UK - Nurse Lucy Letby, Faces 22 Charges - 7 Murder/15 Attempted Murder of Babies #23

Status
Not open for further replies.
  • #461
@JudithMoritz
·
1m

Nick Johnson KC: "When baby G collapsed on this occasion, all other medical professionals were out of the room weren’t they?" Lucy Letby: "Yes" NJKC: "Was that an innocent coincidence?" LL: "Yes"
 
  • #462
@MrDanDonoghue
·
15s

The court has previously heard that Child G was left on a treatment trolley after she had been cannulated and was not reconnected to a masimo monitor. Ms Letby recalls finding Child G in this state, she says she was a 'dusky blue' and was not breathing

@MrDanDonoghue
·
10s

Consultant Dr John Gibbs has previously accepted responsibility for leaving Child G unattended in that way.
 
  • #463
Now15:37

'An innocent coincidence' Letby was alone with Child G when she collapsed​

Staff on the unit did not like to report doctors when they got things wrong, a previous statement from Lucy Letby (which is being read to the court) says.
When Child G collapsed on a second occasion, Letby was the only one in the room.
"That is, you would say, an innocent coincidence?" Nick Johnson, the prosecution barrister says.
"Yes," says Letby.

 
  • #464
3:40pm

The court is shown a neonatal schedule for Child G and other babies for September 21. Letby is recorded as having three duties for other babies in the 90 minutes prior to Child G's collapse. One of the three events was for a differently designated nurse's baby in room 2.
Letby says that does not mean she was not preoccupied with the babies, and may have been dealing with their families or other duties.
Letby is asked about the event and her looking behind the screen, that Child G was 'dusky, blue and not breathing'.
Letby is asked if that was true. "Yes."
Letby agrees she picked Child G up, put her in a cot and Neopuffed her. She says the Neopuff equipment would not stretch to the trolley.
A nursing colleague "froze" and went to get a separate nursing colleague.
Letby said, in evidence, she was "very concerned" by what had happened.
Mr Johnson says one thing not mentioned in the defence statement was Letby moving Child G from the trolley to the cot. He asks why Letby had not mentioned that. Letby says she cannot say.
Mr Johnson says Letby "took advantage of a situation that presented itself". Letby: "No."

 
  • #465
Now15:45

Child G was 'dusky blue and not breathing' when Letby found her​

Lucy Letby says Child G should not have been left behind a screen, on the trolley and without a monitor on when she was in nursery room four.
The infant was "dusky blue and not breathing" when Letby spotted her behind the curtain, according to a statement being read to the court.
Letby tells the court this is true.
"You said the monitor was not on," Mr Johnson, for the prosecution, says.
"It was not on," Letby agrees.
Letby also agrees she picked up Child G, put her in a cot and started using a neopuff before calling for help. She says she moved the infant to the cot because the child's trolley was not close enough to the medical equipment.
"It wasn't because you had moved her to the cot and you had taken the option to sabotage her?" Mr Johnson asks.
"No," says Letby.
"Knowing the doctors had left her behind the screen," Mr Johnson continues.
"No," says Letby.
"You took advantage of a situation that presented itself," he adds.
"No," says Letby.


 
  • #466
@MrDanDonoghue
·
2m

Mr Johnson says 'knowing that doctors had left her behind the screen', Ms Letby took the 'opportunity to sabotage her' He adds 'you took advantage of a situation that presented itself'. 'no', she responds
 
  • #467
3:51pm

Mr Johnson says when the cannulation process was taking place, Letby must have been in the room. Letby says she would not have been there all the time.
One of the charts is shown for a baby that Letby was looking after, with the chart requiring readings that took 'about 5 minutes' to make.
Letby says she was "in and out of the nursery all day", on activities that did not require being cotside. She says she does not recall "at any point" being told by doctors they had finished with the cannulation process for Child G.
Letby says it would have been "up to the doctors" to remove the screens and make sure Child G was safely back in her cot following the cannulation.

 
  • #468
@MrDanDonoghue
·
1m

Mr Johnson puts it to Ms Letby that 25minutes prior to Child G's collapse, she was in nursery four alone with her - Ms Letby rejects this saying she was 'in and out' of the nursery all day. She says nurses had to do 'many things...not purely based at babies cot side'

@MrDanDonoghue
·
1m

We're now moving to Child H. She was born prematurely in September 2015 and had breathing difficulties

@MrDanDonoghue
·
1m

The prosecution said her case was "complicated" by "sub-optimal treatment" as there was an "unacceptable delay" in helping her and needles were left in her chest which may have punctured her lungs.

@MrDanDonoghue
·
2m

The court heard Ms Letby allegedly caused the girl to collapse on 26 and 27 September 2015, but she survived and went to make a full recovery.
 
  • #469
Now15:57

Letby 'took advantage' of finding child alone​

Nick Johnson, the prosecution barrister, once again asks Letby if she "took advantage" of finding Child G alone.
"No, that was how I found Child G," she says. She says the infant had been left "inappropriately" on a trolley.
Mr Johnson then moves onto the case of Child H.

 
  • #470
1m ago14:46

Letby: 'I haven't lied... it was an oversight'​

The court is shown a picture of Child G's cot.
Where the vomit splatter reached is indicated on the image. Child G vomited out of her cot, onto the floor and onto a blue armchair positioned nearby.
Letby is asked if she had ever seen this before.
"Not in a neonate, no," she says.
In her police interview, Letby described the "large milky vomit" as down Child G's clothes - but did not specify where else it had gone.
Nick Johnson, for the prosecution, asks why she lied to the police, considering it was something she had never seen before in her career so would have "stuck in her mind".
"I haven't lied, it was in her cot, I just haven't in that moment specified where else it went," she says.
She adds that she wasn't "not telling the truth - it's an oversight I haven't mentioned it in interview".

Now14:46

Letby tried to cast suspicions on her 'best friend'​

The prosecution now says Letby "misrepresented" the time Child G vomited - which she says was 2.15pm.
Letby claims she and a colleague (who cannot be named for legal reasons) were at the nursing station at the time Child G collapsed.
But notes from the unit show this colleague was feeding a different baby at 2.15pm - and the length of time it would have taken for her to defrost and warm that baby's milk would have made it impossible to be where Letby says she was.
This colleague also says she was called to Child G at 2.35pm.
The prosecution says Letby changed the time to try to point suspicion in the direction of the colleague, who was her "best friend".
"No," Letby says.
"You deliberately overfed her," says Mr Johnson.
"No, that's not true," Letby says.

Now14:47

Child G's attacks had 'echoes' of earlier infant deaths​

Child G's attacks had "echoes" of the deaths of babies C and E, prosecuting barrister Nick Johnson says to Lucy Letby.
Mr Johnson: "You inserted something into Child G's airway, didn't you?"
Letby: "No."
Mr Johnson: "You caused the bleeding, as you did with many of these children."
Letby: "No, that's not true."

Now14:48

'Were you looking to finish her off?': Letby returned to neonatal unit after shift​

After Letby finished her shift, she returned to the neonatal unit later that day - she claims to sign some paperwork.
"You went to visit Child G didn't you?" Nick Johnson, the prosecution barrister, asks.
"I didn't visit Child G, no. I went to do what I needed to do," she says, adding that she was sorting some documentation.
"Were you looking for an opportunity to finish her off?" Mr Johnson asks.
"No," Letby says.
Mr Johnson asks Letby about a statement from Child G's father that, on 7 September, she was no longer the same baby.
"I can't comment on that," Letby says - saying that nobody knows their own child like the parents.

Snipped for focus and highlighted in bold by me:


The court is shown a picture of Child G's cot.
Where the vomit splatter reached is indicated on the image. Child G vomited out of her cot, onto the floor and onto a blue armchair positioned nearby.
Letby is asked if she had ever seen this before.
"Not in a neonate, no," she says.
In her police interview, Letby described the "large milky vomit" as down Child G's clothes - but did not specify where else it had gone.
Nick Johnson, for the prosecution, asks why she lied to the police, considering it was something she had never seen before in her career so would have "stuck in her mind".
"I haven't lied, it was in her cot, I just haven't in that moment specified where else it went," she says.
She adds that she wasn't "not telling the truth - it's an oversight I haven't mentioned it in interview".


IMO this is being deliberately obtuse with the facts. Skirting around “where” the vomit actually went. So technically, she’s not necessarily lying, as she smugly seems to point out, but has deliberately dodged the facts to play down the event. She has made herself sound like a complete fool. If innocent, why not just get the necessary points across instead of keep backtracking and winding herself up in her own web of nonsense and blatant lies. All I see is a deliberate attempt to distort the truth and this poor baby, and the family having to hear this rubbish. This really is utterly harrowing someone could be this cold in getting these facts right if she is actually innocent as she claims.

Carnage to her own case.
All IMO if guilty etc
 
  • #471
3:58pm

Mr Johnson moves on to the case of Child H. Letby says she does recall Child H, due to the chest drains that were put in place.
Letby said chest drains had to be couriered from Arrowe Park Hospital, as it was "unacceptable" they didn't have sufficient supplies at the Countess of Chester Hospital. Mr Johnson asks if Letby filled in a Datix form for that. Letby says she does not recall.
Letby is asked about the text message she sent to Yvonne Griffiths on September 26, 2015 about the "not so positive comments that have been made recently", with regard to Letby and colleague Shelley Tomlins working in room 1, over their relative lack of experience.
Letby says she cannot recall which nurses, specifically, had been making those comments, but they were band 6 nurses. Letby agrees this message followed events for Child H.
Mr Johnson refers to the staffing rota for September 25-26. Letby says it was not the night staff who were making the comments. Mr Johnson asks if it was the day staff, why did they allocate Child H to Letby? Letby replies the comments had come in recent days prior to this.

 
  • #472
@JudithMoritz
·
5m

Lucy Letby has previously said she found baby G alone on a treatment trolley without sides, behind a screen, with her monitor off. Nick Johnson suggests doctors told nurse Letby they'd finished treating the baby and she should put her back in her cot. She disagrees.

@JudithMoritz
·
5m

Nick Johnson KC: "I'm suggesting that you took advantage of the situation that presented itself and you sabotaged baby G" Lucy Letby: "I disagree.

@JudithMoritz
·
1m

Nick Johnson KC now asking Lucy Letby about the next baby, known as baby H. The nurse is accused of attempting to murder the little girl on two consecutive nights in Sept 2015

@JudithMoritz
·
8s

Court sees a text sent by Lucy Letby to another nurse on the same day as the first alleged attack. It reads "I gather you are aware of some of the not so positive comments that have been made recently regarding my role which i have found quite upsetting" (1/2)
 
  • #473
3m ago15:58

Recap: Who is Child H?​

Child H is a baby girl who survived two alleged attacks by Letby.
Letby faces two charges of attempted murder against the infant.
The attacks took place very early in her life - at 3.24am on 26 September 2015 and 12.55am on 27 September, which were two consecutive night shifts.
However, this case is complicated by the "suboptimal" treatment Child H received at the start of her life.
Incident one: The baby collapsed while Letby was her designated nurse and had access to intravenous lines.
Incident two: She collapsed again the following night.
Child H made a "dramatic improvement" after being moved from Letby's care.

Now16:03

Letby denies colleagues were getting suspicious of her​

Lucy Letby found comments made about her "quite upsetting", according to a Facebook message shown to the court. But she says this message was in relation to Child H being placed in her care because other staff needed "the experience", not because people had grown suspicious.
The message, which was sent to a colleague, reads: "Thank you. That's really nice to hear as I gather you are aware of some of the not so positive comments that have been made recently regarding my role which I find quite upsetting. Our job is a pleasure to do & just hope I do the best for the babies & their family [sic]."
"Were people talking about you being associated to the collapse of lots of children?" Nick Johnson, the prosecution barrister, asks.
"No, not at all," says Letby.
"Were people starting to notice you were associated to lots of different collapses?" Mr Johnson asks.
"No," says Letby.


 
Last edited:
  • #474
4:01pm

Letby, in her defence statement, questioned how familiar the doctors were with chest drains.
Letby, when questioned on this, says this would be non-consultants.
In her defence statement, Letby said she could not recall the specific details of Child H's collapses.

 
  • #475
@JudithMoritz
·
1m

(2/2) NJKC: "Were people talking about you being associated with the collapses of lots of children at different times?" LL: "Not at all" NJKC: "Was that the negative comments you were talking about?" LL: "No" NJKC: "Were people starting to notice (the association)?" LL: "No"
 
  • #476
4:08pm

Letby is asked to refer to her defence statement, in which she said her memory for both nights when Child H's collapses "merged into one". Letby added she was also looking after a severely disabled baby.
Letby now accepts the disabled baby was born later in the shift.
Letby tells the court staffing levels were not a contributory factor in Child H's collapses.
Letby said she would "question whether the [chest] drains were securely put in" for Child H, as a potential contributory factor in Child H's collapses.

4:12pm

Letby accepts Child H was born in a good condition, and that she recovered quickly.
She tells the court she cannot comment on her interpretation of the security of the chest drains, from her observations.

 
  • #477
@MrDanDonoghue
·
2m

Mr Johnson is taking Ms Letby back over what she said in relation to Child H's first collapse in the early hours of 26 September 2015. He asks if staffing levels contributed to that event, she says no.

MrDanDonoghue
·
34s

Asked if medical competence contributed, she says she's 'not sure of the exact details'. Asked if anyone's mistakes contributed, she said there is a 'question over whether some of her drains were securely put in'
 
  • #478
Now16:12

Letby claims she was tending to baby that hadn't been born when alleged victim collapsed​

Letby has previously said she was looking after "another severely disabled baby" at the time Child H first collapsed.
But paperwork from the unit shows the severely disabled baby in question was born later in the shift.
When asked if medical incompetence contributed to the infant's collapse, Letby says she is not sure.
But she says she questions "if some of the drains were securely put in".
Nick Johnson, for the prosecution, asks: "Do you agree that Child H was born in good condition?"
"I can't comment on that," Letby replies.
Medical notes shown to the court indicate this was the case.

Now16:14

Court adjourned for the day​

Court has been adjourned for the day. It will resume tomorrow at 10.30am.

 
  • #479
  • #480
@JudithMoritz
·
5m

Court is finishing for today. Back tomorrow morning at 1030 when the prosecution cross-examination of Lucy Letby will continue
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
92
Guests online
1,886
Total visitors
1,978

Forum statistics

Threads
632,759
Messages
18,631,324
Members
243,282
Latest member
true-crime_fan
Back
Top