UK - Nurse Lucy Letby Faces 22 Charges - 7 Murder/15 Attempted Murder of Babies #12

Status
Not open for further replies.
  • #761
1:00pm

Benjamin Myers KC, for Letby's defence, is asking Dr Loughnane questions.
He says Dr Loughnane covered a lot of areas of the hospital on that night shift. She replies the arrangement was standard for most hospitals.
Mr Myers refers to notes made before the handover took place, in relation to Child N "intermittently grunting++" and an event of Child N desaturating to 67%.
He asks if it is possible for a baby to desaturate because they are upset, via a 'false desaturation' from the Sats probe not picking up the trace.
Dr Loughnane says that can be the case, but it would usually be recorded as such in the medical notes. The number on the oxygen saturation reading could be lower, or not be displayed at all.

 
  • #762
1:05pm

Mr Myers asks about Child N 'screaming' and being 'pink', which he says if Child N had suffered a desaturation, he was "certainly recovering" from that. Dr Loughnane agrees.
Mr Myers asks about the relevance of the 'poor trace on Sats probe'.
Dr Loughnane says she had been told of the 40% sats reading, but on her arrival, she had seen Child N was pink.
Mr Myers says there were no signs of Child N having any fresh blood anywhere. Dr Loughnane agrees.
Dr Loughnane also agrees it is rare to be looking after a baby at the Countess of Chester Hospital - or any hospital - who has haemophilia.

 
  • #763
1:10pm

Mr Myers says other than the raised lactate reading, the blood gas record at 2.04am was normal. Dr Loughnane agrees.
The prosecution rise to clarify the '40% O2 (on my arrival)' note, and ask if that is a saturation reading or the oxygen support for Child N. Dr Loughnane says she cannot be sure, but believes it would be the latter.
Mr Astbury says if the 40% oxygen saturation recorded by the nurse was inaccurate, it would have been noted as such in medical notes. Dr Loughnane agrees that would be the case.
That completes Dr Loughnane's evidence.

 
  • #764
11:27am

The conversation continues back on work, asking why there was a staff shortage on the unit. One of the staff members is speculated to be off with stress.
11:26am

The conversation continues about discussion of other babies, and Letby messages her colleague: 'Had strange message from [doctor] earlier...'
Reply: 'Did u? Saying what?' 'Go commando?
Laughing emojis are replied by Letby.
Letby: 'Asking when I was working...'
R: 'Think he likes you too...'
LL: '...Just wants my opinion on something'
R: 'Hmm'
LL: 'Do you think he's being odd?
R: 'Thought as flirty as u'
LL: 'Shut up!'
R: 'What?!'
LL: 'I don't flirt with him!'
R: 'Ok'
LL: 'Certainly don't fancy him haha just nice guy'
R: 'Ok'

Looking a bit more likely that the unnamed doctor she had a breakdown over might have been a love interest. JMO.
 
  • #765
Looking a bit more likely that the unnamed doctor she had a breakdown over might have been a love interest. JMO.
I’m quite curious about that “shut up”. Unusual for her judging by personal coms. We don’t have the delivery but we do have context and following texts. The “odd” question is interesting as well. A tentative opening to a potential question of “does he love me”? Do you think?

the odd and shut up part are fitting but I’m not sure about the “shut up” that’s a bit blunt for her I think. Did the question open a door ? Or is this normal girly banter on the ward between friends?
 
  • #766
I’m quite curious about that “shut up”. Unusual for her judging by personal coms. We don’t have the delivery but we do have context and following texts. The “odd” question is interesting as well. A tentative opening to a potential question of “does he love me”? Do you think?

the odd and shut up part are fitting but I’m not sure about the “shut up” that’s a bit blunt for her I think. Did the question open a door ? Or is this normal girly banter on the ward between friends?
I read "shut up" 100% as friendly banter.
 
  • #767
I read "shut up" 100% as friendly banter.
It’s all friendly banter but that’s not the question. Wasn’t implying a negative at all. Just maybe a little more emotion than light hearted play. There’s no smiley after, no let down after the bluntness. The nurses responses of two “ok” might suggest it’s reception as being a bit ott for all play.
 
  • #768
Think they are having lunch folks.

 
  • #769
It’s all friendly banter but that’s not the question. Wasn’t implying a negative at all. Just maybe a little more emotion than light hearted play. There’s no smiley after, no let down after the bluntness. The nurses responses of two “ok” might suggest it’s reception as being a bit ott for all play.
I don't see any bluntness personally, and interpret the 2 OKs as a little bit of friendly teasing.
 
  • #770
I would have thought an emphasised ok would be playful, either first of all or in sequence.
for example

”okayyyyyy” ll reply’s “” then ” ok sure”

or “ok if you say so ” but who knows for sure, OK ? :)
 
  • #771
2:11pm

The trial will resume imminently, with intelligence analyst Claire Hocknell returning to talk through the second sequence of events for Child N.

 
  • #772
I’m quite curious about that “shut up”. Unusual for her judging by personal coms. We don’t have the delivery but we do have context and following texts. The “odd” question is interesting as well. A tentative opening to a potential question of “does he love me”? Do you think?

the odd and shut up part are fitting but I’m not sure about the “shut up” that’s a bit blunt for her I think. Did the question open a door ? Or is this normal girly banter on the ward between friends?
My instant reading - LL was just being coy.
 
  • #773
2:20pm

Firstly, a statement from Dr Sudeshna Bhowmik is read out to the court.
Dr Bhowmik says tests were carried out on Child N for haemophilia.
It was discussed with the parents that Child N would be taken to the neonatal unit due to his prematurity, and would need an incubator for temperature control.
Child N had intermittent grunting at one hour of age, which was not unusual for babies born via C-section as there would be increased fluid in the lungs. The usual practice was to oberserve for four hours to see if the baby would settle down. Vitamin K was withheld on the risk of increased bruising/bleeding for Child N, until test results came back.
Child N was later screened for sepsis as he had continued grunting beyond the four-hour observation period. He was breathing without any support required.
He had had 'an episode' where he desaturated to 40%, with colour change noted, but had "settled thereafter" and did not need "supplementary oxygen for very long".

 
  • #774
2:21pm

The rest of the examination by Dr Bhowmik on June 3 was "normal", and Child N was seen to be pink and well perfused, and doing "well from a respiratory point of view".


2:27pm

A statement from Caroline Oakley is read out to the court, in which the nurse describes Child N being born, transferred to the neonatal unit, and describes being aware the mother was a haemophilia carrier.
Child N was dressed and placed in a 'hot cot'. He was 'grunting intermittently', which was not unusual. At 3pm, his temperature dropped to 36.4 degrees, and the temperature of the cot was increased to 39 degrees.
Child N had a desaturation to 67% and was given 60% oxygen support, and was screened.
Child N was presenting "quite typically" for a baby of his gestational age, and there were no overriding concerns at the time of the handover.
A second statement by nurse Caroline Oakley said there was nothing to suggest the naso-gastric tube had been moved, nor any difficulties with the tube being initially inserted.

2:30pm

Nurse Melanie Taylor, in her statement, says she "vaguely" remembers Child N by the name, but does not recall the shift. She confirmed she was the shift leader for the night of June 2/3, 2016.
She was aware Child N had suffered a collapse during the night, but did not remember it happening or responding to it.
Nurse Sophie Ellis, in her statement, says for the night shift of June 2/3, 2016, she had a vague memory of Child N as had haemophilia, which was unusual. She did not remember the details of the night shift she worked.
She says she knows, from the notes, Child N had a collapse, but does not remember being involved in the efforts to stabilise Child N. She knows the collapse happened when Christopher Booth was on a break.



 
  • #775
2:34pm

Christopher Booth, in his statement, is asked about the night shift he was on for June 2/3, 2016. He said he remembered Child N as it was unusual for a neonatal baby to be a haemophiliac. He adds his memory of the shift is "limited".
He says he is "almost certain" he was caring for Child N that night. He recalls Child N was stable, with oxygen saturations "almost 100%, and "no abnormalities" presented.
He says it was likely on the hour when he left for his one-hour meal break, saying he had "no concerns". He handed over care to a nurse, but does not recall who that was.
When he returned from his break, he was "surprised" to learn Child N had become 'unsettled' and 'fractious' suffered a desaturation. He adds he had not been called back from his break.

 
  • #776
2:35pm

Valerie Thomas, in her statement, says she does not recall Child N or the night shift of June 2/3, but does know she was on that night shift. She says she was likely working in nursery room 3 or 4.
She knows Child N had collapsed when nurse Booth was on a break. She said it was "very unlikely" she would have been involved in any subsequent care.

 
  • #777
2:37pm

Intelligence analyst Claire Hocknell has returned to court to talk the court through the second series (out of two) of the sequence of events for Child N

2:45pm

The sequence says Child N continued to be cared for at the Countess of Chester Hospital's neonatal unit between June 3 and June 14. The rest of the sequence of events, presented electronically to the jury, begins from June 14, 2016.
Lucy Letby is the designated nurse for Child N on the day shift of June 14. At 7.40am, Child N takes on a feed of expressed breast milk.
Letby records notes at the handover at 8am.
Letby messages a colleague to complain about having to finish up a previous shift' nurse's work, and had left a bottle 'dirty'.

 
  • #778
2:51pm

Lucy Letby records regular temperature readings for Child N which are all recorded in a 'normal range'. The court had previously been told readings in the 'yellow area' (too high, or too low) would be considered abnormal, but none of the temperature readings recorded as being too high or too low.
Letby notes: 'Demand feeding EBM via own bottle, completing more than required volumes....repeat SBR this morning on downward trend but not yet >50...otherwise ready for home'.
In a family communication note: 'Mummy visiting this morning, carried out cares and feed. Put infant to breast. Discussed feeding at home'
The notes show Child N was ready to go home, apart from further treatment required for jaundice, and was on phototherapy.
Other family members visited Child N at the neonatal unit that day.

 
  • #779
2:53pm

For the night shift of June 14, Child N was in nursery room 3.
Nurse Jennifer Jones-Key, in a note written retrospectively, records Child N was 'nursed in incubator with eye protection insitu. Baby demand bottle feeding' at the start of the shift at 8pm.

 
  • #780
Question to anyone who knows - Do the jury have to review each charge in isolation or can they take into account the themes across the charges to decide a verdict? Proving beyond a reasonable doubt would seem difficult for some of these if you purely look at that instance and ignore everything else.
I guess Prosecution will point out all patterns that emerged during the trial.

Summarize and elaborate on ALL links among the cases.

I absolutely cannot imagine anything else!

JMO
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
122
Guests online
3,437
Total visitors
3,559

Forum statistics

Threads
632,634
Messages
18,629,517
Members
243,231
Latest member
Irena21D
Back
Top