it been in between?" Mr Johnson asks.
"It would have been used in the shift to write up notes," Letby says.
Child M was born in "good condition" and was breathing by himself. He had his observations taken every two hours.
Letby agrees this was the case.
"He was not an intensive care baby, was he?" Mr Johnson asks.
"No, I don't believe he was at this time," Letby says.
Mr Johnson asks - as he has done with all the cases - if staffing levels contributed to Child M's collapse.
Letby says she doesn't know what caused Child M to collapse, but says the unit was "very stretched" at the time.
"Are you suggesting there was a positive association between staffing levels and his collapse?" Mr Johnson asks.
"I think there was a potential," Letby says.

14m ago10:49

'I don't know what happened'​

Lucy Letby has repeatedly told the court she does not know what happened to cause Child M to collapse.
"I don't know what happened to Child M but as nursing medical staff we were very stretched that day," Letby says.
She clarifies that "staffing wasn't at the right level, doctors were very busy" and babies didn't have as close monitoring as they should have done.
Nick Johnson KC, for the prosecution, then asks if any medical mistakes caused the collapse.
"I don't know what caused [Child M's] collapse," Letby says again.
Mr Johnson then asks if incompetence by any of the staff on the unit caused the collapse.
"Again, that is hard to answer when I don't know exactly what happened to [Child M]," Letby replies.

 

Elaine Willcox
@ElaineWITV
·
1m

Lucy Letby - 12th day in the witness box. The nurse says the delivery of twins Baby L and M stood out in her mind, they were the first twins delivered where she was the allocated nurse. "I don’t know what caused Baby M’s collapse - staffing was an issue that day."

Under cross examination by Nick Johnson KC, Lucy Letby said, "The unit was very busy that day - nurses and doctors were very busy, there wasn’t close monitoring that day." She said staffing was "potentially a factor" in Baby M's collapse.
https://twitter.com/ElaineWITV/status/1666385918826106882/photo/1
 
8m ago10:56

Letby asked about lighting in nursery where Child M collapsed​

Lucy Letby is being asked about Child M, whom she is accused of leaving brain-damaged after injecting with air.
"Did the lighting in the nursery make it difficult to see?" Nick Johnson KC, the prosecution barrister, asks her.
"No," says Letby.
Letby previously told the police the lighting was "poor" in the space where Child M was.
Her police interview is then read to the court.
Police: Do you know why he was desaturated?
Letby: No
Police: So when you attended to him there was nothing obvious that caused this desaturation?
Letby: No
Police: Any other questions?
[This was asked to another officer.]
Letby: But I do remember that his colour was a little bit harder to assess... and he was in a space with poorer lighting.
The prosecution points out that Letby has previously said she was able to see Child I had become "very pale" when in a darkened room at night, so questions why she could not see Child M in a well-lit room in the middle of the day.

 
2m ago11:04

Unit was at capacity when infant collapsed​

On 9 April 2015, the day Child M collapsed, there were 15 babies on the neonatal unit.
The capacity of the unit was 16, but one incubator had to be kept free for emergency care, so on this day it was running at full capacity.
The baby allocated to Lucy Letby (one she is not accused of harming) is described by the prosecution as "low maintenance", and did not require much intervention from Letby.
Letby disputes this, and says the baby (not Child M) was moved into nursery one "because she was very unwell".
When questioned about how she remembers so much about this other child, she describes her as a "very complex baby who was on the unit a very long time".

 
11:01am

The court is shown a clinical note by Dr Anthony Ukoh, made at 10.25am on April 9.
Letby says she does not remember if she had involvement with Child M at this time. Child M was not Letby's designated baby on this day.
A neonatal schedule for Letby on April 9 shows a number of duties Letby had for her designated babies in room 1 between 9am-9.11am.
Letby says one of the designated babies was "not a low-maintenance baby", with complex cannulation issues, and was on the ward for a long time. Mr Johnson says Letby has an "extraordinary memory" for this baby, seven years on, but not for Child D, who had died.

11:07am

The court is shown a 1.5ml bile-stained aspirate is recorded for Child M, following which Child M was nil by mouth, and the naso-gastric tube was put on free drainage.
Mr Johnson says at 3.30pm, a 10% dextrose fluid bag is started for Child M.
Letby agrees with Mr Johnson there is nothing to suggest insulin was put in this bag.
Letby says she cannot recall what Mary Griffith was doing at this time. Mr Johnson suggests this was when Ms Griffith was collecting a blood sample for Child L to be 'podded' and sent to a laboratory for analysis.

 
11:14am

Letby says she "couldn't say" how long it would take to draw up a 12.5% dextrose solution, which in this case was for Child L, the twin of Child M.
Letby agrees it would have been after 3.45pm that that process would have started.
Letby denies that it was around 3.45pm that she "sabotaged" Child M.
Mr Johnson says the twins' mother said in an agreed evidence statement, she had to be taken back to the unit in a wheelchair, having been alerted by nurse Yvonne Griffiths, and she observed "one of the doctors was pressing [Child M's] chest." Mr Johnson says this is another case where a baby collapsed when the parents were away.
Letby says she was with Mary Griffith at the time of Child M's collapse.
Letby agrees Child M recovered quickly following the collapse.
Letby says she did not see skin discolouration, and it was not discussed at the time.

 
11:18am

A colleague had previously told the court Child M's blood gas record sheet was disposed of in a confidential waste bin.
Asked how it had ended under Letby's bed at home, Letby says she has never taken anything out of the confidential waste bin.
Letby says she does not know how many blood gas records she has taken home. She says it has been put in her pocket and taken home with a handover sheet.
She says she "probably" put it in her pocket, and put it under her bed.
Asked why, Letby replies: "Because I collect paper".
Letby says household bills and bank statements would be shredded as they were 'there and then'. Other sheets such as handover sheets were not thought about.

 
2m ago11:17

Child M collapsed 'ten minutes' after his parents left him​

At 3.30pm on 9 April 2015, half an hour before Child M collapsed, he was given an antibiotic infusion, either by Lucy Letby or a colleague.
Letby is asked what her colleague was doing at the time.
"I can't say without looking."
Letby's colleague previously said she was dealing with a blood sample for Child L and was interrupted by Child M's emergency call.
"It was while [the colleague] was getting sterile that you sabotaged Child M," Nick Johnson KC, the prosecution barrister, says.
"No."
An extract from the witness statement of Child M's mother is then read to the court.
She said: "About ten minutes after we left the boys, a nurse came running up and said we had to go back and took me down in a wheelchair."
"Whatever happened, happened after his mum and family had left him," Mr Johnson says.
Letby says she does not recall "exact timings".
It is "another case where the parents are there and they leave and the baby collapses", Mr Johnson says.
Letby agrees this appears to be the case, but reiterates that she was with a colleague at the time.

 
11:18am

A colleague had previously told the court Child M's blood gas record sheet was disposed of in a confidential waste bin.
Asked how it had ended under Letby's bed at home, Letby says she has never taken anything out of the confidential waste bin.
Letby says she does not know how many blood gas records she has taken home. She says it has been put in her pocket and taken home with a handover sheet.
She says she "probably" put it in her pocket, and put it under her bed.
Asked why, Letby replies: "Because I collect paper".
Letby says household bills and bank statements would be shredded as they were 'there and then'.
Wait---did LL just say that she shredded all her bills and statements? Because she told the police she didnt have a shredder. And when cross examined she said she forgot she had it...didn't she? But now she is saying she shredded her financial paperwork? [is that gaslighting when you tell inconsistent versions of your story?]

Other sheets such as handover sheets were not thought about.

 
Judith Moritz
@JudithMoritz

Nick Johnson KC suggests that Lucy Letby sabotaged baby M whilst another nurse was busy getting ready to perform a sterile procedure. She denies it.

Nick Johnson KC says that the twins' parents had just left the neonatal unit when baby M collapsed. He says to Lucy Letby "this was your opportunity to sabotage him, wasn't it?". She replies "No, I was with Mary (another nurse)". *1

Nick Johnson KC suggests that nurse Letby "hung around to get her hands on" medical notes relating to baby M, after her shift ended, and also that she "rooted around in the bin" to pull out other records. She denies this.

Nick Johnson KC: "You sabotaged baby M by injecting him with air didn't you?" Lucy Letby: "No, I did not"





[let me add something that Moritz left out of the cross:
*1---Letby's colleague previously said she was dealing with a blood sample for Child L and was interrupted by Child M's emergency call.

"It was while [the colleague] was getting sterile that you sabotaged Child M," Nick Johnson KC, the prosecution barrister, says.
"No."]
 
11:24am

Dr Ukoh's records on the resuscitation for Child M are shown to the court. Mr Johnson says the record is "meticulous", including six adrenaline doses.
Mr Johnson says the data for the resuscitation efforts is on the paper towel [that Letby took home], which Mr Johnson says he must have had in his hand at some point. Letby agrees.
Mr Johnson says that was in his hand at 8.25pm when he wrote up his notes.
Letby said she had to stay late that shift for the handover and writing up medical notes for Child M. She denies "waiting an hour and a quarter" to write up those nursing notes or "hanging around" to get the note Dr Ukoh had when writing up the note.
Letby denies "rooting around in the bin" for the blood gas record for Child M to take home. She also denies sabotaging Child M.

11:25am

Mr Johnson is now turning to the case of Child N, born on June 2, 2016.
Letby, in her defence statement, says she had never encoutnered a baby with haemophilia before, and no-one on the unit seemed specifically to know how to care for such a baby.
She says she does not believe Child N 'collapsed', and it was not accurate to say he had screamed for 30 minutes. She denied causing any harm to him.


 
7m ago11:23

'I collect paper': Letby stored 'confidential' notes from Child M under her bed​

Lucy Letby is asked why medical notes from Child M - an NICU blood gas record - were found in a bag under her bed.
It was among a series of notes found during a police search of Letby's home.
Nick Johnson KC, for the prosecution, asks if she removed this from the waste bin on the unit.
She tells the court: "I definitely did not take anything out of the confidential waste bin."
When asked why she stored it in a bag under her bed, Letby says: "Because I collect paper."
Letby is then asked why she has shredded a bank statement, yet kept this medical record.
"What made this collectable?" Mr Johnson asks.
She says she would have shredded the bank statement because it would have been "at the forefront of my mind".

1m ago11:29

Letby denies 'rooting in the bin' for confidential notes​

Medical notes written on a paper towel - which was later found in Lucy Letby's possession - would have been handed to a doctor for him to make his notes at 8.25pm on the day Child M collapsed, the court is told.
Nick Johnson KC, the prosecution barrister, then asks how it came to be in Letby's pocket again.
"You hung around to get your hands on it before you left," he says.
Letby says she stayed late that night to finish "all the work that needed doing". Medical records show she was still on the unit an hour and 15 minutes after her shift ended.
The prosecution claims she "hung around" on the unit to collect the paper towel, and removed confidential paperwork from the bin.
"No, I have never rooted in the bin," Letby says.
The prosecution claims she wanted the notes because she "sabotaged" the infant. Letby denies this.

 
11:18am

A colleague had previously told the court Child M's blood gas record sheet was disposed of in a confidential waste bin.
Asked how it had ended under Letby's bed at home, Letby says she has never taken anything out of the confidential waste bin.
Letby says she does not know how many blood gas records she has taken home. She says it has been put in her pocket and taken home with a handover sheet.
She says she "probably" put it in her pocket, and put it under her bed.
Asked why, Letby replies: "Because I collect paper".
Letby says household bills and bank statements would be shredded as they were 'there and then'. Other sheets such as handover sheets were not thought about.


"Because I collect paper"?? Am I alone in thinking that is a very peculiar statement?
 
11:30am

Letby tells the court she does not believe this event, for Child N, was a collapse which required resuscitation.
The court is shown the nursing rota for the night shift of June 2-3. Letby was designated nurse for two babies in room 4. Child N was in room 1 with one other baby - the designated nurse for both babies was Christopher Booth.
Letby rules out staffing levels or incompetence as factors in Child N's collapse.
Letby agrees Child N collapsed just after Christopher Booth went on his break.
Letby denies she was 'bored' or had 'time on her hands' working in nursery 4 that shift.
She agrees Child N 'was in good shape' at the start of the shift.

 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
55
Guests online
2,455
Total visitors
2,510

Forum statistics

Threads
602,490
Messages
18,141,142
Members
231,409
Latest member
relaxininaz
Back
Top