16m ago14:05
Letby accused of changing the time of medical records the night child died
Child I deteriorated just before midnight, at 11.57pm. Letby is now being asked what she was doing in the lead-up to that collapse.
The baby Letby was assigned to care for was transferred to Royal Stoke University Hospital during the night shift of 22-23 October. (He is not a baby she is accused of harming).
The court is shown a text Letby sent to a colleague at the start of the shift:
'Oh that's fantastic. Unit nice. Transport on way to take my baby back to stoke. Only 8 babies. Off duty not out.'
This transfer, Letby says, would not have been a five-minute job and would have required a handover with the transport team and speaking to the family.
"I am going to suggest you were dealing with [the other baby] at 11pm," Mr Johnson says.
"Do you remember falsifying a recording relating to [the other baby]?"
Letby refutes this.
The court is then shown records relating to the baby in Letby's care. A close-up image of a medical note shows this baby being given a dextrose infusion at 00.00 (midnight), prior to the transfer.
But, the prosecution says, the four has been changed from a three, and the actual time this took place was 23.00 (11pm). They are accusing Letby of changing the notes to give herself an alibi in the lead-up to Child I's collapse.
"No I would not have changed a record, that was obviously written in error," Letby says. She says the note would have been signed off by her colleague.
The prosecution says she could have changed the time after it was signed.
6m ago14:15
'I don't remember this baby without the notes' - Court shown 'falsified' paperwork
Nick Johnson, the prosecution barrister, asks Letby if she remembers saying she had "no recollection" of Child I, other than what appeared in the notes.
"I don't remember this baby without the notes," Letby agrees.
Letby's colleague said before Child I collapsed she had "been very unsettled" and made a sound she had never heard before.
Her colleague described this as a "loud, relentless,s almost constant with no fluctuation, cry" that was "very different to a hunger cry".
"This is another case of you gravitating to nursery one when you were in other less acute nurseries," Mr Johnson asks.
Letby refutes this was deliberate and says one of the three members of staff "would have had to assist".
She was involved in giving Child I medication - something she says she cannot remember but is backed up by the nursing notes.
The court is then shown more nursing notes, where the times have clearly been changed - with digits overwritten.
Mr Johnson says there were "three different mistakes in the paperwork in 25 minutes".
"Yes, potentially yes," Letby says.
"Two different children," Mr Johnson says.
"Yes," says Letby.
Mr Johnson then asks "how do those sorts of mistakes happen?"
"When there is a lot going on in the unit we may have written down the wrong time," Letby says.
"We, or you?" Mr Johnson asks.
Letby says it wouldn't have been just her responsible.
Mr Johnson says Letby changed the paperwork to "put some time between yourself and serious events" involving the infant.
16m ago14:05
Letby accused of changing the time of medical records the night child died
Child I deteriorated just before midnight, at 11.57pm. Letby is now being asked what she was doing in the lead-up to that collapse.
The baby Letby was assigned to care for was transferred to Royal Stoke University Hospital during the night shift of 22-23 October. (He is not a baby she is accused of harming).
The court is shown a text Letby sent to a colleague at the start of the shift: 'Oh that's fantastic. Unit nice. Transport on way to take my baby back to stoke. Only 8 babies. Off duty not out.'
This transfer, Letby says, would not have been a five-minute job and would have required a handover with the transport team and speaking to the family.
"I am going to suggest you were dealing with [the other baby] at 11pm," Mr Johnson says.
"Do you remember falsifying a recording relating to [the other baby]?"
Letby refutes this.
The court is then shown records relating to the baby in Letby's care. A close-up image of a medical note shows this baby being given a dextrose infusion at 00.00 (midnight), prior to the transfer.
But, the prosecution says, the four has been changed from a three, and the actual time this took place was 23.00 (11pm). They are accusing Letby of changing the notes to give herself an alibi in the lead-up to Child I's collapse.
"No I would not have changed a record, that was obviously written in error," Letby says. She says the note would have been signed off by her colleague.
The prosecution says she could have changed the time after it was signed.
6m ago14:15
'I don't remember this baby without the notes' - Court shown 'falsified' paperwork
Nick Johnson, the prosecution barrister, asks Letby if she remembers saying she had "no recollection" of Child I, other than what appeared in the notes.
"I don't remember this baby without the notes," Letby agrees.
Letby's colleague said before Child I collapsed she had "been very unsettled" and made a sound she had never heard before.
Her colleague described this as a "loud, relentless,s almost constant with no fluctuation, cry" that was "very different to a hunger cry".
"This is another case of you gravitating to nursery one when you were in other less acute nurseries," Mr Johnson asks.
Letby refutes this was deliberate and says one of the three members of staff "would have had to assist".
She was involved in giving Child I medication - something she says she cannot remember but is backed up by the nursing notes.
The court is then shown more nursing notes, where the times have clearly been changed - with digits overwritten.
Mr Johnson says there were "three different mistakes in the paperwork in 25 minutes".
"Yes, potentially yes," Letby says.
"Two different children," Mr Johnson says.
"Yes," says Letby.
Mr Johnson then asks "how do those sorts of mistakes happen?"
"When there is a lot going on in the unit we may have written down the wrong time," Letby says.
"We, or you?" Mr Johnson asks.
Letby says it wouldn't have been just her responsible.
Mr Johnson says Letby changed the paperwork to "put some time between yourself and serious events" involving the infant.
Trying to get my head around what the prosecution are alleging happened here.
So nurse Hudson is looking after child I and Letby is allocated babies elsewhere, including a transfer baby..
10.00pm: Dr Chang writes a note saying the transfer baby is fit for transfer
10.50pm Letby's note for transfer baby was written. It included a documentation of a longline infusion with a 10% dextrose fluid. Letby has co-signed the document.
10.57pm: Note re child I by Ashleigh Hudson, who is with child I.
'Longline removed due to constant occlusions; neonatal nurse Lucy Letby unable to flush, so Paeds Reg Rachel Chang informed.' -
11.00pm: letby falsifies a note relating to the transfer baby from 11.00 to 12.00. she has now placed herself 'away from child I'
But nurse Hudson has documented her presence.
11.57 pm: Child I collapses
Seems they are suggesting that Letby tried to place herself as 'with the transfer baby at 11.00'
But then, whilst she writes up notes on the transfer the baby in another room, Ashleigh Hudson is writing a note from minutes before, saying LL was there and present.
When she LL returns to the scene of child I, it's all going off.
Letby then realises two things...
1. The AE is non fatal
2. Ashleigh Hudson has noted her as being present.
She then goes back to the transfer babies notes, crossing out 11.00 and putting 12 instead because she knows that she can't be
In two places at once?
