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

[Jazmania]

No she said she said to the mother the blood on the chin has come from the ng tube, she denies telling the mother to leave the ward while a dr was called. She also contests the mothers presence at 9pm.

I think there is some confusion here. I think LL denies the 9pm interaction completely. So she denies there being any blood on the chin, denies saying anything to the mom about where the blood came from, because according to her there was no blood at this time.

I'm pretty sure that blood in an NG tube would be contained within the tube and would not go on the baby's chin or anywhere else on the baby.

 

[Sweeper2000]

No she said she said to the mother the blood on the chin has come from the ng tube?

Is this what she said I understood it as it was "caused" by the tube irritating

Sorry think I’m muddling cases a bit. Here’s the actual quote.

At 9pm on August 3, 2015, the mother decided to visit her twin sons, and "interrupted Lucy Letby who was in the process of attacking Child E", the prosecution say, although the mum "did not realise it at the time". Child E was 'acutely distressed' and bleeding from the mouth. The mum said Letby attempted to reassure her the blood was due to the NGT ittirating the throat.

Lucy Letby Case Truth Revealed

This wiki is about the ongoing trial of Nurse Lucy Letby who is charged with the murder and attempted murder of 17 babies at the Countess of Chester Hospital, between June 2015 and June 2016. There are 22 charges in total, 7 murder and 15 attempted murder. Lucy has pleaded not guilty to all...

tattle.life

Lucy Letby trial: Mum walked in on nurse as she was killing baby, court hears

Day two in the trial of Lucy Letby, who had specialist training in care for the sickest babies at the neonatal unit in the Countess of Chester Hospital, and is alleged to have gone on a year-long killing spree while working there.

news.sky.com

however we do not have what was said verbatim from the mother.

 

[JosieJo]

I think there is some confusion here. I think LL denies the 9pm interaction completely. So she denies there being any blood on the chin, denies saying anything to the mom about where the blood came from, because according to her there was no blood at this time.

I'm pretty sure that blood in an NG tube would be contained within the tube and would not go on the baby's chin or anywhere else on the baby.

Yes thats the way I see it too

 

[Jazmania]

No she said she said to the mother the blood on the chin has come from the ng tube?

Is this what she said I understood it as it was "caused" by the tube irritating

Yes, the mother testified that LL told her the blood on the mouth was caused by the tube irritating the throat

 

[JosieJo]

I think there is some confusion here. I think LL denies the 9pm interaction completely. So she denies there being any blood on the chin, denies saying anything to the mom about where the blood came from, because according to her there was no blood at this time.

I'm pretty sure that blood in an NG tube would be contained within the tube and would not go on the baby's chin or anywhere else on the baby.

And I'd have to ask myself why she denies seeing the mum at 9pm and also why she didn't document the blood at 9pm or call the Dr

 

[Sweeper2000]

I’m not sure if these quotes are allowed so I’ll do them in a sseparate post with supporting articles. this is a fuller account of the proceedings.

In police interview, Letby said she could remember Child E and he was "stable" at the time of the handover, with nothing of concern "before the large bile aspirate". She said she and another member of staff had disposed of the aspirate and the advice was to omit the feed. She said Child E's abdomen was becoming fuller and there was a purple discolouration, so had asked a doctor to review Child E. She said she had got blood from the NG tube.

She was asked about the 10pm note and said if there had been any blood prior to the 9pm feed, "she would have noted it".
She said it was after 9pm that the SHO had reviewed Child E but could not reall if it was face-to-face or over the phone.
She said she could remember the mum leaving after 'the 10pm visit'.

In a June 2019 interview, she was pressed over a conversation with the SHO.

She said she had no independent memory of it.

She said she could not remember the mum coming into the room at 9pm with milk, nor Child E being upset, with blood coming from the mouth.

She said she would not have told the mum to go back upstairs.

"We have a stark contrast between what the mum says and what Lucy Letby says," Mr Johnson tells the court.

"You know he was due to be fed...breastmilk. You know, we say, that is why [the mum] was there.

"This has been wiped out of the records, by Lucy Letby, because she knows the consequences of [the mum] being right about this."

UK - Lucy Letby Trial - Media, Maps & Timeline *NO DISCUSSION*

Lucy Letby is on trial in the UK, charged with the murders of 7 infants and the attempted murder of 15 other infants. Media, Maps & Timelines can be posted here. *NO DISCUSSION* in this thread or your post will be removed.

www.websleuths.com

 

[ShireChe]

12:17pm

A further note, written in retrospect, is made at 1.45am.
He records 'sudden deterioration at 11.40pm'
Prior to that, Child E was still to be 'under close observation' by Lucy Letby.
Dr Harkness tells the court he was in the room when the 'sudden deterioration' happened, and was there with Lucy Letby and another nurse. Those nurses would have been gathering the drugs to be administered.
The notes record 'brady 80-90bpm, sats 60%, poor perfusion, colour change over abdomen, purple discoloured patches'.
He says: "This was a strange pattern over the tummy and abdomen, which didn't fit with the poor perfusion - the rest was still pink, but there were these strange purple patches."
He says some of the patches were still pink, but others were purple-blue, were unusual.
He likens the purple-blue colour to be what you would see after going for a swim in cold water and coming out, with 'purple-blue' colour on the lips.
The rest of the skin was 'normal colour'.
The abdomen had 'purple patches', which didn't fit with an anatomical part of the body. He says it is difficult to describe in any detail, without a photo.
He says he has seen this in Child A before and had not seen it on any other baby, outside of the babies in the case.

Recap: Lucy Letby trial, Thursday, November 17

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

If LL is found to be guilty that is certainly something. Are they saying that LL did something while another nurse and the Doctor were in the same room??

 

[Sweeper2000]

It doesn’t make sense to me at all what the prosecution are suggesting. They say this incident with the blood on the chin at 9 pm was the reason LL allegedly falsified the notes. Assuming she was in the process of attacking Baby E why if she had had this questionable interaction with the mother at 9pm would she then go on to actually kill the child or attempt to? That’s making a bad situation worse and obviously not in alignment with someone supposedly trying to conceal her tracks. If she had already done something she is supposed to know would be suspicious why then go and do something that’s about 100 x more suspicious?

 

[LadyEdgeworth]

12:31pm

The 'purple discolouration of abdomen remained', it is noted.
Child E's blood pressure had dropped but was still in the normal range.
The plan was to administer further medication, but there was a concern that administering a drug to make the heart beat faster would lead to 'worse bleeding'.
Dr Harkness says 'from his recollection' the blood had settled and there was no further substantial amount of blood recorded.

12:32pm

Dr Harkness said he and a colleague were stood at the end of the incubator, discussing what medication and plans were being put in place for Child E, when Child E collapsed "in front of our face when we were stood there".

12:37pm

Dr Harkness recalls the resuscitation efforts began, and Child E's heart rate recovered at 1.01am, and the parents had arrived by that time.
He tells the court the blood supply was 'very poor'. He says during CPR, blood was coming out of Child E's nose and mouth, suggesting the blood pressure was low. He says the sight was "not very nice, particularly".

12:40pm

Dr Harkness is asked about the bleeding seen on Child E.
He says: "I have never seen it in a baby, to this extent." He says he had seen the level of blood in a teenager, but not, relatively, in a baby as small as Child E.

12:44pm

Dr Harkness is asked about Letby's nursing note made on the night shift of August 3, which refer to Child E's mum visiting at 10pm and she was informed by Letby and Dr Harkness about blood coming from the NG Tube. It refers to 'she was updated by Reg Harkness and contained [Child E]'.
The note is shown to the court.
Dr Harkness confirms it was the note shown to him. He does not know what 'contained' meant in the context.
He says he does not remember if the mum was present at that time.

12:47pm

A pathology report for Child E is shown, with 'PT and APTT' readings. Those are two tests for blood clotting measurements. They were 'high, but not enough to be shocked by'.
The readings were 19.5 and 53.6, compared to the normal ranges of '12.5-15' and '26-35' respectively.

Recap: Lucy Letby trial, Thursday, November 17

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

 

[JosieJo]

It doesn’t make sense to me at all what the prosecution are suggesting. They say this incident with the blood on the chin at 9 pm was the reason LL allegedly falsified the notes. Assuming she was in the process of attacking Baby E why if she had had this questionable interaction with the mother at 9pm would she then go on to actually kill the child or attempt to? That’s making a bad situation worse and obviously not in alignment with someone supposedly trying to conceal her tracks. If she had already done something she is supposed to know would be suspicious why then go and do something that’s about 100 x more suspicious?

It's possible LL had already caused to damage at that point...but delayed getting the Dr to closer till 10pm

 

[Jazmania]

And I'd have to ask myself why she denies seeing the mum at 9pm and also why she didn't document the blood at 9pm or call the Dr

Yes, either the mom is wrong and has a false memory, or Letby has lied. If so, that it perhaps the most damning evidence for baby E and the trial so far.

 

[LadyEdgeworth]

Yes, either the mom is wrong and has a false memory, or Letby has lied. If so, that it perhaps the most damning evidence for baby E and the trial so far.

Mam has phone records on her side, the call to her husband at 9:11 discussing what she saw at 9pm

 

[Jazmania]

It doesn’t make sense to me at all what the prosecution are suggesting. They say this incident with the blood on the chin at 9 pm was the reason LL allegedly falsified the notes. Assuming she was in the process of attacking Baby E why if she had had this questionable interaction with the mother at 9pm would she then go on to actually kill the child or attempt to? That’s making a bad situation worse and obviously not in alignment with someone supposedly trying to conceal her tracks. If she had already done something she is supposed to know would be suspicious why then go and do something that’s about 100 x more suspicious?

I'm sure the prosecution would say it's because she has some compulsion to harm babies that overrides her desire to be inconspicuous

After all, texts show staff were already linking the cases at this point. And over time consultants obviously became suspicious of her and she may have felt this. Yet the prosecution say she still attacked babies, often in very close temporal proximities (i.e babies A,B,C and D attacked within a space of 2 weeks).

 

[Sweeper2000]

It's possible LL had already caused to damage at that point...but delayed getting the Dr to closer till 10pm

That’s kind of my point. If she wanted to evade suspicion why make a bad situation worse with an AE after the possible but not alleged 9pm trauma based attack? It might make sense if LL wrote the notes retrospectively and only guessed the 9pm interaction was suspicious after the alleged AE At which point it is too late To change the suspect 9pm interaction.

 

[Sweeper2000]

I'm sure the prosecution would say it's because she has some compulsion to harm babies that overrides her desire to be inconspicuous

After all, texts show staff were already linking the cases at this point. And over time consultants obviously became suspicious of her and she may have felt this. Yet the prosecution say she still attacked babies, often in very close temporal proximities (i.e babies A,B,C and D attacked within a space of 2 weeks).

I believe you are suggesting a pathological need that overrides ones capacity for self protection. the prosecution could only allege this if LL is guilty, they have also not stated it in evidence which means it’s not what they are thinking. They would seriously struggle to make a case for it, as there is nothing else to support it other than the possibility that LL is guilty as accused.

 

[LadyEdgeworth]

1:22pm

After a short lunch break, the trial is now resuming.

1:23pm

Ben Myers KC, for Letby's defence, opens by mentioning about Letby's note made.
Mr Myers says a 'containment technique' was used, as described by Child E's mother, to clarify the 'contained' comment. It was a technique used to calm a baby.

1:28pm

Mr Myers asks about the sequence of events.
He refers to a police statement Dr Harkness made, where the doctor says: "I was asked to review [Child E] by Letby [following the finding of a dirty aspirate].
'Looking at the notes it was 10pm-10.30pm...I only came on at 9pm'.
He described, in the statement, the aspirate which was largely mucus-y.
He said he could not be sure if there was a fleck of blood around Child E's face [on examination].
'[Child E] looked relatively settled and there was nothing to suggest that was ging to change'.

Recap: Lucy Letby trial, Thursday, November 17

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

(Containment is what mam mentioned doing at 9pm when she found Child E with blood on face which it seems LL is saying happened at 10pm, Harkness was there at 10pm)

 

[Jazmania]

I believe you are suggesting a pathological need that overrides ones capacity for self protection. the prosecution could only allege this if LL is guilty, they have also not stated it in evidence which means it’s not what they are thinking. They would seriously struggle to make a case for it, as there is nothing else to support it other than the possibility that LL is guilty as accused.

Well to be fair, I'd say the explanation I offered is self evident. If she is trying to kill babies then she is doing so despite the risks of being caught. Presumably if guilty the desire to cause harm outweighed a fear of being caught, otherwise none of the events would have taken place.

The prosecution allege all the harm events took place, even when suspicion was been thrown her way. Some killers may be more able to take risks than others. We don't have any evidence either way about whether she is a cautious or risk taking individual as we know almost nothing about her.

I don't see why the prosecution would need to wait for a guilty verdict to say this. They obviously are presenting the case that she did this, despite the obvious risks to herself.

 

[LadyEdgeworth]

1:30pm

The statement adds: 'However, around half an hour to an hour later there was a large amount of fluid which came up the tube.
'From memory it was 12-14ml of blood which for a baby was a substantial amount'.
Child D brought up further 'fresh blood' in quantities which he had 'not seen [in sudden cases] since'.

1:38pm

Mr Myers asks about the initial stages from the first clinical note, at 10.10pm.
Dr Harkness confirms he has been asked to review Child E, following the bile-stained aspirate '30 mins ago'.
Mr Myers said all of what had happened in the 10.10pm note, had happened by 10.10pm.
Dr Harkness says this was a 40-minute period of several year ago. He said this was potentially a period of 9.30-10.10pm.
He said it would 'match up' with the note.
In the police statement, Dr Harkness said he would have been 'bleeped' by Lucy Letby.
He says that would have been the most common approach to be alerted to the nursery room 1.
He said he had seen 'a dirty aspirate which may have contained blood flecks and bile'.
Mr Myers says the police statement said Child E had 'nothing dramatic' around the baby's face, and could not be sure if there were any blood flecks.
Child E was 'not in distress' and 'appeared fine'.
Dr Harkness says he does not know if he saw Child E's mother, and does not have a clear recollection. He says it could be the case, looking at the notes provided.

1:39pm

Mr Myers asks if Dr Harkness had 'any particular concerns' from the first reading. Dr Harkness says there wasn't. He agrees the second note, with blood vomit, was 'more concerning' and suggested a gastrointestinal bleed.
Mr Myers asks if such a bleed was 'serious'.
"Potentially," Dr Harkness replies.

1:41pm

Mr Myers suggests that a GI bleed should have led to a blood transfusion.
Dr Harkness says if there were other observations which collated that, he would have done so, but at this point, he would not have done so, as the blood vomit could have had other causes.
He said a blood transfusion 'may have come up in a conversation' with a fellow doctor. Mr Myers asks why that wasn't documented. Dr Harkness says he cannot answer that.

Recap: Lucy Letby trial, Thursday, November 17

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

 

[JosieJo]

That’s kind of my point. If she wanted to evade suspicion why make a bad situation worse with an AE after the possible but not alleged 9pm trauma based attack? It might make sense if LL wrote the notes retrospectively and only guessed the 9pm interaction was suspicious after the alleged AE At which point it is too late To change the suspect 9pm interaction.

Imo it's possible she had already done the damage but wanted to deflect the timing back so that the mum would not think it happened because of LL

 

[LadyEdgeworth]

1:47pm

The clinical note for 11pm is shown to the court, which the court hears refers to the 'large amount of fresh blood'. Dr Harkness was called into the unit.
The '13ml blood-stained fluid' is a 'significant quantity', Dr Harkness confirms.
Mr Myers said this follows other blood which came out earlier, and a typical baby would have had something 'in the region of 120ml' in him at that time.
Dr Harkness agrees.
Mr Myers said there had been 27mls of blood and aspirate taken from him in that time, which was 'up to a quarter' of Child E's blood. Dr Harkness agrees
Mr Myers says the heart rate is 'normal', but the saturation rate is 'low'. He says the heart rate 'should be higher'.
Dr Harkness says: "Not necessary - there are multi factors to that. It's part of a separate conversation with expert witnesses."
He says it is not as simple as saying one reading should go up in line with others. He says blood pressure was normal, and there were other factors to consider.
Mr Myers says the pairing of heart rate and saturations is 'not normal'. Dr Harkness says it is abnormal, in the sense that the heart rate is normal and the saturations rate is abnormal.

1:51pm

Mr Myers asks why a consulation with surgeons was required following x-rays.
Dr Harkness says advice would have been taken from them once the extra results would have been acquired from the x-rays.
Mr Myers says he could have been dealing with a 'very serious situation indeed'.
Dr Harkness: "Potentially."
Dr Harkness says things were "changing" but Child E was still "stable".
Mr Myers: "Are you suggesting that a baby who has lost a quarter of its blood is not an emergency situation?"
Dr Harkness "What I'm suggesting is there are things to do and there is time to do it."
Mr Myers says transfusion was not being considered at this point, and one of the 'obvious things' to consider.
"It is something you had failed to consider, isn't it?"
Dr Harkness says it was likely considered, but accepts it was not documented at the 11pm note.

1:51pm

Mr Myers suggests it was a "serious mistake" not to consider blood transfusion.
Dr Harkness: "I disagree."

Recap: Lucy Letby trial, Thursday, November 17

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