UK - Nurse Lucy Letby, Faces 22 Charges - 7 Murder/15 Attempted Murder of Babies #20

[Xanadu62]

Were these the only two calls made between the couple, in this timeframe?

It's the only calls BOTH defence and prosecution have agreed to as facts. If there were other calls, Ben Myers would have brought it up in his cross examination of the father or asked for the prosecution to list them as facts. He did not.

 

[JamesMcGillEsquire]

[
The reference to the royals was more to offer some broader context to the 'we all' approach that LL is applying in testimony.
Not sure people will buy it as LL has few allies. She seems to be flying solo as it were.

That seems to be your personal opinion.

From the agreed evidence presented, the background given, the text messages and social activities, at the time of the alledged attacks, Ms Letby appeared to be well liked by her group of friends. Working the shifts she was working in the career she had chosen, there was probably little chance to expand her social circles beyond what she had already managed.

From what I have read and heard read out in terms of text messages to her, her team and other staff members, appear to have been very supportive of her, and genuinely fond of her.

JMO

 

[Sweeper2000]

Sweep this was anything but a “ highly trivial “ memory of a call.
It would be seared into his memory, it was the phone call before the unthinkable happened. It would be impossible to forget as a parent.

I edited it to say that the trivialitt was in regards to the timing of the call and they had time to not be fresh about the timing Of the call. I do think it is strong testimony.

 

[Parker Knoll]

Possibly but as the old saying goes “ what’s that got to do with the price of fish “ ?
People present different sides.

 

[JamesMcGillEsquire]

Well yes, by the phone records.

What I meant was in regards to the content of each of the calls.

For example, you can go back x amount of months and see you made a number of calls to another phone, you can see exactly when these calls were made and how long they lasted, but that doesn't give you any idea of the content of the phone calls.

 

[katydid23]

If having to choose between believing a nurse who sees multiple babies and parents every day, one who has been accused of murder and attempted murder none the less, or believing the mum of baby E, who’s last memories of her baby will be etched in her mind forever. I know exactly who I’d believe in this instance.

If LL is accusing baby E’s mum of lying about the blood, the screaming, LL telling her to leave then I find it in extremely bad taste. This poor mum didn’t get to spend much time with her baby, the time she did have will be precious to her and IMO I believe her, right down to her saying she went down to the unit before 10pm, witnessed her baby screaming horrendously and bleeding and was told to leave by LL. What reason would mum have to lie about this? None IMO.

All JMO

And what reason would her husband have to lie about his memories of his wife's frantic phone call to him at 9:11 pm?

The facts fit the timeline that the parents set forth. They don't fit LL's timeline as well, imo.

 

[Sundial]

But with respect sweep giving birth is all the things you have mentioned but it doesn’t USUALLY include memory loss.
It’s the single most significant point in most mothers life. You remember everything. My daughter was born 20 + years ago at home. I could take you through the day like it was yesterday. I know who I believe and it’s not Letby.
She’s cunning, crafty and manipulative and fighting for her life here on the stand that’s understandable but she’s changing / forgetting / disputing, eye witness reports, mobile phone data, door swipe data and colleagues recollection of events.
She’s developed amnesia and is contradicting her police interviews and that’s with her own counsel examining her !
We have pathologists, experts, consultants - the list goes on.
These are purely my thoughts as we stand if day 2 of the examination in chief.
MHO

I have to say I do find some of the thoughts here regarding the mothers/parents very strange.
More than one parent has stated things like the baby bath, the reversed conversation of another baby (I can’t recall which) who ll said the mother raised the concern but the mother said it was ll. Baby Es mother annd the bleeding/time etc.
All these parents testimonies are quite telling, why would they all be lying?
Unless all the parents in the case were then comparing notes (like someone has mentioned about the colleagues discussing things about ll/who were allowed to talk about it?)

It makes no sense to me; all these parents saying similar things, they aren’t all conspiring together anymore than her colleagues were and yet these parents views and accounts are being picked to pieces with things like memory loss etc even though baby Es mother version is supported by phone data and the time that feed was expected.

BUT when considering a note that plainly states “killed them on purpose” etc, there are similar posts then alleging it doesn’t actually mean what she wrote.
How does this make sense? My head is fried trying to understand these points. Mothers statements are wrong but ll note doesn’t mean what it actually says?

Bamboozled!

 

[katydid23]

What I meant was in regards to the content of each of the calls.

For example, you can go back x amount of months and see you made a number of calls to another phone, you can see exactly when these calls were made and how long they lasted, but that doesn't give you any idea of the content of the phone calls.

The baby's father remembers the content of the call very well. Look at their timeline, JGE.

Mom expressed her breastmilk and takes it up to her baby's room for a 9 pm feed. She walks into room to a screaming and bleeding baby. The nurse tells her to go back to her room.

At 9:11 she makes a frantic phone call to her husband, who verifies this is what the call was about. She goes back to her room and then gets a call from the mid wife about the baby collapsing. She calls her husband about that around 10.

Nurse Letby says she doesn't remember what time the mom came to the room or why she came, but she did remember she had breastmilk, but she denies the mom came at 9 because there was no blood seen on the baby until 10.

Which version is more believable? The parents memories about their final moments with their baby? Or LL's vague memory that refutes what the parents say? If mom had expressed milk for a 9 pm feed, why would she not go to the room until after 10 pm?

 

[Xanadu62]

The baby's father remembers the content of the call very well. Look at their timeline, JGE.

Mom expressed her breastmilk and takes it up to her baby's room for a 9 pm feed. She walks into room to a screaming and bleeding baby. The nurse tells her to go back to her room.

At 9:11 she makes a frantic phone call to her husband, who verifies this is what the call was about. She goes back to her room and then gets a call from the mid wife about the baby collapsing. She calls her husband about that around 10.

Nurse Letby says she doesn't remember what time the mom came to the room or why she came, but she did remember she had breastmilk, but she denies the mom came at 9 because there was no blood seen on the baby until 10.

Which version is more believable? The parents memories about their final moments with their baby? Or LL's vague memory that refutes what the parents say? If mom had expressed milk for a 9 pm feed, why would she not go to the room until after 10 pm?

Exactly.

Also - Nurse Letby cannot remember whether the SHO doctor reviewed the baby in person (in the room) or over the phone to omit the feed at 9pm. But she can remember that the mother was definitely not in the room at the same time? And somehow we are to believe her memory of one of the hundreds of babies she looked after, is better than the mother seeing blood on her new born baby......

She was writing these notes retrospectively, the next day at 4.24am, after baby E had died tragically, after a night shift.

So it people are claiming the mother was sleep drived/traumatic birth/psychologically distraught/epidural impacted etc and this affected her memory - is it not the same for Nurse Letby writing these notes AFTER witnessing a traumatic death and working a long, stressful shift? Why would her recollection of timings be better than the mother in that state?

 

[Sundial]

Letby says she cannot recall 'when' mom visited----so how can she deny mom's claim that she visited at 9 pm?

Letby says she does not recall 'why' the mom visited her baby, but the mom did have expressed breastmilk with her. Well, duh, doesn't that mean she expected to be bringing milk for the 9 pm feed?


That is a pretty vague answer...." that is not something that would be done."


How would mom know about the blood at 9 pm when she called her husband if it didn't happen until 10?

Highlighted for focus:

Letby says she does not recall 'why' the mom visited her baby, but the mom did have expressed breastmilk with her.

A trained neonatal nurse doesn’t know *why* the mum is coming to the unit with breast milk despite the scheduled feeds in the records.

That would be like going to your dentist (for example) and them saying they didn’t know why the patient was there, but the patient was reporting toothache. Seriously. She says she has cared for dozens of babies and she “doesn’t know why the mother visited her baby but was there with breast milk”.

In addition, despite how a mother feed her child, she has every right to visit her baby. Her comment is ridiculous imo.

 

[Sundial]

The baby's father remembers the content of the call very well. Look at their timeline, JGE.

Mom expressed her breastmilk and takes it up to her baby's room for a 9 pm feed. She walks into room to a screaming and bleeding baby. The nurse tells her to go back to her room.

At 9:11 she makes a frantic phone call to her husband, who verifies this is what the call was about. She goes back to her room and then gets a call from the mid wife about the baby collapsing. She calls her husband about that around 10.

Nurse Letby says she doesn't remember what time the mom came to the room or why she came, but she did remember she had breastmilk, but she denies the mom came at 9 because there was no blood seen on the baby until 10.

Which version is more believable? The parents memories about their final moments with their baby? Or LL's vague memory that refutes what the parents say? If mom had expressed milk for a 9 pm feed, why would she not go to the room until after 10 pm?

I find her statement ridiculous imo.

A trained and allegedly experienced neonatal nurse doesn’t know why a mother was visiting her baby yet she had breast milk with her and it was a scheduled feed. Despite caring for dozens of babies (she said on the stand), she’s saying she doesn’t know why that mother was there.

JMO

 

[WaxLyrical]

I’m the first one to question the evidence to the nth degree, and give Letby the benefit of the doubt where I think it could be reasonable. But Baby E I’ve always thought might be her downfall. Because the mothers testimony is likely the truth, it’s believable, this memory will be etched into every cell in her body as long as she lives, and it’s backed up by the father, the feeding schedule, the phone records, the midwife..

I actually suspected the defence would go down the route of saying the mum was in fact there at 9, Letby made a mistake, but the ‘blood’ was actually the mucky aspirate, or something along those lines. I did not expect her to maintain that the mother did not appear at 9pm. Because it can’t be true. JMO.

 

[Sweeper2000]

I find her statement ridiculous imo.

A trained and allegedly experienced neonatal nurse doesn’t know why a mother was visiting her baby yet she had breast milk with her and it was a scheduled feed. Despite caring for dozens of babies (she said on the stand), she’s saying she doesn’t know why that mother was there.

JMO

Can anyone pull her testimony on the phone call? Is there no record of it either? Got calls for the mum but not ll calling the sho ?

might be a stretch but if anyone knows if an internal call on a hospital phone would be recorded? Would guess she wasn’t saying it was on her mob. What phone would the sho have received the call from if it was made? Mobile, hospital mobile, pagers are outdated probabl, hospital phone etc?

surprising the above point wasn’t covered by the data.

waxlyrical it’s very believable.

 

[Sweeper2000]

I’m the first one to question the evidence to the nth degree, and give Letby the benefit of the doubt where I think it could be reasonable. But Baby E I’ve always thought might be her downfall. Because the mothers testimony is likely the truth, it’s believable, this memory will be etched into every cell in her body as long as she lives, and it’s backed up by the father, the feeding schedule, the phone records, the midwife..

I actually suspected the defence would go down the route of saying the mum was in fact there at 9, Letby made a mistake, but the ‘blood’ was actually the mucky aspirate, or something along those lines. I did not expect her to maintain that the mother did not appear at 9pm. Because it can’t be true. JMO.

What was the midwife thing you mentioned?

 

[Xanadu62]

Can anyone pull her testimony on the phone call? Is there no record of it either? Got calls for the mum but not ll calling the sho ?

might be a stretch but if anyone knows if an internal call on a hospital phone would be recorded? Would guess she wasn’t saying it was on her mob.

waxlyrical it’s very believable.

If there was a call to the SHO that would verify her statement, do you not think Mr Myers would have alluded it to it by now or asked for it to be included in facts? He has stayed completely silent on it so far.

"The phone call at 9.11pm to her husband also fits the mum's timing, the prosecution add. Letby's notes also show: "prior to 21:00 feed, 16ml mucky slightly bile-stained aspirate obtained and discarded, abdo soft, not distended. SHO [Senior House Officer] informed, to omit feed." The prosecution say the nursing notes made are false, and fail to mention that Child E was bleeding at 9pm. They mention a meeting that neither the registrar or the mother remember.

A record of feeds - a feeding chart - is shown to the court.

At 9pm, Letby has recorded information to detail the volume of fluids given via the IV line and a line in Child E's left leg, and the 9pm feed is 'omitted'.

In the 10pm column is '15ml fresh blood'.

The SHO said he had no recollection of giving advice to omit the 9pm feed.

He was on the paediatric ward most of that night, until Child E entered a terminal decline. He believes the only time he had anything to do with Child E was in a secondary role to the registrar in an examination at 10.20pm."


Police Interviews:

"2018 - She said it was after 9pm that the SHO had reviewed Child E but could not recall 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."

 

[WaxLyrical]

What was the midwife thing you mentioned?

The midwife was involved with the other call to the husband at 10:40.

 

[Becky53]

It is their word against LL's word in this case. Why would the parents make up a story about their tragic memories of their baby?

Exactly - who has more to gain by lying?

 

[katydid23]

Judith Moritz
@JudithMoritz
·
1h

Baby E's mother previously gave evidence that Lucy Letby told her to go back to her bed on the maternity ward. Ben Myers KC asks nurse Letby "Did you send her away?" Lucy Letby: "No, that’s not something we do on the unit. Parents are welcome 24/7"

Reading back to this info from the prosecution makes me think there will be fireworks during the eventual recross. Tghere are some real differences between what LL is assaying now and what the prosecution has said, and they have some witness testimony that backs their version up:

CHILD E

Chester Standard:

12:16pm

Child E - murder allegation
Child E, a boy, was born premature in July 2015.
The prosecution say this is the twin brother of the child poisoned with insulin.
Child E was born, weighing less than 3lbs. He was given oxygen, then weaned to air, and transferred to nursery 1.

12:19pm

The court hears Child E was at risk of a serious gastro-intestinal disorder, NEC, and was started on antibiotics, IV fluids and caffeine.
He had a nasogastric tube inseted. Fluids were inserted the following day via a long line.
He had a "mild, transient high blood sugar" was was corrected with "a very low dose of insulin", then given tiny quantities of milk the following day, every two hours.
The following day after that, he had two small vomits and air was aspirated, but otherwise the feeds were well tolerated and increased incrementally to 2ml every 2 hours.
The nursing notes indicated he was stable, on a tiny dose of insulin to correct high blood sugar.

12:20pm

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.
"Trust me, I'm a nurse," Mr Johnson told the court.

12:22pm

Letby said the registrar would be down to review Child E, and urged her to return to the postnatal ward.
The mum called her husband when she got to the labour ward, in a call lasting four minutes and 25 seconds, at 9.11pm.
Letby made a note in Child F's records (Child F being the twin of Child E), "after she had got rid of" the mum, Mr Johnson said.
The next time the mum visited Child E, he was in terminal decline.

12:28pm

The prosecution say the mum was "fobbed off" by Lucy Letby.

Two records are made at 4.51am, after Child E had died.
The later note records: "Mummy was present at the start of shift attending to cares. Visited again approx. 22:00. Aware that we had obtained blood from his NG tube and were starting some different medications to treat this. She was updated by Reg xxxxx and contained [Child E]. Informed her that we would contact her if any changes. Once [Child E] began to deteriorate midwifery staff were contacted. Both parents present during resus."


The prosecution say Letby's note suggests the mum was present at the start of the shift (7.30pm-8pm), and returned at 10pm, when "neither is true".

The prosecution say 9pm was an important time, as it was the time Child E was due to be fed, by his mother's expressed breast milk.
The mum said that is why she attended at 9pm. "She was bringing the milk".
The phone call at 9.11pm to her husband also fits the mum's timing, the prosecution add.

12:29pm

Letby's notes also show: "prior to 21:00 feed, 16ml mucky slightly bile-stained aspirate obtained and discarded, abdo soft, not distended. SHO [Senior House Officer] informed, to omit feed."
The prosecution say the nursing notes made are false, and fail to mention that Child E was bleeding at 9pm.
They mention a meeting that neither the registrar or the mother remember.

12:35pm

A record of feeds - a feeding chart - is shown to the court.
At 9pm, Letby has recorded information to detail the volume of fluids given via the IV line and a line in Child E's left leg, and the 9pm feed is 'omitted'.
In the 10pm column is '15ml fresh blood'.

The SHO said he had no recollection of giving advice to omit the 9pm feed.
He was on the paediatric ward most of that night, until Child E entered a terminal decline. He believes the only time he had anything to do with Child E was in a secondary role to the registrar in an examination at 10.20pm.

12:37pm

The registrar recalled being told Child E had suffered a blood-flecked vomit.
He does not recall seeing any blood on Child E's face, but regarded the presentation as undramatic.
But "around half an hour to an hour later there was a large amount of fresh blood which had come up" Child E's tube.
The prosecution said: "This was the first indication of any serious problem so far as the medical staff were concerned.
"There was a further loss of 13 mls of blood at 23:00 hrs."
"13mls may not sound much, but [the doctor] had never seen a small baby bleed like this."
This was the equivalent to 25 per cent of Child E's blood volume, a figure which the prosecution say is an under-estimate in context.


The prosecution add that at 11.40pm, Child E suffered a sudden desaturation.
His abdomen "developed a striking discolouration with flitting white and purple patches."
CPR was started, but Child E "continued to bleed".
Although Letby was participating in the resuscitation of Child E, she co-signed for medication given to another baby in room 4.
Child E was pronounced at at 1.40am.
The on-call consultant said Child E was a high-risk infant who had shown signs of NEC.
The parents did not wish to have a post-mortem, the consultant did not deem one necessary, and the coroner's office agreed.
The prosecution say: "As subsequent reviews have established – that was a big mistake."

12:42pm

Dr Dewi Evans said Child E's death "was the result of a combination of an air embolus and bleeding which was indicative of trauma".
The air embolus was "intentionally introduced" into Child E's bloodstream via an IV line "to cause significant harm".

12:43pm

Medical expert Dr Sandie Bohin agreed the cause of death was air embolus and acute bleeding.
She concluded that the cause of the bleeding was unknown but acknowledged “fleetingly rare” possible natural causes that could not be ruled out in the absence of a post-mortem.
Dr Bohin concentrated on the abdominal discolouration and concluded that air was deliberately introduced via an intravenous line.

12:46pm

The court is reminded by the prosecution that, once again, only Lucy Letby was "the constant presence" for all of the collapses in Children A-E.


In police interview, Letby said he 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.
Shesaid 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."

12:54pm

In a November 2020 interview, Letby is asked why she had sent a text referring to Child E had queried whether he had Down Syndrome.
She said she could not remember whether there had ever been any mention of Downs in the medical notes.
The prosecution say Lucy Letby "took an unusual interest" in the family of Child E. She did social media searches on the parents two days after Child E’s death, and on August 23, September 14, October 5, November 5, December 7, and even on December 25.
The prosecution say there were further searches in January 2016.

Recap: Prosecution opens trial of Lucy Letby accused of Countess of Chester Hospital baby murders

 

[katydid23]

The part that I find difficult to get my head around, is not whether someone could have done this. I understand there are some very sick, evil people out there. Thes kinds of people would undoubtedly have no quarms with studying nursing, going to uni, focusing intently on becoming an elite nurse only to intentionally hamr babies.

I am certainly not naive enough to not want to accept that the above scenario is possible.

Where I am having trouble, is believing that this same sick, evil, twisted person would exhibit practically zero psychopathic traits.

Normally when you have a psychopath accused of murder, somehwere along the line, their character reveals something about themsleves that backs up the hypothesis that they could have behaved in the ways being suggested.

With Ms Letby, salsa dancing aside, we have nothing like this. read about various disorders that previous killer nurses suffered from. They are weird psychological compulsions that someone can have, that presents like a normal, caring loving mother or caretaker.

It is interesting to read about the mental health issues of previous caretakers who were suspected of harming or killing children or patients:

Factitious disorder imposed on another (FDIA) formerly Munchausen syndrome by proxy (MSP) is a mental illness in which a person acts as if an individual he or she is caring for has a physical or mental illness when the person is not really sick.

When someone has this mental illness, they might act as though their child or dependent has a medical condition that needs attention. However, the child or dependent person isn’t sick. People with factitious disorder imposed on another (FDIA) lie about an illness in another person. This other person is usually someone in their care — often a child under the age of 6. In some cases, the dependent person can be another adult, disabled person or an elderly person.

Factitious disorder imposed on another can lead to serious short- and long-term complications, including:

• Continued abuse.
• Multiple hospitalizations.
• Death of the victim.

There are certain characteristics that are common in a person with FDIA, including:

• Being a parent, usually a mother, but the person can also be the adult child of an elderly patient, spouse or caretaker of a disabled adult.
• Sometimes being a healthcare professional or having medical knowledge.
• Being very friendly and cooperative with the healthcare providers.
• Appearing to be quite concerned — some might seem overly concerned — about their child or designated patient.
• Possibly also suffering from factitious disorder imposed on self. This is a related disorder in which the caregiver repeatedly acts as if he or she has a physical or mental illness when he or she has caused the symptoms.

• The child or dependent person having a history of many hospitalizations. Often, there will also be a strange set of symptoms.
• The child or dependent person’s symptoms generally being reported by the mother (or other caretaker with FDIA) and not being witnessed by hospital staff.
• The child or dependent person’s condition and symptoms not matching the results of diagnostic tests.
• The child or dependent person’s condition improving in the hospital, but the symptoms recurring once they go home.
• Blood in lab samples not matching the blood of the child or dependent person.
• The child or dependent person possibly having signs of chemicals in the blood, stool or urine.

Factitious Disorder (Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy): What Is It & Symptoms

Learn about factitious disorder imposed on another (FDIA) from the Cleveland Clinic. Find out about this mental illness, including symptoms, treatment and more.

my.clevelandclinic.org

 

[katydid23]

With Baby E, I feel like it’s just so unlikely that we’re left in a situation where it’s the mums word against Letby’s. Surely someone can corroborate things, this is a busy hospital unit! Obviously we have the phone call to the husband, which is a strong piece of evidence as far as I’m concerned. did we already know Caroline Oakley was in the room at 9:15? Where was she 15 minutes before?

There has been corroboration.

Mom's established feeding time with her twins was at 9 pm. She expressed her breastmilk around 8:30 and then went up to baby E's room at 9. [ there is corroboration that 9 pm was the regular feeding time.]
She heard him screaming and crying and saw blood on his mouth and Nurse Letby was just standing by his cot.

She said, go back to your room everything us fine. "Trust me, I am a nurse" said Letby.

There is corroboration that mom made a 4 minute phone call to her husband at 9:11. Her husband testified abiout the frantic phone call from his wife. The next phone call between them was 45 minutes later when the midwife called them to say their son had collapsed.

Letyby made a few claims that have NOT been corporate by others. She said in her notes things that colleagues denied. None of them remembered ommitting the 9 pm feed, which is what LL said in her notes. Neither of the colleagues remember meeting with LL to talk about ommittinbg the feed, which LL saids in her notes.

And both of the parents deny that the mom was at the unit at 8 pm and then at 10 pm with the breastmilk, and there is evidence that it was not a fact. There was corroboration that she was exprerssing her milk at 8:30, for the established 9 pm feed.

No medical logs other than LL"s say that 9 pm feed was postponed. Yet LL says she had a discussion about it with 2 other people, but neither back that up. Nor do their medical notes back that up.

The moms version is corroborated by her going to express her milk, at 8:30, and her frantic call to dad, and his testimony.



Recap: Prosecution opens trial of Lucy Letby accused of Countess of Chester Hospital baby murders
The prosecution say the mum was "fobbed off" by Lucy Letby.
Two records are made at 4.51am, after Child E had died.
The later note records: "Mummy was present at the start of shift attending to cares. Visited again approx. 22:00. Aware that we had obtained blood from his NG tube and were starting some different medications to treat this. She was updated by Reg xxxxx and contained [Child E]. Informed her that we would contact her if any changes. Once [Child E] began to deteriorate midwifery staff were contacted. Both parents present during resus."
The prosecution say Letby's note suggests the mum was present at the start of the shift (7.30pm-8pm), and returned at 10pm, when "neither is true".
The prosecution say 9pm was an important time, as it was the time Child E was due to be fed, by his mother's expressed breast milk.
The mum said that is why she attended at 9pm. "She was bringing the milk".
The phone call at 9.11pm to her husband also fits the mum's timing, the prosecution add.

12:29pm

Letby's notes also show: "prior to 21:00 feed, 16ml mucky slightly bile-stained aspirate obtained and discarded, abdo soft, not distended. SHO [Senior House Officer] informed, to omit feed."
The prosecution say the nursing notes made are false, and fail to mention that Child E was bleeding at 9pm.
They mention a meeting that neither the registrar or the mother remember.

12:35pm

A record of feeds - a feeding chart - is shown to the court.
At 9pm, Letby has recorded information to detail the volume of fluids given via the IV line and a line in Child E's left leg, and the 9pm feed is 'omitted'.
In the 10pm column is '15ml fresh blood'.
The SHO said he had no recollection of giving advice to omit the 9pm feed.
He was on the paediatric ward most of that night, until Child E entered a terminal decline. He believes the only time he had anything to do with Child E was in a secondary role to the registrar in an examination at 10.20pm.