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

Status
Not open for further replies.
  • #261
  • #262
13:03

The court takes a break for lunch​

ee1f1e45-2687-4090-816e-cd3f8b8e263c.jpg

Judith Moritz
Inside the courtroom
Before they were sent out, the judge spoke to the jury about the likely length of the rest of the case.
He has now told them that it may last until the end of July. It began in October.

July of what year?
 
  • #263
One of the other consultants also said the rash wasn’t remarkable, and only changed their statement after gaining more experience away from COCH and then realising it actually WAS unusual.
I don't think that could have been a consultant. I thought it was Dr harkness.
 
  • #264
Friday October 21st 2022 - Live updates from the trial

Adding this report here---the Neo-natal shift leader who was holding Baby A as he was being resuscitated:


Day 6 of Prosecution Case - Evidence of Neonatal Nurse/Night-Shift Leader on June 8th 2015 - Re: Child A


The next witness is someone who was also working at the Countess of Chester Hospital, as a neonatal nurse in June 2015.
She describes, on staffing levels: "There were definitely periods when we were short-staffed, periods when we were ok."
For shifts when they were 'short on numbers', they would look to bring staff and swap on the rota, or if anyone could do an extra shift.
Agency or bank nurses were a possibility, but didn't happen very often.


The nurse was the shift leader at the neonatal unit on the night-shift for June 8. Lucy Letby was one of the designated nurses.


She recalls the Neopuff device was being used to give Child A breaths, as he had "stopped breathing".
She recalled being told it had happened "suddenly".



She recalled being involved in the resuscitation attempts, and was physically holding Child A at the time.


She recalled she had "never seen a baby look that way before", with a skin discolouration on a pattern she had "never seen before".
Asked to describe the discolouration, she said he was "white with purple blotches", with a bit of "blue", and it had "come on very suddenly".
"Just very unusual, it was," she added.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


Inside the courtroom
Lucy Letby says baby A had mottled skin, but it was not an abnormal discolouration. She says: "He was unusually pale, but in terms of the colour, it was not unusual."


She also disagrees with his statement that Child A had patches of blue/purple, as well as of red and white in places.

Mr Johnson asks if Letby is suggesting the doctor's recollection is made up.

"I didn't see it, if he saw something I didn't see that's something for him to justify."

Letby also disagrees with the recollection of a nurse - who she said was a friend - of discolouration and blotchiness.

She tells the court she doesn't remember Child A having any "abnormal discolouration".
 
  • #265
July - yikes.
 
  • #266
I don't think that could have been a consultant. I thought it was Dr harkness.
Oh, maybe. In my head it was someone who had since become a senior consultant, but was junior at the time.
 
  • #267
13:03

The court takes a break for lunch​

ee1f1e45-2687-4090-816e-cd3f8b8e263c.jpg

Judith Moritz
Inside the courtroom
Before they were sent out, the judge spoke to the jury about the likely length of the rest of the case.
He has now told them that it may last until the end of July. It began in October.


Wow, end of July? 2 and half months more? Does that indicate a long drawn out cross exam by the prosecution?
 
  • #268
Wow, end of July? 2 and half months more? Does that indicate a long drawn out cross exam by the prosecution?
Sounds to me like the defence has some experts.
 
  • #269
July of what year?
It’s been that long I’ve forgotten what the original estimate was for the duration. Holidays might’ve been booked by jurors for July - god knows they’ll need one…
 
  • #270
Wow, end of July? 2 and half months more? Does that indicate a long drawn out cross exam by the prosecution?
I was wondering the same thing. Do you think there will be more witnesses, or old witnesses brought back for re-examination, or maybe veeery long concluding speeches by both sides. The mind boggles...
 
  • #271
It’s been that long I’ve forgotten what the original estimate was for the duration. Holidays might’ve been booked by jurors for July - god knows they’ll need one…
6 months. And then it came as a shock when the jury were told not to book any holidays until after Easter. So I imagine they did indeed book some well deserved summer hols!

That poor jury
 
  • #272
Sounds to me like the defence has some experts.
Could be...although thinking about it, maybe it could be because people (jurors) may have booked hols expecting the trial to be over by eg. end May...

ETA. I see we're all on the jury hol train as a possible explanation!
 
  • #273
One of the other consultants also said the rash wasn’t remarkable, and only changed their statement after gaining more experience away from COCH and then realising it actually WAS unusual.
But Lucy is out and out calling them mistaken or misleading for describing the skin as being discoloured and pink and purple, etc. She is saying, point blank, there was no discolouration.

She is saying the senior nurse shift leader, her friend, not one of the conspirators, is wrong for saying she saw the purple and pink mottled rash.

And of course Dr J is wromg as well.

I think she would be better off by admitting the babies had these symptoms but insisting she was not the cause. But squaring off against the senior nurses and consulting doctors will not end well for her, imo.
 
  • #274
One of the other consultants also said the rash wasn’t remarkable, and only changed their statement after gaining more experience away from COCH and then realising it actually WAS unusual.
Okay, but that doesn't really help her case does it? It became so routine on the unit during the indictment period that a relatively inexperienced doctor (I don't think it was a consultant) thought it wasn't unusual, but was not seen by anyone at any other time in their careers in this hospital or at others.
 
  • #275
Could be...although thinking about it, maybe it could be because people (jurors) may have booked hols expecting the trial to be over by eg. end May...
Yeah I had the same thought.

Would the trial stop though to accommodate holidays? I would have thought not.
 
  • #276
I
12:59

Were you playing daft in your police interview, Letby asked​

The court was told that in her police interview Lucy Letby said she didn't know what the dangers of injecting air were.
She says now that she meant she didn't know the exact pathological danger, but did know that ultimately it would end in death.
Nick Johnson KC: "Were you playing daft?"
Lucy Letby: "No, It’s something every nurse would know."
Nick Johnson KC: ""Why didn’t you say something?"
Lucy Letby: "I know the ultimate outcome would be death - how that would appear in terms of symptoms for a baby - I don’t know."



Just think, without her choosing to take the stand the prosecution would never have got that admission from her, and it's a big one!
 
  • #277
12:53pm

Mr Johnson asks if Letby has ever seen an arrhythmia in a neonate. Letby: "No, I don't think so, no."
Mr Johnson says air bubbles were found in Child A afterwards.
"Did you inject [Child A] with air?"
"No."
Mr Johnson asks if Letby was "keen" to get back to room 1 after this event.
Letby says from her experience at Liverpool Women's, she was taught to get back and carry on as soon as possible.
Letby had been asked what the dangers of air embolus were, and she had not known.
"Were you playing daft?"
"No - every nurse knows the dangers."
Letby said she did not know how an air embolous would progress, but knew the ultimate risk was death.

 
  • #278
But Lucy is out and out calling them mistaken or misleading for describing the skin as being discoloured and pink and purple, etc. She is saying, point blank, there was no discolouration.

She is saying the senior nurse shift leader, her friend, not one of the conspirators, is wrong for saying she saw the purple and pink mottled rash.

And of course Dr J is wromg as well.

I think she would be better off by admitting the babies had these symptoms but insisting she was not the cause. But squaring off against the senior nurses and consulting doctors will not end well for her, imo.
Rather than what she’d be better off saying, maybe she’s just saying what she actually remembers.

If she’s not guilty, and truly believes she’s been scapegoated, then why would she say she saw something she didn’t?
 
  • #279
It is not just the question of being deliberate---it is also the question of being targeted or random.

She claimed it was randomly added and was not a targeted baby situation----so how would she know that?
If bags were pulled out of store by her or another nurse it would seem likely to surmise that she'd conclude that it was random and not targeting of any particular patient, surely?
 
  • #280
So ..she is agreeing with the medical experts rational so far ..but she didn't do it ...and just because she was on duty for all of them does not mean she did it

She also thinks she is a scapegoat for hospital failings..yet is confirming the insulin wasn't an error ?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
103
Guests online
2,241
Total visitors
2,344

Forum statistics

Threads
632,725
Messages
18,630,974
Members
243,274
Latest member
WickedGlow
Back
Top