UK - Nurse Lucy Letby Faces 22 Charges - 7 Murder/15 Attempted Murder of Babies #9

[ShireChe]

I have been told that we cannot post anything here or on other platforms which literally accuse her of being guilty. So I wonder if the reporters, who are posting their tweets about the case, also cannot accuse her of being guilty or innocent.

They can describe what they hear in court but do they have to be cautious about not crossing a line?

I am not 100% sure and I imagine there are people on here more knowledgeable in the law, but the vast majority of the prosecution opening was published which set out what they believe LL did, so I'm not sure why they suddenly wouldn't be able to report it. As long as they are stating the actual evidence given accurately and saying 'the prosecution say' or 'the prosecution claim' then I can't see why it would be a problem

 

[DianaWW]

It's a shame we had no live updates yesterday when the medical experts were giving their evidence. We have likely missed a lot of important details. Frustrating. IMO.

 

[katydid23]

I am not 100% sure and I imagine there are people on here more knowledgeable in the law, but the vast majority of the prosecution opening was published which set out what they believe LL did, so I'm not sure why they suddenly wouldn't be able to report it. As long as they are stating the actual evidence given accurately and saying 'the prosecution say' or 'the prosecution claim' then I can't see why it would be a problem

Yes, I read all the very detailed accusations set forth in the opening statements. But since then, the actual reporting of the evidence has been very eager and vague. That is what has me wondering now.

 

[LadyEdgeworth]

Looks like we should be getting live updates today as Chester Standard is there. I should be able to do them this morning but I'm out this afternoon

Recap: Lucy Letby trial, Wednesday, January 25

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

 

[Sweeper2000]

It's a shame we had no live updates yesterday when the medical experts were giving their evidence. We have likely missed a lot of important details. Frustrating. IMO.

I’m wondering if the lack of coverage from yesterday might come at a later date? But hopefully not after the trial has actually finished.

to anyone interested and or with an encyclopaedic memory of details of the case, I’m wondering if it was mentioned how long tpn bags are stored in the fridge for? Must have a shelf life, it being in the fridge suggests it needs to be replenished at some point in time. I would assume there being no other examples of highly concerning blood sugar problems close to the time of that case suggests that if those other non bespoke bags did contain insulin they were disposed of Before it became apparent Or if used as a secondary to a bespoke bag didn’t contain insulin. I presume there wouldn’t have just been one tpn bag stored in the fridge.

im also wondering why as another example of something seemingly quite apparent IMO, it wasn’t thought of at the time that somehow the baby had or was receiving insulin when it shouldn’t have been.

 

[notsure]

It's a shame we had no live updates yesterday when the medical experts were giving their evidence. We have likely missed a lot of important details. Frustrating. IMO.

I don't know if this has already been posted - an article about yesterday's evidence:

Medics left needle inside baby's chest, Lucy Letby trial hears

The prosecution alleges Lucy Letby, 33, somehow sabotaged the infant's treatment on two separate occasions on successive night shifts in the neonatal unit of the Countess of Chester Hospital.

www.dailymail.co.uk

 

[LadyEdgeworth]

Lucy Letby trial: Baby received 'suboptimal care' at Countess

A BABY received “some suboptimal care” before two unexplained cardiac arrests, the trial of a nurse accused of multiple murders heard.

www.chesterstandard.co.uk

Not sure if this has been posted but this is a recap from yesterday too

 

[LadyEdgeworth]

10:27am

The courtroom at Manchester Crown Court is now filling up, with Lucy Letby present.

10:29am

It is expected the case will begin delivering detailed evidence in the case of Child I today.
Previously, the prosecution said in their opening that Child I, a baby girl, was murdered by Letby in October 2015, on Letby's fourth attempt at trying to kill her. The defence deny this

10:33am

The judge, Mr Justice Goss, has entered the courtroom.
The trial will resume shortly.

Recap: Lucy Letby trial, Wednesday, January 25

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

 

[LadyEdgeworth]

10:36am

Nicholas Johnson KC, prosecuting, is reminding the jury of the prosecution's case for Child I, which has one count of murder.
He tells the jury this case, which the prosecution says involves four attempts to murder the baby girl, will be the longest to be heard in this trial.

10:39am

Child I was born in Liverpool Women's Hospital on August 7, 2015, weighing 2lbs 2oz. She was transferred to the Countess of Chester Hospital on August 18.
The prosecution say Lucy Letby attempted to kill Child I on September 30, on October 12, on October 14 and on October 22, the last date being Child I's death.

10:43am

The court is now hearing a statement from the mother of Child I, who describes her pregnancy, and found she was having a girl at a 16-week scan.
She said at no time during any of the scans were there any concerns. She had "breezed through" past pregnancies, but five weeks after her last scan, her waters broke.
She went to the Countess, who conducted some tests to prove her waters had broken.
She was transferred to the Manchester Royal Hospital, with more blood tests conducted. She was told the baby girl would be born prior to 34 weeks and was 'safer inside' at this point.
She was sent home, with advice to go to the Countess every 2-3 days for blood tests.
After the first of those appointments, she was told not to leave due to the blood results. She was transferred to Liverpool Women's Hospital and was continually monitored.

Recap: Lucy Letby trial, Wednesday, January 25

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

 

[LadyEdgeworth]

10:46am

On the 7th, the mother was in labour, and needed to get to the ward.
She was informed by a midwife she was not in labour, but the mother said she was in contractions.
She was not happy and so spoke to another midwife at the hospital she knew.
A doctor physically examined her, and she was transferred to the labour ward.
The mother said she was "too scared to push", and at some point she was told the baby was in distress, so she pushed.
Child I was born at 9.02pm, following an hour-long labour.

10:51am

Child I was "doing really well" when born and was brought to the mum, before going to the neonatal unit.
The mother was later told that, as Child I only weighed 2lbs, staff were having difficulty 'getting lines in', requiring scans every time.
The mother was later able to see Child I, who was on a ventilator.
The following day, the parents saw her and she was still in an incubator, but no longer on a ventilator - she was now on CPAP.
A nurse asked if the mother wanted to handle Child I, and the mother accepted, but the saturation levels dropped once the baby went out of the incubator, and the mother was told it was a 'little too soon'.
Over the following days, Child I was 'doing really well', although the mother was informed it would depend whether Child I would pull through, which left her 'petrified'.
However, Child I continued to do 'fine'.

10:54am

At five days old, Child I was transferred to a high dependency unit at the neonatal unit in Liverpool.
The following day, the family were told Child I could go back to Chester.
The mother said: "We panicked, [Liverpool] was spotless, and [Child I] was settled there.
"At the same time we had heard a virus had broken out among ward 2, so we were then relieved."
Child I was transferred to the Countess of Chester Hospital on August 18.
At first, the mother said they had reservations about Child I's care at the CoCH as the staff didn't seem to have the time for them, as they seemed so busy.

Recap: Lucy Letby trial, Wednesday, January 25

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

 

[Sweeper2000]

@katydid23

respectfully snipped

“Who would ever consider that as a possibility to begin with? Air embolisms in newborns are very rare because the machinery has 'fail safe' mechanism to prevent them from accidentally happening. The first thought by the attending doctors is not going to be that a care giver is going to be forcing air into those little babies.”

as I’ve been trying to point out it doesn’t need to be nefarious for it to be thought of. It could just as easily have been due to a faulty machine. It’s just the lack of any doctors suggesting it even as the remotest possibility even after excluding all other possibilities that I’m paying attention to That as well as a Doctor/s not needing to be suspicious to think of it.

that or the symptoms of an AE are applicable on a broad basis with few if any particular or particularly noticeable symptoms.
jmo.

 

[LadyEdgeworth]

10:59am

The mother said: "I felt that Chester and Liverpool had different methods (Chester concentrated on feeding, helping babies grow, Liverpool concentrated on getting babies off oxygen support). All the time, the nurses would explain why they were doing this."
Child I was on CPAP, but the mother said the mask was too big for her, and cotton pads were used to fill the gap, and this left marks on her, which left the mother "annoyed".
Child I was moved to room 2 at the neonatal unit, where the mother met the mother of another baby [Child G].
She was very annoyed at a nurse who appeared to have a cold, which she had had for 'days' and even doctors were aware of, and was in the room. The mother said she did not want her baby to get an infection.

11:02am

The mother was at home when she received a call about Child I deteriorating in health, and she was transferred to Liverpool.
Staff at the Countess suspected Child I had NEC as her stomach had swelled. She was transferred to Liverpool Women's so she would be close to Alder Hey, if surgery was required.
When the parents arrived, they were informed Child I did not have NEC, and she improved. The mother was 'not happy' that no test was taken to categorically rule out NEC as that could have informed her future care.
Child I was transferred back to the Countess.
The constant stays in hospital were 'beginning to take a toll' on the parents, so they split their time at the hospital.

11:04am

The mother says she was changing Child I's nappy and was told by Lucy Letby that the baby girl's stomach looked swollen.
Letby said she would keep an eye on it.
That night, the mother was at home when she was informed Child I had deteriorated again and to come to the hospital.
When they arrived, resuscitations were being carried out on Child I.
The swelling to Child I's stomach had 'now gone down' and she was 'doing better', the mother was told by one of the nurses.
Child I was then taken back to room 2.

11:06am

The mother recalled Child G had also been poorly 'a number of times' at this time in mid September.
Child I was 'looking different' and was looking around, looking like 'a full-term baby', like 'she should be at home in her bed'.
The mother had seen so many people 'not washing their hands and then touching things', so she wanted to get Child I home.
Lucy Letby offered advice on how to bathe Child I, to the mother. She offered to take photos using Child I's mother's mobile, to which the mother agreed.
Letby always appeared 'reserved' compared to other nurses, the mother added.

Recap: Lucy Letby trial, Wednesday, January 25

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

 

[katydid23]

@katydid23

respectfully snipped

“Who would ever consider that as a possibility to begin with? Air embolisms in newborns are very rare because the machinery has 'fail safe' mechanism to prevent them from accidentally happening. The first thought by the attending doctors is not going to be that a care giver is going to be forcing air into those little babies.”

as I’ve been trying to point out it doesn’t need to be nefarious for it to be thought of. It could just as easily have been due to a faulty machine. It’s just the lack of any doctors suggesting it even as the remotest possibility even after excluding all other possibilities that I’m paying attention to That as well as a Doctor/s not needing to be suspicious to think of it.

that or the symptoms of an AE are applicable on a broad basis with few if any particular or particularly noticeable symptoms.
jmo.

"It could just as easily have been due to a faulty machine. It’s just the lack of any doctors suggesting it even as the remotest possibility even after excluding all other possibilities that I’m paying attention to That as well as a Doctor/s not needing to be suspicious to think of it."


Did any of those faulty machines continue acting up, and pushing air into babies bloodstream after LL left the floor and went into clerical duties?

 

[Sweeper2000]

"It could just as easily have been due to a faulty machine. It’s just the lack of any doctors suggesting it even as the remotest possibility even after excluding all other possibilities that I’m paying attention to That as well as a Doctor/s not needing to be suspicious to think of it."


Did any of those faulty machines continue acting up, and pushing air into babies bloodstream after LL left the floor and went into clerical duties?

Did they have the opportunity to?

 

[LadyEdgeworth]

11:09am

Child I was put on antibiotics 'as a precaution'. She could go from normal to 'almost dying' within a matter of seconds, the mother recalls.
She says staff 'made a big deal' of Child I's stomach. A test was carried out for cystic fibrosis.
The mother had felt the atmosphere in the hospital 'had changed' and she had concerns whether Child I would be able to go home. She asked a nurse if that could be the case, and the nurse replied 'We'll see - she comes off antibiotics on Wednesday, so we'll see'.

11:13am

One day, the mother was sitting there by Child I, when suddenly Child I's oxygen monitor started bleeping. The nurse - not Letby - said it was nothing to worry about, and began fiddling with the monitor.
The mother said when she left that night, things 'didn't feel right', as these had been signs before Child I became very poorly.
The mother was informed overnight Child I's monitor had been switched off as she didn't need it, and her temperature had dropped.
Child I later deteriorated and needed to be resuscitated 'at least 7 or 8 times'.
The hospital believed Child I had a bowel problem. She was not found with a swollen stomach, but was not breathing. The mother believed if the monitors had been kept on, then the situation could've been more closely monitored.
Child I recovered, but with swelling to her stomach and bruising uner her left breast bone.
She 'kept being resuscitated' and the parents were informed about Child I's deteriorations 'every day'.
A doctor told the parents they were concerned Child I 'wouldn't be able to make it.'

11:20am

A couple of days later, Child I had 'picked up, but was told by a nurse that Child I's heart rate was 'still too low', and it was suggested that Child I would be Christened.
The mother said she felt that by Christening her, it would be like giving up, but they didn't.
Following the Christening, Child I's stats dropped and she was transferred by ambulance to Arrowe Park on October 15.
Arrowe Park then told the parents there was 'nothing wrong with her'. The mother felt the staff were 'being rude' and she felt she had to defend the Countess staff as they had to save Child I's life 'time and time again'.
The Arrowe Park doctor told the mother he 'couldn't understand what she was saying'. The nurse said she was going to give Child I some milk, and the mother said 'no, she's nil by mouth'. The nurse apologised and said she hadn't read the chart. The mother was angry at this.
The mother was told Child I was fine, but when the baby was turned over, she collapsed. The mother screamed at the doctor to do something.
The mother said the journeys between the hospitals would 'take it out of' Child I.
Child I improved and was transferred back to the Countess on October 17.
Child I 'didn't look herself' and it was like she was 'looking through me', the mother said to her mother.

Recap: Lucy Letby trial, Wednesday, January 25

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

 

[katydid23]

Did they have the opportunity to?

Did the machines have an opportunity to?

I'm sure they did. All of the babies were receiving fluids and treatments and such, day and night. If there was a faulty machine we'd already know about it.

 

[Officer Dibble]

11:09am

Child I was put on antibiotics 'as a precaution'. She could go from normal to 'almost dying' within a matter of seconds, the mother recalls.
She says staff 'made a big deal' of Child I's stomach. A test was carried out for cystic fibrosis.
The mother had felt the atmosphere in the hospital 'had changed' and she had concerns whether Child I would be able to go home. She asked a nurse if that could be the case, and the nurse replied 'We'll see - she comes off antibiotics on Wednesday, so we'll see'.

11:13am

One day, the mother was sitting there by Child I, when suddenly Child I's oxygen monitor started bleeping. The nurse - not Letby - said it was nothing to worry about, and began fiddling with the monitor.
The mother said when she left that night, things 'didn't feel right', as these had been signs before Child I became very poorly.
The mother was informed overnight Child I's monitor had been switched off as she didn't need it, and her temperature had dropped.
Child I later deteriorated and needed to be resuscitated 'at least 7 or 8 times'.
The hospital believed Child I had a bowel problem. She was not found with a swollen stomach, but was not breathing. The mother believed if the monitors had been kept on, then the situation could've been more closely monitored.
Child I recovered, but with swelling to her stomach and bruising uner her left breast bone.
She 'kept being resuscitated' and the parents were informed about Child I's deteriorations 'every day'.
A doctor told the parents they were concerned Child I 'wouldn't be able to make it.'

11:20am

A couple of days later, Child I had 'picked up, but was told by a nurse that Child I's heart rate was 'still too low', and it was suggested that Child I would be Christened.
The mother said she felt that by Christening her, it would be like giving up, but they didn't.
Following the Christening, Child I's stats dropped and she was transferred by ambulance to Arrowe Park on October 15.
Arrowe Park then told the parents there was 'nothing wrong with her'. The mother felt the staff were 'being rude' and she felt she had to defend the Countess staff as they had to save Child I's life 'time and time again'.
The Arrowe Park doctor told the mother he 'couldn't understand what she was saying'. The nurse said she was going to give Child I some milk, and the mother said 'no, she's nil by mouth'. The nurse apologised and said she hadn't read the chart. The mother was angry at this.
The mother was told Child I was fine, but when the baby was turned over, she collapsed. The mother screamed at the doctor to do something.
The mother said the journeys between the hospitals would 'take it out of' Child I.
Child I improved and was transferred back to the Countess on October 17.
Child I 'didn't look herself' and it was like she was 'looking through me', the mother said to her mother.

Recap: Lucy Letby trial, Wednesday, January 25

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

That is a heartbreaking read. JMO.

 

[LadyEdgeworth]

11:23am

At 12.30am on October 23, the mother woke up to find she had a missed call from the hospital. She rang through to a nurse and Child I had 'a little turn' and had been put on a ventilator.
The mother said she had to get to the hospital as she wasn't happy about Child I being back on a ventilator after all this time.
After ringing back, she was told to get to the hospital 'as soon as she can'. When they arrived, they found staff including Letby were trying to resuscitate Child I. That had been done for 20 minutes.
After some time, the mother said to them: "You can't keep doing this any more."
Resuscitation efforts ceased and Child I was passed into the arms of the mother, and Child I died shortly afterwards.

11:24am

Two nurses, including Letby, asked if the mother wanted to bathe Child I.
While bathing, Letby was "smiling and kept going on about much she was present at [Child I]'s first bath and how much [Child I] had loved it.
"I wished she'd just stop talking. i think, eventually, she realised. It wasn't something we wanted to hear right now.
"I remember it was Lucy who packaged up [Child I]'s belongings."

11:29am

The mother was told a post-mortem examination would need to be carried out for Child I, as the cause of death was not known.
In a subsequent statement, the mother clarified a few points from her original statement.
It was at the time she met Letby as she was changing Child I's nappy, and Letby remarked on Child I's stomach.
She said she would normally attend hospital at 9am each day and do the same thing, checking on Child I, speaking to staff, and feed (if Child I was not on a feeding tube). She would also meet family in the canteen.
At around 3pm, Letby walked in and stood by the window, about 6ft away from mother and baby.
She said: "I've noticed her belly is extended today, I'll go and check with the doctor."
The mother agreed. A medical staff member checked the belly and noted it was soft, and it would be examined.
For the October 14 incident, the mother recalls she was staying overnight at the hospital, woken up as Child I was poorly.
On each occasion they were called to the neonatal unit. she does not recall holding Child I's hand as this would have been impossible with so many staff working on Child I.

Recap: Lucy Letby trial, Wednesday, January 25

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

 

[Tortoise]

It’s very difficult to draw s conclusion one way or another when we aren’t hearing exactly what it is LL is alleged to have done to harm/kill these children. To me it sounds like we are still hearing the agreed facts in a way, no one is outright saying THIS is what LL did. Are we just supposed to infer from the circumstances that LL harmed the babies?

We are hearing that LL made some strange statements to colleagues, maybe acted a little odd at times, but also then hearing that some of the victims were very poorly, that it was possible for babies this tiny to deteriorate suddenly without warning, and now learning about failures made by medics in baby H’s care.
I know there’s no smoking gun so to speak in this case, but I’m just surprised that we aren’t hearing exactly what the prosecution claim LL did in each case.

Overall we know they’re alleging she killed/ attempted to kill each child. We know that there’s suspicious circumstances in regards to the blood sugar levels in some babies and sudden collapses. But are they ruling out any and ALL other causes of collapse? Are they proving beyond a reasonable doubt that LL is guilty of each charge? I agree there are some strong pieces of evidence in relation to some of the victims but then there’s things like the debate over whether a mother brought milk up to her baby at 9 or 10pm, which may or may not show that LL is a liar but has little to no proof that she is a killer.

I guess it’s probably the lack of reporting, but I hope that the scene is being set by prosecutors, that they are putting across their theory in a way that ties in with the experts evidence. Surely they’ve put to the jury what they allege LL did? Jmo….

I know it’s a culmination of all the evidence in a circumstantial case, but to find someone guilty you atleast have to tell the jury what you accuse them of? Hopefully they are hearing more of the ‘bigger picture’ than we are.

ETA - I understand experts have said air embolism was the only possible cause of death, however they did not say ‘the only possible cause of death is that LL admistered the air between this time and this time. The jury cannot just assume that she most likely killed some babies so she probably is guilty of all charges, they have to break down each charge, and IMO the evidence for child H at the minute is shaky at best…

I'm not sure why you think this. Perhaps you've missed parts, or quite a bit of the trial? We are hearing exactly what the prosecution are claiming LL did in each case.

This is not a trial of agreed facts, we have heard medical expert opinion for 8 babies now, some in greater depth of reporting than others. Many expert opinions, with reasons for ruling out natural causes of death and collapse, opinion which is being thoroughly cross-examined in every case.

however they did not say ‘the only possible cause of death is that LL admistered the air between this time and this time

The prosecution expert's opinion is that air was administered a minute or two prior to collapse. LL was the only nurse with baby A and she was seen standing next to his incubator during that time by the nurse who had handed over care to LL from the day shift, at 8pm, and who was in the room on the computer writing up notes.

Lucy Letby's retrospective note recorded: 'At 8.20pm Child A's hands and feet noted to be white. Centrally pale and poor perfusion.'

Baby A crashed at 8.26pm.

Computer records show the other nurse entering notes on the computer.

Overall we know they’re alleging she killed/ attempted to kill each child. We know that there’s suspicious circumstances in regards to the blood sugar levels in some babies

The expert evidence is that insulin was administered to baby F in his TPN feed bag - it's not a reflection of the evidence heard to say we only know there's suspicious blood sugar levels. The Great Ormond Street specialist testified that his blood tests showed synthetic insulin had been given to him and was in his blood at the same rate from the time that LL administered his TPN feed on the night shift.

the debate over whether a mother brought milk up to her baby at 9 or 10pm, which may or may not show that LL is a liar but has little to no proof that she is a killer.

It goes towards proving far more than whether LL is a liar. The mother testified she saw bleeding and saw her son screaming, while LL was alone in room 1 with her twin sons, standing away from his cot and not helping him. She testified she rang her husband to tell him and that is recorded in her phone records. Bleeding that LL didn't record or report to any doctor. LL said the mother came in after she reported bleeding to the doctors (an hour later) when there was a team of people in the room working on the baby, which does not resemble in the slightest what the mother saw. The doctors did not record speaking to the concerned mother, she was upstairs on the post natal ward when LL called the midwife to tell her not to come down until much later. The midwife then spoke to the mother's husband to tell him to come in. LL wrote, some hours after baby E had died, that a doctor in another ward who hadn't been on the neonatal unit that night advised her to skip the 9pm feed. That doctor said he wouldn't have done that without speaking to the doctor who was on the unit. LL didn't contact the mum telling her not to bring the milk he was due to be fed at 9pm. There is far more than just an issue with the mother's timing. It was what the mother witnessed, her statement to police, not in the baby's medical files, which when later brought to the attention of the medical expert led to his conclusion that the bleeding from the mouth and screaming could only have been caused by inflicted trauma.

MOO

 

[LadyEdgeworth]

11:31am

Mr Johnson says the court will now be going through the sequence of events for Child I.
Additional documents are now being presented to the jury.

11:33am

Intelligence analyst Claire Hocknall is recalled to talk the jury through the sequence of events for Child I.

11:34am

This sequence of events will focus on 'the first event' for Child I, which happened on September 30, 2015.

Recap: Lucy Letby trial, Wednesday, January 25

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