3:30pm
Letby says she cannot recall where she was when she sent the 6.28am message, whether she was in room 2 or not.
The message added: 'only 5 staff!'
Mr Johnson: "So it was all hands to the pump then?" as twins had been admitted to room 1 as an emergency.
LL: "Yes."
Mr Johnson says all staff would have been concentrated in room 1.
LL "Not all, but most, yes."
NJ: "You were not invovled in that, were you?"
LL: "Not from memory, no."
Mr Johnson says the message sent at 6.31am would have meant Letby would not have been in room 1. Letby agrees.
Letby says Mary Griffiths would not have been in room 1 as she was not an intensive treatment unit-trained nurse. She denies she would have been the last nurse for room 2.
Letby accepts, from looking at the neonatal schedule, she would have been in room 2 when the emergency twins were admitted to room 1.
NJ: "There would have been a lot of distractions...wouldn't there?"
LL: "I don't know what you're implying."
NJ: "The medical staff would have their attention focused on the twins, and any help that could be spared would have gone on the twins.
NJ: "Do you accept that a lot of help was needed?"
LL: "It would be normal practice to get in the consultant when we only had the registrar, yes."
Dr John Gibbs arrives at 6.34am, earlier than normal for his shift, to assist.
3:31pm
The last message Letby sent to her colleague was 6.49am. The colleague sent three messages which were not replied to in the following minutes.
NJ: "That's because you were in nursery room 2, sabotaging [Child I], weren't you?"
LL: "No, I wasn't."
3:35pm
Letby accepts that, on the neonatal schedule, she is not recorded doing anything in the half hour prior to Child J's collapse at 6.56am.
Mr Johnson refers to Dr John Gibbs's notes of 'sudden desats (to unrecordable levels) at 6.56 and at 7.24 and bradycardia. Both associated with clenching of hands, stiff limbs, and on second occasion, eyes deviated to left.'
NJ: "This was your doing?"
LL: "No, it wasn't."
Letby accepts it was an emergency situation and Dr Gibbs had to be called away from room 1 to Child J in room 2.
3:42pm
NJ: "You took your opportunity, when all the resources at the NNU were concentrated on the twins who had been admitted as an emergency."
LL: "No."
Letby accepts evidence had been heard saying there was no known cause for Child J's deterioration.
Letby had care of Child J the following night, which the court is shown, from Letby's notes for that night, 'nothing happened'.
3:46pm
Mr Johnson moves on to the case of Child K, born on February 17, 2016.
Letby said, in her defence statement, she did not recall the events of February 17, and did not recall saying to Dr Ravi Jayaram that Child K had just started deteriorating.
She said she had done nothing to interfere with Child K's tube or the alarm.
She added the Countess neonatal unit was not capable, given its staffing levels, of looking after a baby of Child K's gestational age.
Letby tells the court she has no memory of such a conversation with Dr Jayaram. She says it is "difficult" to dispute Dr Jayaram's recollection of the event as she had no memory of it.
She denies she has changed her version of events since starting to give evidence.
3:50pm
Letby is asked if she understands the reason why Child K was born at the Countess.
LL: "Yes."
Mr Johnson tells the court it was deemed 'too risky' to transfer Child K and her mother to another hospital at that stage, and that was why Child K was born at the Countess.
LL: "I don't know why more effort was not made to find a bed for her [elsewhere]."
NJ: "You have persistently given the impression that the Countess has taken on babies it [is not able to look after and that is why they collapse]."
LL: "Yes."
NJ: "Is that the reason you said to the jury you didn't understand why [Child K] was born at the Countess?"
LL: "I don't understand why she was born at the Countess."
NJ: "Is it to bolster your defence?"
LL: "No."
LL: "I understand why she was born there but I don't necessarily agree [with the decision to have her born there]."
3:53pm
Letby says she does not recall the latter two desaturations for Child K, and does not accept Dr Jayaram's evidence in the first desaturation.
Mr Johnson says he will deal with these in a different order than chronologically; he will cross-examine on the second desaturation first.
3:54pm
Letby says she does not know what happened to Child K, so does not cite staffing levels as a contributory factor in Child K's desaturations.
She says she feels "potentially" the ET Tubes were not secured for Child K.
4:03pm
The second desaturation occurred at 6.10-6.15am on February 17, 2016.
The court hears a note on Child K's birth and assessment was typed up by Letby on a computer from 6.04am-6.10am. The note would have been taken from paper charts taken by the cotside.
NJ: "You were at [Child K's] cotside a minute or two before she desaturated, didn't you?"
Letby says she would have got the notes from the cotside "at some point" prior to her typing them up.
The trial of Lucy Letby, who denies murdering seven babies at the Countess of Chester Hospital neonatal unit and attempting to murder 10 more, is…
www.chesterstandard.co.uk
