It's the same as listing baby I twice in the times the nurse had just left, to get to 17 instead of 16.Thanks Tortoise. I don't entirely understand, so thank goodness you're here to put me right!
UK - Nurse Lucy Letby, Faces 22 Charges - 7 Murder/15 Attempted Murder of Babies #26
- Thread starter sleuth777
- Start date
- Status
One thing I feel is noticeable in this case (and I think I may have mentioned previously) is how chummy she gradually appears to be with the doctors. Not that there’s anything wrong with that, it’s vital for good working relationships in this kind of environment.
However; when it appears that JJK seems a bit annoyed by LL stating no-one else understands etc (or words along that) JJK replied with something like it was a bit unfair as they had all been through it (LL wanting to go back in room 1 to get the image out of her head conversation) and JJK eventually left the unit- LL then appears rather friendly with Dr V and the discussions about babies health etc via message appears somewhat similar to how it appeared with dr choc (until the New Zealand discussion, I assume Dr V did indeed leave for pastures new abroad?)
I was thinking back to what @Tortoise mentioned previously about the band 6 thing; were these friendships with doctors more to prove her worth if she was one of the few who was yet to gain her band 6?
She seems quite irritated at times by the mention of the new girl, Mel, Alisha too I think?
I can’t help but wonder (if guilty) if dr choc started as a ploy in her plan to progress or prove something (similar to the text messages she was previously sending to Dr V) which then blossomed into something more. Her friendships are rather strange to say the least. To me anyway.
If guilty, was this her way to have a doctor singing her praises, flattery, encouraging the ANP role etc. It does appear as a very strange and uneasy power craze, gaslighting to get what she wants. IMO she seems to seek or want validation but at the same time appears arrogant how she manipulates others around her as though she is more superior, yet didn’t have her band 6. I find it so strange she’s dismissive of the skills everyone has in the unit and how she said to dr choc it was a good skill mix, but a newly qualified nurse (and others in the unit), she now seems to be saying the complete opposite and generally comes across as quite bitter really.
All IMO if guilty
JMO
However; when it appears that JJK seems a bit annoyed by LL stating no-one else understands etc (or words along that) JJK replied with something like it was a bit unfair as they had all been through it (LL wanting to go back in room 1 to get the image out of her head conversation) and JJK eventually left the unit- LL then appears rather friendly with Dr V and the discussions about babies health etc via message appears somewhat similar to how it appeared with dr choc (until the New Zealand discussion, I assume Dr V did indeed leave for pastures new abroad?)
I was thinking back to what @Tortoise mentioned previously about the band 6 thing; were these friendships with doctors more to prove her worth if she was one of the few who was yet to gain her band 6?
She seems quite irritated at times by the mention of the new girl, Mel, Alisha too I think?
I can’t help but wonder (if guilty) if dr choc started as a ploy in her plan to progress or prove something (similar to the text messages she was previously sending to Dr V) which then blossomed into something more. Her friendships are rather strange to say the least. To me anyway.
If guilty, was this her way to have a doctor singing her praises, flattery, encouraging the ANP role etc. It does appear as a very strange and uneasy power craze, gaslighting to get what she wants. IMO she seems to seek or want validation but at the same time appears arrogant how she manipulates others around her as though she is more superior, yet didn’t have her band 6. I find it so strange she’s dismissive of the skills everyone has in the unit and how she said to dr choc it was a good skill mix, but a newly qualified nurse (and others in the unit), she now seems to be saying the complete opposite and generally comes across as quite bitter really.
All IMO if guilty
JMO
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2015
- Messages
- 4,288
- Reaction score
- 13,179
I think The Mail often uses baby rather than child but yes the majority appear to use child. To me though "baby" is more accurate. They were all babies when the alleged attacks happened, and some of them never got to grow up to be children.
This case is so remarkable that it will never be forgotten. The evil and cunning involved burns into the brain and aches. The babies were tiny and so vulnerable, it takes a depraved monster to repeatedly torture and murder babies (if found guilty) I believe that MyersKC in his closing will struggle.
All my opinion obviously
All my opinion obviously
GoodDayToYouSir
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2023
- Messages
- 361
- Reaction score
- 2,302
I’m glad NJ addressed the problem with Dr Evans and his evidence with baby C head on .
If the book on LL ends up having more chapters to it after this trial, the prosecution really needs to ditch Dr Evans and get someone else. Get Dr Bohin to do the first reviews and then someone to review her work. IMO
If the book on LL ends up having more chapters to it after this trial, the prosecution really needs to ditch Dr Evans and get someone else. Get Dr Bohin to do the first reviews and then someone to review her work. IMO
It surprised me at first, but it was a really smart move IMO.
If guilty - I definitely think this could have a lot to do with her grossly elevated sense of superiority, and not being promoted to band 6. In fact I think she thought she should be a doctor in her own head, the way she was texting her diagnoses for the babies (as well as serving the purpose of gaslighting), befriending the registrars, saying they worked well together, and the kind of force she became in the unit as if she ran the place. They've shown she didn't think rules applied to her, taking home confidential paperwork for her own uses, and she really thought the investigation would leave the consultants looking silly, as if they were without the abilities to recognise what was happening to these babies was not natural disease.
But I also think that elevated sense of self had to be accompanied by psychopathy in the first place, as demonstrated by the alleged acts of violence and harm, her utter disconnect with the feelings experienced by everyone around her, and her only defence in court being to unabashedly harm the parents, doctors, and some of her nurse colleagues further, having already been responsible for the closure of services for families in her community, if guilty.
If this was about her banding, and her "not good enough to care for them" being a rage-filled reference to not being promoted, not having the power of leading the shift, not getting the recognition and rewards she wanted in terms of status, being an ITU qualified nurse without the banding, admiration and respect for her brilliance and capabilities, uniform pay, etc, it's perhaps easier to see how on getting a call on 8th June 2015 asking if she could do a shift because twins had been born and they needed her extra hands in nursery 1, seen in the context of a psychopathic mindset, how she might transfer and unleash her narcissistic rage and spite onto the babies, because she wouldn't feel the suffering and devastation of others, she is basically numb (in terms of any remorse) as she said in her texts.
In that respect, it's not even about being in nursery 1, because a lot of these events happened when she was in nursery 1, it's about being there without the commensurate status.
Imagine how insulted and disrespected she would be in her own exalted head to be put in nurseries 3 and 4, or to find that on returning after babies A and B, and having made clear her intention to get straight back into nursery 1, she had been put in nursery 3 and an even more junior nurse had been given baby C, the most premature baby on the unit.
JMO, if guilty
Last edited:
When she took the stand I suspect it was quite a shock to discover she was faced with someone much smarter. IMO.
GoodDayToYouSir
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2023
- Messages
- 361
- Reaction score
- 2,302
Again, shows the difference between UK and US. In US, they could have prepped the hell out of her before she testified so that there were no unexpected questions, nothing she didn’t have an answer for . Still amazes me that they can do that .
I find it hard to believe that her "superior personality" (to quote Tortoise), her not thinking that rules applied to her, her disconnect with others feelings, her probable psychopathy, her rage at not getting the recognition and rewards that she felt she deserved - I find it hard to believe that these attributes only appeared in the years she was at the Countess of Chester Hospital. I believe there must have been prior incidents of some sort, even if not actual murders. I wonder if there are people who are now remembering things that they didn't particularly notice at the time, and are now seeing them with fresh eyes? I will be very surprised if nothing further comes to light. JMO MOO etc.
8:13am
The trial of Lucy Letby, who denies murdering seven babies at the Countess of Chester Hospital neonatal unit and attempting to murder 10 more, is expected to continue today.
We will be bringing you live updates throughout the day, in what is the 33rd week of the trial before a jury.
For a recap of the trial so far, visit our index here: Countess nurse Lucy Letby: What has happened in trial so far
www.chesterstandard.co.uk
The trial of Lucy Letby, who denies murdering seven babies at the Countess of Chester Hospital neonatal unit and attempting to murder 10 more, is expected to continue today.
We will be bringing you live updates throughout the day, in what is the 33rd week of the trial before a jury.
For a recap of the trial so far, visit our index here: Countess nurse Lucy Letby: What has happened in trial so far
Recap: Lucy Letby trial, June 22 - prosecution closing speech
The trial of Lucy Letby, who denies murdering seven babies at the Countess of Chester Hospital neonatal unit and attempting to murder 10 more, is…
- Joined
- Nov 15, 2020
- Messages
- 1,631
- Reaction score
- 12,996
She could of prepped herself to be honest as nobody knows their case like they do.
She’s been sat in a cell for YEARS awaiting this trial. I remember quite a few career criminals in chambers where they virtually ran their own defence from the comfort of their own cells with a copy of the latest Archbold !
“ I collect paper “ ? Its staggering to me.
MOO
She’s been sat in a cell for YEARS awaiting this trial. I remember quite a few career criminals in chambers where they virtually ran their own defence from the comfort of their own cells with a copy of the latest Archbold !
“ I collect paper “ ? Its staggering to me.
MOO
10:26am
Prosecutor Nicholas Johnson KC has detailed the cases of 13 out of the 17 babies in this trial, in the three days of his closing speech so far.
The trial is expected to resume at 10.30am.
10:30am
The trial is now resuming. Mr Johnson says there are four children left to go through - Child I, Child J, Child N and Child Q. He first details the case of Child I.
www.chesterstandard.co.uk
Prosecutor Nicholas Johnson KC has detailed the cases of 13 out of the 17 babies in this trial, in the three days of his closing speech so far.
The trial is expected to resume at 10.30am.
10:30am
The trial is now resuming. Mr Johnson says there are four children left to go through - Child I, Child J, Child N and Child Q. He first details the case of Child I.
Recap: Lucy Letby trial, June 22 - prosecution closing speech
The trial of Lucy Letby, who denies murdering seven babies at the Countess of Chester Hospital neonatal unit and attempting to murder 10 more, is…
It really is odd IMO. I can think of a few things myself which might give the jury cause for doubt!
Last edited:
10:34am
Mr Johnson says evidence had been heard of Child I, that medics do not worry about self-correcting desaturations.
Mr Johnson says having failed to kill Child G and Child H, she turned her attention to Child I, and was deisgnated nurse for two of the four occasions in which she tried to kill the baby girl, and falsified notes along the way.
Mr Johnson says it was important to note from the post-mortem evidence that Child I did not have NEC [a gastrointestinal disease].
www.chesterstandard.co.uk
Mr Johnson says evidence had been heard of Child I, that medics do not worry about self-correcting desaturations.
Mr Johnson says having failed to kill Child G and Child H, she turned her attention to Child I, and was deisgnated nurse for two of the four occasions in which she tried to kill the baby girl, and falsified notes along the way.
Mr Johnson says it was important to note from the post-mortem evidence that Child I did not have NEC [a gastrointestinal disease].
Recap: Lucy Letby trial, June 22 - prosecution closing speech
The trial of Lucy Letby, who denies murdering seven babies at the Countess of Chester Hospital neonatal unit and attempting to murder 10 more, is…
10:37am
Mr Johnson says Child I's first collapse was marked with a desaturation to the 30s and had vomited, on September 30.
He says the day before, Dr Lucy Beebe had reviewed Child I. She remembered seeing Child I from memory, as the girl became unwell, was shipped out and recovered well, and came back, which she said was unusual, for her short time at the unit.
Dr Beebe had said she was shocked and frustrated by Child I's death, as she felt there was something going on which they [the staff] were not aware of.
Dr Beebe said the aim for Child I, after the September 29 review, was to continue feeding and growing the baby girl.
10:39am
The day rota for September 30 had Letby as designated nurse for Child I and two other babies in room 3. Mr Johnson says Letby "did not like" being in room 3.
The plan was to give Child I immunisations, as was the case for Child G. He says there was nothing wrong with Child I, who was receiving cares from the mother and a feed.
Mr Johnson says Child I produced a small stool at the 10am feed. The 10am feeding chart note is signed by Letby.
"The doctors were very happy with [Child I]," Mr Johnson says.
10:43am
Dr Beebe's note is shown to the court for September 30. Mr Johnson says it is important to note the reason for the review. It was 'asked to review as reduced temperature'.
Mr Johnson says Child I was taking full bottles, gaining weight, and Dr Beebe recorded that Child I was handling well. Child I, during the examination, produced a yellow, seedy stool, which indicated good gut health, he tells the court.
Dr Beebe said this was not a sign of NEC. Mr Johnson says Child I was "not in distress", the abdomen was the same as yesterday, and the plan was to monitor Child I closely, raise the cot temperature, but Child I appeared clinically well.
Mr Johnson asks what was going on at this stage. Child I's mother, in evidence, said Lucy Letby raised the issue with her about Child I's stomach. Mr Johnson says that was not the same reason Letby gave to Dr Beebe.
NJ: "So what was going on here?"
10:45am
Mr Johnson says no concern was expressed to medical staff about Child I's abdomen by Letby.
"Why was Lucy Letby expressing concern to [Child I's mother] about the abdomen? Why did Lucy Letby not raise the issue with Dr Beebe?"
Mr Johnson says Letby was gaslighting the mother by suggesting a problem with Child I that didn't exist, until she caused the problem.
www.chesterstandard.co.uk
Mr Johnson says Child I's first collapse was marked with a desaturation to the 30s and had vomited, on September 30.
He says the day before, Dr Lucy Beebe had reviewed Child I. She remembered seeing Child I from memory, as the girl became unwell, was shipped out and recovered well, and came back, which she said was unusual, for her short time at the unit.
Dr Beebe had said she was shocked and frustrated by Child I's death, as she felt there was something going on which they [the staff] were not aware of.
Dr Beebe said the aim for Child I, after the September 29 review, was to continue feeding and growing the baby girl.
10:39am
The day rota for September 30 had Letby as designated nurse for Child I and two other babies in room 3. Mr Johnson says Letby "did not like" being in room 3.
The plan was to give Child I immunisations, as was the case for Child G. He says there was nothing wrong with Child I, who was receiving cares from the mother and a feed.
Mr Johnson says Child I produced a small stool at the 10am feed. The 10am feeding chart note is signed by Letby.
"The doctors were very happy with [Child I]," Mr Johnson says.
10:43am
Dr Beebe's note is shown to the court for September 30. Mr Johnson says it is important to note the reason for the review. It was 'asked to review as reduced temperature'.
Mr Johnson says Child I was taking full bottles, gaining weight, and Dr Beebe recorded that Child I was handling well. Child I, during the examination, produced a yellow, seedy stool, which indicated good gut health, he tells the court.
Dr Beebe said this was not a sign of NEC. Mr Johnson says Child I was "not in distress", the abdomen was the same as yesterday, and the plan was to monitor Child I closely, raise the cot temperature, but Child I appeared clinically well.
Mr Johnson asks what was going on at this stage. Child I's mother, in evidence, said Lucy Letby raised the issue with her about Child I's stomach. Mr Johnson says that was not the same reason Letby gave to Dr Beebe.
NJ: "So what was going on here?"
10:45am
Mr Johnson says no concern was expressed to medical staff about Child I's abdomen by Letby.
"Why was Lucy Letby expressing concern to [Child I's mother] about the abdomen? Why did Lucy Letby not raise the issue with Dr Beebe?"
Mr Johnson says Letby was gaslighting the mother by suggesting a problem with Child I that didn't exist, until she caused the problem.
Recap: Lucy Letby trial, June 22 - prosecution closing speech
The trial of Lucy Letby, who denies murdering seven babies at the Countess of Chester Hospital neonatal unit and attempting to murder 10 more, is…
10:53am
Mr Johnson says "everything was unremarkable" for Child I until 1pm when she was asleep, and fed via a NGT.
The mother said she had gone to meet the family in the canteen at this time.
The feed chart shows a 35ml feed for Child I, which Mr Johnson says would take some time - "about 15 minutes", taking until 1.15pm. He says the nursing notes are accurate as they are time-stamped by the computer automatically.
The note is written between 1.36pm-1.48pm - it was "at most" 20 minutes after the feed ended. Mr Johnson says the details of the feed and review recorded are not correct.
He says the addendum, of a '1500' 'Drs' examination of Child I, is "a complete fabrication".
A male doctor's note records examining Child I at 4.30pm.
Mr Johnson asks who these doctors were who examined Child I at 3pm. He adds the '3pm note' contains: '[Child I] appeared mottled in colour with distended abdomen and more prominent veins.'
Mr Johnson says there is no corresponding doctor's note for this examination of 'mottling'.
Letby's note: 'Full monitoring recommenced'. An observation note records this was done from 3pm.
Mr Johnson says Dr Beebe had advised it at 11.40am. He asks why did Letby only recommence full monitoring after Child I's mother had left the unit.
Mr Johnson says Letby is transposing events, including a note of a yellow seedy stool, from 11.40am to 3pm to an examination - "which never actually happened".
www.chesterstandard.co.uk
Mr Johnson says "everything was unremarkable" for Child I until 1pm when she was asleep, and fed via a NGT.
The mother said she had gone to meet the family in the canteen at this time.
The feed chart shows a 35ml feed for Child I, which Mr Johnson says would take some time - "about 15 minutes", taking until 1.15pm. He says the nursing notes are accurate as they are time-stamped by the computer automatically.
The note is written between 1.36pm-1.48pm - it was "at most" 20 minutes after the feed ended. Mr Johnson says the details of the feed and review recorded are not correct.
He says the addendum, of a '1500' 'Drs' examination of Child I, is "a complete fabrication".
A male doctor's note records examining Child I at 4.30pm.
Mr Johnson asks who these doctors were who examined Child I at 3pm. He adds the '3pm note' contains: '[Child I] appeared mottled in colour with distended abdomen and more prominent veins.'
Mr Johnson says there is no corresponding doctor's note for this examination of 'mottling'.
Letby's note: 'Full monitoring recommenced'. An observation note records this was done from 3pm.
Mr Johnson says Dr Beebe had advised it at 11.40am. He asks why did Letby only recommence full monitoring after Child I's mother had left the unit.
Mr Johnson says Letby is transposing events, including a note of a yellow seedy stool, from 11.40am to 3pm to an examination - "which never actually happened".
Recap: Lucy Letby trial, June 22 - prosecution closing speech
The trial of Lucy Letby, who denies murdering seven babies at the Countess of Chester Hospital neonatal unit and attempting to murder 10 more, is…
Dan O'Donoghue
@MrDanDonoghue
·
13m
Mr Johnson notes that Ms Letby had suggested to another nurse on shift on 30 September that there were issues with Child I, despite an 'unremarkable' examination by doctors. 'We're back to gaslighting...she was suggesting a problem where a problem didn’t exist'
3m
Mr Johnson has accused Ms Letby of falsifying nursing records in a bid to cover her first attack on Child I on the afternoon of 30 September.
3m
He points out that doctors examined the child at 11:40am, which is recorded in medical notes - in Ms Letby's notes (made retrospectively at the end of that day) she says 'doctors' reviewed the child again at 15:00 - this is not recorded anywhere else
2m
'Why did she invent a mythical examination at 1500?' he asks. In her record at 1500 she has logged that Child I appeared 'mottled', again this is not mentioned in any other note
2m
'It's a very calculated way of using the records to give the appearance that a child who had no problem at all had a problem', he said
1m
He says that Ms Letby 'planned her attack on Child I' to coincide with when her mum went to pick up her other children from school
1m
He says the prosecution allege Ms Letby gave Child I a 'very large' dose of air around that time, causing her desaturation
Andy Gill
@MerseyHack
·
6m
Mr Johnson says Lucy Letby falsified Baby I’s medical records to cover her tracks. He claims she used a window of opportunity between I’s mum leaving the unit to pick up other children from school and I’s dad arriving on the unit at 1730.
@MrDanDonoghue
·
13m
Mr Johnson notes that Ms Letby had suggested to another nurse on shift on 30 September that there were issues with Child I, despite an 'unremarkable' examination by doctors. 'We're back to gaslighting...she was suggesting a problem where a problem didn’t exist'
3m
Mr Johnson has accused Ms Letby of falsifying nursing records in a bid to cover her first attack on Child I on the afternoon of 30 September.
3m
He points out that doctors examined the child at 11:40am, which is recorded in medical notes - in Ms Letby's notes (made retrospectively at the end of that day) she says 'doctors' reviewed the child again at 15:00 - this is not recorded anywhere else
2m
'Why did she invent a mythical examination at 1500?' he asks. In her record at 1500 she has logged that Child I appeared 'mottled', again this is not mentioned in any other note
2m
'It's a very calculated way of using the records to give the appearance that a child who had no problem at all had a problem', he said
1m
He says that Ms Letby 'planned her attack on Child I' to coincide with when her mum went to pick up her other children from school
1m
He says the prosecution allege Ms Letby gave Child I a 'very large' dose of air around that time, causing her desaturation
Andy Gill
@MerseyHack
·
6m
Mr Johnson says Lucy Letby falsified Baby I’s medical records to cover her tracks. He claims she used a window of opportunity between I’s mum leaving the unit to pick up other children from school and I’s dad arriving on the unit at 1730.
10:59am
Mr Johnson says it is a "very calculated way" of giving the impression a child who had no problem at all, "had a problem".
Child I's mother had a routine for each day, visiting Child I at regular times, and the father would come in from after 5pm. Mr Johnson said the time between 3pm and 5pm was "her window of opportunity" to attack Child I.
NJ: "What are the chances of these things happening at precisely this point?"
Letby had written: 'Mummy present when reviewed by Drs. Had left unit when [Child I] had large vomit and transferred to nursery 1.'
Mr Johnson says Letby had tried to give the impression the Neopuff caused the inflated stomach for Child I.
He says "remarkably", Child I improved, and there were 'minimal aspirates'.
"Yet another miraculous recovery...all good once Lucy Letby had left."
Medical expert Dr Dewi Evans ruled out infection and said the only explanation was a dose of air administered through the NG Tube. Dr Sandie Bohin agreed, and the effect would have been to splint the diaphragm. She discounted the possibility of NEC.
Professor Owen Arthurs said the stomach and almost all of the gut had been distended. Mr Johnson says that was from administered air.
11:01am
The second incident for Child I, on October 13, 2015 at 3.20am, is now detailed by Mr Johnson - the 'see in the dark' incident, he calls it.
He says Child I had been progressing well.
11:06am
The first part of the night shift had Child I being fed normally.
Mr Johnson says the second event was much more serious than the first. Before it, Child I had been in a good clinical condition, Mr Johnson says. He says it was expected she was coming up for discharge from the hospital in a couple of weeks.
Letby was the designated nurse for a baby in room 1. Nurse Ashleigh Hudson was the designated nurse for Child G, Child I and one other baby in room 2.
She left room 2 to tend to another baby in room 1, assisting colleague Laura Eagles, and asked a colleague to monitor Child I - either Caroline Oakley or Lucy Letby. Caroline Oakley had no recollection of being called.
Ms Hudson said she had been in room 1, and some milk needed defrosting for Child I's feed, and when she got back, there were no adults in the room. She started to prepare the milk, with her back to Child I.
The next thing she remembered was Lucy Letby in the doorway, who pointed out that Child I 'looked pale' - she was 'about 5ft-6ft away' from Child I. She said something along the lines of 'Don't you think [Child I] looks pale?"
Ms Hudson said the light in room 2 was low, and the lights were on in the corridor outside room 2.
Mr Johnson reminds the jury what Lucy Letby said about this in interview.
www.chesterstandard.co.uk
Mr Johnson says it is a "very calculated way" of giving the impression a child who had no problem at all, "had a problem".
Child I's mother had a routine for each day, visiting Child I at regular times, and the father would come in from after 5pm. Mr Johnson said the time between 3pm and 5pm was "her window of opportunity" to attack Child I.
NJ: "What are the chances of these things happening at precisely this point?"
Letby had written: 'Mummy present when reviewed by Drs. Had left unit when [Child I] had large vomit and transferred to nursery 1.'
Mr Johnson says Letby had tried to give the impression the Neopuff caused the inflated stomach for Child I.
He says "remarkably", Child I improved, and there were 'minimal aspirates'.
"Yet another miraculous recovery...all good once Lucy Letby had left."
Medical expert Dr Dewi Evans ruled out infection and said the only explanation was a dose of air administered through the NG Tube. Dr Sandie Bohin agreed, and the effect would have been to splint the diaphragm. She discounted the possibility of NEC.
Professor Owen Arthurs said the stomach and almost all of the gut had been distended. Mr Johnson says that was from administered air.
11:01am
The second incident for Child I, on October 13, 2015 at 3.20am, is now detailed by Mr Johnson - the 'see in the dark' incident, he calls it.
He says Child I had been progressing well.
11:06am
The first part of the night shift had Child I being fed normally.
Mr Johnson says the second event was much more serious than the first. Before it, Child I had been in a good clinical condition, Mr Johnson says. He says it was expected she was coming up for discharge from the hospital in a couple of weeks.
Letby was the designated nurse for a baby in room 1. Nurse Ashleigh Hudson was the designated nurse for Child G, Child I and one other baby in room 2.
She left room 2 to tend to another baby in room 1, assisting colleague Laura Eagles, and asked a colleague to monitor Child I - either Caroline Oakley or Lucy Letby. Caroline Oakley had no recollection of being called.
Ms Hudson said she had been in room 1, and some milk needed defrosting for Child I's feed, and when she got back, there were no adults in the room. She started to prepare the milk, with her back to Child I.
The next thing she remembered was Lucy Letby in the doorway, who pointed out that Child I 'looked pale' - she was 'about 5ft-6ft away' from Child I. She said something along the lines of 'Don't you think [Child I] looks pale?"
Ms Hudson said the light in room 2 was low, and the lights were on in the corridor outside room 2.
Mr Johnson reminds the jury what Lucy Letby said about this in interview.
Recap: Lucy Letby trial, June 22 - prosecution closing speech
The trial of Lucy Letby, who denies murdering seven babies at the Countess of Chester Hospital neonatal unit and attempting to murder 10 more, is…
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
Online statistics
- Members online
- 128
- Guests online
- 3,040
- Total visitors
- 3,168