I thought it was the other way around? Didn't we discuss the prosecution's claim that the second insulin record was much higher implying intent to kill?
If it was the first which was higher how come it wasn't immediately challenged as being simply untrue?
I'm confused now!
from the prosecutions closing speech -
12:33pm
He says the level of insulin in Child L was double that found in Child F several months earlier.
NJ: "That tells you a lot about intention, doesn't it?"
He says for Child A, Letby was interviewed about it and said in the aftermath she had 'asked for the [dextrose] bag to be kept' in June 2015. It was put in a sluice room, and a colleague had confirmed this was done.
He says that Letby knew no-one subsequently examined the bag.
He says Letby "taunted the police" by repeatedly asking the question if police 'had the bag' [which had insulin in].
"She thought the fact they didn't have the bag would give her a free pass.
"But she was wrong, because what she didn't know was insulin c-peptide."
12:36pm
Mr Johnson says experts had given evidence from the laboratory to show results [indicating insulin and insulin c-pep levels] from there were "reliable", and Letby had accepted this in evidence.
--
Child L's dextrose bag, as Prof Hindmarsh, in evidence, said it had to be by 9.30am.
A blood sample taken for Child L taken at 10am showed an increase in the amount of dextrose given but a drop in the level of blood sugar - "when the opposite should have been true".
Mr Johnson says the "fingerprint of evidence" is the ratio between insulin and insulin c-peptide later recorded.
The 'podding' of the blood sample was delayed due to Child M's collapse, Mr Johnson says, and the timing of the sample taken must be taken from several accounts. He says it "must have been taken about 3.45pm".
2:23pm
The blood sample "would have been treated as urgent" and the nurse said she had been distracted by "an emergency" with Child M, which was timed at 4pm.
The blood was put into a vial and envelope and labelled.
The request for the blood test was entered at 3.45pm on a 'lab specimen internal inquiry' form at the Countess of Chester Pathology. The form is shown to the court.
The process and analysis were "interrupted" by "Lucy Letby's attack on [Child M]," Mr Johnson adds.
2:30pm
An infusion therapy sheet for a 10% dextrose prescription is at 3.40pm. Mr Johnson says this explains why the lab result shows a slightly higher blood sugar reading for Child L than the other readings, and that the blood sample was taken at 3.45pm.
Dr John Gibbs said the low blood sugar level should have meant the level of insulin in Child L was also low. He said it had "never occurred to him" that someone was administering insulin to Child L.
He said he had never received the lab results for Child L - they went to junior doctors who "didn't appreciate its significance" at the time.
2:34pm
Mr Johnson said scientist Dr Sarah Davies had phoned through the results to the hospital "as they were so unusual".
The lab at Liverpool was "performing very well" and Mr Johnson says it can be discounted as a possibility that the lab results were in any way "misleading".
He adds "it speaks volumes" that the levels of insulin were double that found for Child [F] months earlier.
"The poisoner, Lucy Letby, upped the dose for [Child L]."
He says, for timings, the insulin was put in "after the bag was hung" for Child L.
2:41pm
Mr Johnson says Letby was co-responsible for hanging up the bag for Child L at noon on April 9, and had also co-signed for the previous bag on April 8 at noon.
Prof Hindmarsh says the bag was "not poisoned" before midnight on April 8/9, as the blood sugar readings are "following an upward trend" for Child L.
Insulin "must have been put in" between midnight at 10am on April 9.
Mr Johnson says insulin went into the bag sometime before or at 9.36am, given insulin's half-life of 24 minutes.
Mr Johnson says it "had to have been a targeted attack", and is "not a random poisoning".
He says "whoever is responsible" must have been on duty between midnight a[nd] 9.36am.
Mr Johnson says the jury must ask if it could have been a different person. He says "it must have been the same person", and they could "get away with it" as long as "they didn't do it too often".
He says Letby came on duty between 7.30am-8am on April 9
2:43pm
The insulin that poisoned Child L "was put into more than one bag" and all the staff on duty said they were not responsible for that.
Mr Johnson says the first poisoning was when the bag was already hanging, and the second one was administered to Child L as well.
He says at 9.30am on April 9, Mary Griffith was in room 4. She was not working on the day when Child [F ]was poisoned.
2:49pm
A third bag was being put together for Child L at the time Child M collapsed.
"Somebody also spiked that bag," Mr Johnson says. He says it was "spiked" sometime after it was hung up at 4.30pm.
Mr Johnson asks if somebody did this to "frame" Lucy Letby, and if she didn't do this, then somebody also targeted Child [F], and targeted Lucy Letby to take the blame.
"We suggest that is not a reasonable possibility - that is why all the other cases are so important, they are not coincidences."
Recap: Lucy Letby trial, Monday, June 19 - closing speeches
www.chesterstandard.co.uk
