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

[Tortoise]

There would be harm though, because then she really would be accusing MT. If she considers MT to be competent senior nurse who isn’t going to make such a fundamental error as delivering an air embolism while connecting lines, then I don’t see why she would accept it.

Not harm to LL, who is the one on trial.

I don't think LL has demonstrated care or concern for anyone else being seen as either responsible or dishonest, is my opinion on that side issue. JMO

 

[Tortoise]

I found one reporter who was very thorough in her detailed description of the testimony. Here is one of her reports:

Lucy Letby: Murder accused nurse denies she has only cried for herself during trial

A tearful Lucy Letby denied deliberately harming numerous infants while on duty at the Countess of Chester Hospital’s neonatal unit

www.independent.co.uk

A tearful Lucy Letby denied deliberately harming numerous infants while on duty at the Countess of Chester Hospital’s neonatal unit​

Kim Pilling
1 day ago

She agreed with Mr Johnson that taking such sheets out of the hospital was not “normal practice” and they should be discarded in confidential waste.

Mr Johnson asked: “What is normal practice?

Letby said: “To dispose of them but there are times when they have come home with me in my pocket.”

Mr Johnson said: “There are times when you have taken them.”

Letby said: “Not with the intention of keeping them.”

Mr Johnson said: “What are your responsibilities with sensitive, personal data?”

Letby replied: “To keep it confidential.”

Mr Johnson said: “What would have happened in a disciplinary sense if the hospital management knew you had 250-odd handover sheets at home?”

Letby said: “I can’t answer that. I don’t know what the policy would be.”

Mr Johnson said: “You’re not bothered are you?


Letby said: “It’s not that I’m not bothered. They were at my home address but they were still held in confidence.”

Mr Johnson said: “What, in a bin bag in your garage?”

Letby said: “I’m the only person that lives at the property, so yes.”

Asked about a number of handover sheets found at her parents’ house in Hereford, she said her parents did not enter her bedroom.

Mr Johnson said: “They are not held in confidence, are they?”

Letby said: “I don’t believe anybody would have looked at them.”

Mr Johnson asked: “Do you obey the rules only when it suits you?”

“No,” said Letby.

Mr Johnson said: “You like telling other people what to do but you don’t quite live up to those standards yourself, do you?”

Letby said: “No.”

Kim Pilling is the PA news reporter, in court every day of the trial. He stood in for Liz Hull on the podcast when she was on holiday.

 

[Sweeper2000]

Not harm to LL, who is the one on trial.

I don't think LL has demonstrated care or concern for anyone else being seen as either responsible or dishonest, is my opinion on that side issue. JMO

i think she shows concern every time she says “we”.

 

[katydid23]

There would be harm though, because then she really would be accusing MT. If she considers MT to be competent senior nurse who isn’t going to make such a fundamental error as delivering an air embolism while connecting lines, then I don’t see why she would accept it.

Yet, st the same time, she was batting away all of the testimony by senior nurses and consultants, who were reporting that certain babies had very unusual purplish mottled skin rashes. She was insisting that there was no such visible rash, etc.

And it may have appeared to others that she was doing so because she didn't want the diagnosis of air embolisms to stand.

She eventually had to accept it because there were so many other testimonies she had to surrender.

I guess what I am trying to say is that she DID eventually accept the COD as air embolisms. So she did ,in effect, accuse her nurse friend of being the guilty party by saying she was the one who attached the lines.

 

[Parker Knoll]

I don’t read that as concern in the slightest. I see it as Letby attempting to normalise events and situations. “ we would do this / it’s not something we would do “ etc.
Creating a false narrative and muddying the water that it was common practice when in fact she was the only nurse doing it.
MOO

 

[WaxLyrical]

Yet, st the same time, she was batting away all of the testimony by senior nurses and consultants, who were reporting that certain babies had very unusual purplish mottled skin rashes. She was insisting that there was no such visible rash, etc.

And it may have made it appear to others that she was doing so because she didn't want the diagnosis of air embolisms to stand.

She eventually had to accept it because there were so many other testimonies she had to.

I guess what I am trying to say is that she DID eventually accept the COD as air embolisms. So she did in fact accuse her nurse friend of being the guilty party by saying she was the one who attached the lines.

She hasn’t accepted the cause of death as air embolism? Or have I missed something?

 

[katydid23]

I wonder about her discussion of handling the deceased babies at the Women’s, where she has said she 'lost one baby then immediately had to watch another die' [or words to that effect.]

It seems like there was a real fascination with that tragic incident. I'd like to know more about it.

 

[katydid23]

She hasn’t accepted the cause of death as air embolism? Or have I missed something?

She eventually accepted her colleagues testimony about the unusual purplish mottling---which was said to be indications of a/e. She fought against their testimony for quite awhile so she did not really want to go there.

Surrendering to it and accepting their testimony seems like she then has to accept the COD attached to it. JMO

Why do you think Johnson was arguing so strongly for so long to get her to accept that testimony about purple mottled skin on the dying babies?

 

[GoodDayToYouSir]

B

"Letby tells the court she was in close vicinity to the baby but could not touch his lines as the incubator was closed."


Dan O'Donoghue
@MrDanDonoghue
·
9h

Mr Johnson asks Ms Lebty if she believed another nurse, Melanie Taylor, was responsible for air getting into Child A's system. She says she doesn't know why Child A died, but says if nurse Taylor attached his lines and if air embolism is the cause, then yes


Recap: Lucy Letby trial, May 18 - prosecution cross-examines Letby

Mr Johnson asks if Letby accepts Child A and Child B had air administered.
LL: "No."



Why doesn't she accept it, if she couldn't have caused it?

"Letby tells the court she was in close vicinity to the baby but could not touch his lines as the incubator was closed."


Dan O'Donoghue
@MrDanDonoghue
·
9h

Mr Johnson asks Ms Lebty if she believed another nurse, Melanie Taylor, was responsible for air getting into Child A's system. She says she doesn't know why Child A died, but says if nurse Taylor attached his lines and if air embolism is the cause, then yes


Recap: Lucy Letby trial, May 18 - prosecution cross-examines Letby

Mr Johnson asks if Letby accepts Child A and Child B had air administered.
LL: "No."



Why doesn't she accept it, if she couldn't have caused it?

Because she will undermine her whole defence if she does. Myers has said that their position is that at best, air embolism is a theoretical possibility for those cases, but says that it wasn’t what caused the collapses

 

[Sweeper2000]

I don’t read that as concern in the slightest. I see it as Letby attempting to normalise events and situations. “ we would do this / it’s not something we would do “ etc.
Creating a false narrative and muddying the water that it was common practice when in fact she was the only nurse doing it.
MOO

And the “we dealt with it as a team“ “we supported each other“ ? plenty of positives with the use of “we” not just strategic planting of a potentially deflective word.

 

[GoodDayToYouSir]

I think the prosecution may have potentially blown it today .

They have introduced the whole idea that LL was on the unit at times when she wasn’t on shift AND when swipe data might not have recorded her as being present (because someone else could have held the door open for her ). I get why they have felt the need to do that: it is to pull back lost ground on some of the cases where the evidence is that LL wasn’t in the room at the time of or just before the collapse.

BUT If LL could have been on the unit without using her swipe card, then so could all/any other staff member .

One of the main planks of the prosecution’s case (see that chart they’ve produced so often showing who was on shift for each collapse) is that LL is the only person on duty at the time of every charge, which they say can’t be coincidence , ergo she must be guilty (assuming the medical evidence also shows that the collapse was not due to natural causes). That argument collapses once you accept (and indeed, once you promote, as Nick Johnson did today) the possibility that people are getting onto the unit without leaving a digital footprint in the form of a shift rota or a swipe card use.

 

[WaxLyrical]

She eventually accepted her colleagues testimony about the unusual purplish mottling---which was said to be indications of a/e. She fought against their testimony for quite awhile so she did not really want to go there.

Surrendering to it and accepting their testimony seems like she then has to accept the COD attached to it. JMO

Why do you think Johnson was arguing so strongly for so long to get her to accept that testimony about purple mottled skin on the dying babies?

She didn’t accept it, she maintained from the start baby A was pale with red/purple mottling. Not patchiness as described by one doc. Not blue with pink mottling as described by another.

With Baby B she was away getting the camera as instructed.

Where did she surrender to their testimony?

 

[WaxLyrical]

I think the prosecution may have potentially blown it today .

They have introduced the whole idea that LL was on the unit at times when she wasn’t on shift AND when swipe data might not have recorded her as being present (because someone else could have held the door open for her ). I get why they have felt the need to do that: it is to pull back lost ground on some of the cases where the evidence is that LL wasn’t in the room at the time of or just before the collapse.

BUT If LL could have been on the unit without using her swipe card, then so could all/any other staff member .

One of the main planks of the prosecution’s case (see that chart they’ve produced so often showing who was on shift for each collapse) is that LL is the only person on duty at the time of every charge, which they say can’t be coincidence , ergo she must be guilty (assuming the medical evidence also shows that the collapse was not due to natural causes). That argument collapses once you accept (and indeed, once you promote, as Nick Johnson did today) the possibility that people are getting onto the unit without leaving a digital footprint in the form of a shift rota or a swipe card use.

I thought the same when I read it. Why even bother with all the swipe data and times in and out of the unit if anyone can come and go as they please without record.

 

[Little Nicki]

But a couple of hours ago she totally denied using her phone 'in the clinical areas.'
Then she changed it to "never use it in nurseries "

And finally admitted to using it in all nurseries including ICU....and then threw everyone else under the bus as well.

Aren't nurseries and clinical areas the same thing? Genuine question, I presumed the nurseries were where any clinical duties were performed on the babies?

I also read her comments, saying she used her phone when she had babies in room x, y, z, not to mean that she used the phone whilst IN the nursery, just that she would use her phone when allocated babies in those various rooms. I might have read that completely wrong tho, I'm tired and it's been a long day. JMO

 

[Tortoise]

Re. her phone usage.

Take the examples given in court today, for the night of baby B's collapse

Mr Johnson says she is "engaged in chit-chat with a friend" between 8.41pm-9.10pm on the night shift in a social context.
Mr Johnson says further messages are exchanged between 9.12pm-9.32pm.
Further messages are exchanged involving Letby, some in a social context, up to 10.28pm.
Mr Johnson says in the middle of the block of messages, Letby signs for medication for a baby at 10.20pm.
A "further block of messages" are exchanged on Letby's phone between 10.38-10.59pm.

Recap: Lucy Letby trial, May 18 - prosecution cross-examines Letby

While we haven't got all the message times, I don't think it seems reasonable to accept she was in the corridors or by the nurse station for all that messaging, or hopping in and out of the nursery to text every few minutes. Especially not long after her shift started, so unlikely to be on breaks. I think she doesn't want to admit she broke yet more hospital rules.

JMO

 

[katydid23]

 

[katydid23]

Aren't nurseries and clinical areas the same thing? Genuine question, I presumed the nurseries were where any clinical duties were performed on the babies?

I also read her comments, saying she used her phone when she had babies in room x, y, z, not to mean that she used the phone whilst IN the nursery, just that she would use her phone when allocated babies in those various rooms. I might have read that completely wrong tho, I'm tired and it's been a long day. JMO

They are not the same thing. Nurseries are in clinical areas but there are other rooms in clinical areas that are not nurseries.

LL originally said she never used her phone in the clinical areas, thus she only would use it in the break room or rest room, etc.

But then Johnson challenged her on that and she changed it to say she meant she never used it in the nurseries, not the clinical areas.

But she finally admitted she used it in the nurseries as well, including in the NICU. And then claimed that everyone else did so too.

 

[Cluedoneit]

i think she shows concern every time she says “we”.

She says ‘We’ to hide in a group. If it’s something that Could harm her then it’s we. If it’s something she wants to take credit for then she’s more than happy to use’I’.

 

[katydid23]

She didn’t accept it, she maintained from the start baby A was pale with red/purple mottling. Not patchiness as described by one doc. Not blue with pink mottling as described by another.

With Baby B she was away getting the camera as instructed.

Where did she surrender to their testimony?

Prosecution asks Letby if she put air into babies' IV lines​

Judith Moritz
Inside the courtroom
Nick Johnson KC says: "Do you accept that all the people who saw the skin discolouration, say they hadn’t seen that sort of thing before?"
Lucy Letby says: "I have to accept what they say, yes."







Dan O'Donoghue



Ms Letby said it was 'more pronounced that just general mottling', but mottling nonetheless. A doctor who cannot be named said she said at the time 'I've never witnessed this before' - Ms Letby says she cannot recall that commen

Mr Johnson is quoting a nurse's evidence, who also saw the mottling - she said in evidence that Child B was 'pale white with this purple blotchy discolourisation'. The nurse said she looked like her brother, Child A, had the night before

https://twitter.com/MrDanDonoghue

Ms Letby says 'no, I do not agree with that, that is not what I saw'


Mr Johnson asks Ms Letby if she accepts 'all the people who saw the skin discolourisation say they hadn't seen this sort of thing before' Ms Letby says 'I have to accept what they say, yes'

 

[katydid23]

I think the prosecution may have potentially blown it today .

They have introduced the whole idea that LL was on the unit at times when she wasn’t on shift AND when swipe data might not have recorded her as being present (because someone else could have held the door open for her ). I get why they have felt the need to do that: it is to pull back lost ground on some of the cases where the evidence is that LL wasn’t in the room at the time of or just before the collapse.

BUT If LL could have been on the unit without using her swipe card, then so could all/any other staff member .

One of the main planks of the prosecution’s case (see that chart they’ve produced so often showing who was on shift for each collapse) is that LL is the only person on duty at the time of every charge, which they say can’t be coincidence , ergo she must be guilty (assuming the medical evidence also shows that the collapse was not due to natural causes). That argument collapses once you accept (and indeed, once you promote, as Nick Johnson did today) the possibility that people are getting onto the unit without leaving a digital footprint in the form of a shift rota or a swipe card use.

Besides the swipe card they have clinical observations and nurses signing off on meds, and witness testimonies from coworkers and family members. Those things would put others in the areas during the collapses if it was applicable.

And the chart they used is based upon the formal paid hours of the staff. It is not based upon LL coming and going off hours.