UK - Nurse Lucy Letby, Faces 22 Charges - 7 Murder/15 Attempted Murder of Babies #26

[Tortoise]

Dan O'Donoghue

@MrDanDonoghue
·
3m


Mr Johnson asked Ms Letby, when she was in the witness box if the lights were off in the nursery, she said she was unable to say. The nurse has previously said in evidence that the lights were on low on a dimmer switch.


3m


Mr Johnson is now quoting Ms Letby's police interview, in which she said that she and Ms Hudson had "put the light on". Ms Hudson, in evidence, has also said the lights were switched off in the nursery.

 

[Tortoise]

Dan O'Donoghue

@MrDanDonoghue
·
5m


Mr Johnson is reminding the jury of what he asked in cross examination. He asked Ms Letby how she got to the doorway of nursery two, she told the court she could not recall but gave various routes from the nursing station and other nurseries.

·
5m


Mr Johnson suggested all those routes involved going via the corridor, Ms Letby agreed. The prosecutor then asked her if the corridor was lit, she agreed. Mr Johnson said: "What effect does going from a bright corridor into a dark or dimly lit room have on your eyesight?"

·
5m


Ms Letby said: "I don't know." After being pressed, Ms Letby said "yes, you wouldn’t be able to see as well". Mr Johnson put it to Ms Letby that she could see Child I was pale because she had "caused what you purported to notice", she denied this.


4m


Mr Johnson now quotes what Ashleigh Hudson said in evidence, that you wouldn't be able to see a baby from where Ms Letby was stood with the lightning conditions. 'Again we have a head on credibility conflict…two witnesses whose accounts don’t live the same world'


3m


Mr Johnson reminds the jury of what Ms Letby said when pressed about how she could see Child I was pale. "I had more experience so I knew what I was looking for", Ms Letby said.

·
1m


Mr Jonson responded to that saying "What do you mean looking 'for'?". He says to the jury that after a very long pause Ms Letby said 'yeah i didn't mean it like that'. 'She knew what she’d done', he says


1m


'Did she make an innocent mistake? Or did something else slip out under the pressure of the witness box', Mr Johnson says

 

[Tortoise]

11:15am

Mr Johnson refers to Letby's 2019 police interview, in which she said room 2's light was off, and there was 'an element of light coming from the doorway', and Child I was by the window.
Ashleigh Hudson said Child I had a blanket over her, and a 'tent structure' keeping her secure. She said she could not see Child I due to the canopy and the lighting. Mr Johnson says Letby did not have a better view. Ms Hudson said she switched on the light and looked at Child I, who was 'gasping', 'incredibly pale', and in a 'very bad way'.
Ms Hudson initially thought the deterioration was so rapid she thought she was too late to save her.
She said you "cannot see" a child from the position Lucy Letby was in.
Mr Johnson says we have a "head-on credibility conflict", of two accounts who "don't live in the same world".
Mr Johnson says in cross-examination, Letby was asked about looking from a brightly lit corridor into a dark room would improve her ability to see.
He says her first response was "I don't know".
NJ: "She 'conceded' she would not have been able to see, yet she persisted that she could see [Child I].
NJ: "We had a break, we came back, and I asked Lucy what she had said in interview...
He says Letby had said "Maybe I spotted something Ashleigh couldn't spot."
Mr Johnson had asked Letby: "You don't have better eyesight than Ashleigh, do you?"
LL: "No."
NJ: "The question is, how would you be able to spot the colouring [of Child I better than Ashleigh Hudson from the same point of view]?"
LL: "I had more experience so I knew what I was looking for/at."
Mr Johnson adds: "You will remember the way she corrected herself."
He says there was a very long pause. He added at the time: "Your answer, you explain it."
He said Letby was "finding it difficult to concentrate on all the dates".
Mr Johnson said there was nothing about the dates in this context. He says did Letby make an innocent mistake, or did something else slip out, under the pressure of the witness box?
He says Letby caused the problem for Child I. He says Child I recovered well.

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…

www.chesterstandard.co.uk

 

[Tortoise]

Andy Gill

@MerseyHack
·
4m


Mr Johnson reminds jury that when he asked Miss Letby how she could see something the other nurse couldn’t she replied “I had more experience so I knew what I was looking for…at.” When asked why she’d corrected herself Mr Johnson says there was a very long pause…


1m


He says Miss Letby then said she was finding it hard to concentrate on all the dates. He says dates had nothing to do with it. He asks was the correction of “for” for “at” an innocent mistake or “in the pressure of the witness box did something else slip out ?”

 

[Tortoise]

11:22am

Mr Johnson says Letby had timed her note, having seen Ashleigh Hudson's nursing note first, so it appeared she saw Child I first. Mr Johnson says it is another case of 'plausible deniability'.
Professor Arthurs said Child I's large bowel was distended, and the NG Tube was in the curled up in the oesophagus rather than the stomach.
Dr Evans said the only explanation was air administered to Child I via the NG Tube.
Mr Johnson says Dr Bohin explained Child I was sabotaged by air administered via the NG Tube and via and IV line.
Dr Anne Boothroyd's x-ray report on September 30 recorded: 'There is splinting of the diaphragm due to bowel distention'.

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…

www.chesterstandard.co.uk

 

[Tortoise]

Dan O'Donoghue

@MrDanDonoghue
·
3m


We're now on the third incident in relation to Child I - on 14 October 2015. At 07:00 she had a significant desaturation with a lowered heart rate requiring full resuscitation.

 

[Sundial]

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

I completely agree. If guilty, to me I don’t think this is just about room 1 given that some of these events were also happening in other rooms. There does seem to be something else going on here (understandably otherwise we wouldn’t be hearing this awful case); IMO I do feel her banding/status is an additional factor.

I also agree with your point about her mindset; (imo) could be a doctor and that was something which struck me right from the start just from the peculiar text messages full of medical terminology, it’s very different to her nurse colleagues. I was of the opinion that she reminded me of someone considering/thinking she was more junior doctor than an actual nurse.

I can’t place my finger quite on what it is, but I find it most unusual that she’s doing all the extra shifts, appears very bitter and arrogant and times towards her nursing colleagues, seems to have a medical explanation for everything, all knowing etc, and yet didn’t have her band 6. Very very strange.

If guilty JMO
IMO

 

[Tortoise]

popping out for half hour, I'll catch up with updates if no one else posts, when I return

 

[Moll]

11:28am

For the third event for Child I, Dr Ravi Jayaram said there were 'no clinical concerns' for Child I before the night of October 13-14. Mr Johnson says evidence was heard to say Child I was "stable".
This was the second time Letby was the designated nurse. Mr Johnson says this was the second time she had the opportunity to falsify notes.
Dr Matthew Neame's 5.55am note is shown to the court for October 14. Mr Johnson says this is not a retrospectively written note, as it includes a note of a prescription which is timestamped at 5.56am, and an urgent x-ray is timed at 6.05am.
He says Letby's addendum note, made at 8.43am, after Child I had desaturated: 'At 0500 abdomen noted to be more distended and firmer in appearance with area of discoouration spreading on right hand side, Veins more prominent'
Mr Johnson asks why would Lucy Letby do this?
He says to bear in mind what happened the previous night, if these symptoms were shown, then the doctor would be called urgently. He says the absence of a doctor called shows there was no problem at 5am.

11:34am

Mr Johnson says, from the paper trail, if anyone 'puts two and two together' and thinks there is a problem with Lucy Letby, they are "thrown off the scent".
Dr Neame said the mottling was "unusual", which was why he recorded.
NJ: "How many times have we heard that in this case?"
Mr Johnson says the abdomen was distended.
Dr Andreas Marnerides had excluded NEC.
Mr Johnson says the only possibility is pushing air in down the NG Tube.
Dr Neame said Child I looked uncomfortable when examined and "grimaced". He noted the abdominal distention.
Prof Arthurs said, of the x-ray image, the stomach was 'markedly dilated', and the small bowel and the large bowel were also dilated, with 'no symptoms of NEC'. Another image at 8.03am had the stomach decompressed, and a third image the following day showed 'no problems at all'.
Dr Neame recorded a further desaturation for Child I at 7am, and the ET Tube was reintubated. It was noted there was 'good air entry' for Child I, but - as Mr Johnson says, in so many other cases for babies in this trial - Child I was desaturating.

11:38am

Child I had further desaturations on October 14-15, which Mr Johnson said were 'explicable' as there were secretions in the NG Tube. Child I had a 'miraculous recovery' after being transferred to Arrowe Park, and improved, until coming into the "misfortune" of contact with Lucy Letby, he adds.
Dr Evans thought Child I's stomach had been injected with air, and air injected into the intravenous system. There was an "astonishing amount of air" in Child I's stomach.
Dr Bohin concluded Child I had air administered.

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…

www.chesterstandard.co.uk

 

[notsure]

Thanks for the updates, folks! Harrowing reading again today - I'm just skimming over it, tbh

 

[Moll]

Thanks for the updates, folks! Harrowing reading again today - I'm just skimming over it, tbh

It's all Tortoise's labour as so often, I'm just filling in briefly and I can't manage Dan Donoghue as well, the way she does, so if anyone feels like filling in from his posts...

 

[Moll]

11:52am

The trial is now resuming after a short break.
Mr Johnson turns to the fourth and final event for Child I, on October 22-23, 2015, in which Child I died.

11:55am

Mr Johnson says Ashleigh Hudson had given evidence to say Child I was "very easy to settle", and although Child I was in nursery room 1, that was as a precaution given her history of episodes.
Child I was self ventilating in air and her saturations "optimal", and she "looked very well", and "pink, well-perfused" and a "soft, non-distended abdomen".
Caroline Oakley said in a statement Child I's abdomen was "fine" and "soft, non-distended".
Mr Johnson says that is the background to Child I when Lucy Letby came on shift that night.

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…

www.chesterstandard.co.uk

 

[notsure]

https://twitter.com/MrDanDonoghue

Mr Johnson says in this crash, Ms Letby was again trying to create the impression that Child I had an 'evolving problem' and that she was 'getting progressively worse'
11:32 AM · Jun 22, 2023

He says the effect of this was that 'if anyone starts to put two and two together...they go back to the notes and are thrown off the scent aren’t they'
11:33 AM · Jun 22, 2023

He says what happened to Child I was 'not a natural problem'

'This was man or woman made', he says
11:34 AM · Jun 22, 2023

 

[notsure]

https://twitter.com/MrDanDonoghue

Mr Johnson is now moving to the fourth and fatal incident on 22 October 2015
11:54 AM · Jun 22, 2023

Nurse Ashleigh Hudson had care for Child I on this shift (which was a night shift)...she said that Child I needed no respiratory support at the time. The only concern was a forthcoming test at Alder Hey
11:55 AM · Jun 22, 2023

The court has heard how just before midnight Child I became unsettled. Nurse Hudson and Ms Letby attended to her but Child I collapsed and required cardiac compressions.
12:00 PM · Jun 22, 2023

 

[Moll]

12:03pm

Letby was designated nurse for a baby in room 2 and a baby in room 3. Ashleigh Hudson was designated nurse for Child I and another baby.
Child I was in a "virtually perfect" clinical scenario, Mr Johnson says. He says Letby "got herself involved".
Child I gave a 'cry that had not been heard before' - 'loud and relentless', according to Ashleigh Hudson, who interpreted it as "distress".
When she was repositioned on her tummy at about midnight, Child I stopped breathing. Resuscitation efforts began and Child I then began to fight the ventilator.
Dr John Gibbs was told Child I had had an abnormal cry. He was 'perplexed' at Child I's rapid deterioration and recovery, which would not show a sign of infection.
Mr Johnson says Letby falsified paperwork for one of her designated babies at this time - the baby to be transferred to Stoke.
Letby recorded a note at 10.50-10.52pm note of a 10% glucose infusion for the 'Stoke baby'. The infusion note is written as starting at '2300', and that writing is changed to '2400'. Mr Johnson says it was changed to give Letby an "alibi" for midnight.
Mr Johnson says further times are overwitten/changed on Child I's infusion chart - from 12.15am to 12.25am, and one to a time at 1.25am, which Mr Johnson says puts it out of sequence between '1.28am' and '1.48am' on the chart.

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…

www.chesterstandard.co.uk

 

[Tortoise]

Thanks Moll, I'm back

And thanks @notsure !

 

[Moll]

Thanks Moll, I'm back

Thank you, Tortoise...awful stuff again.
As a latecomer to the full details of this case, what strikes me very forcibly from this closing speech by NJ KC that I hadn't fully grasped before is the use he makes of the alleged (and very convincing) falsifications of the notes.

 

[Tortoise]

12:09pm

Ashleigh Hudson said she was alerted to Child I at 1.06am by either the alarm going off or Child I crying. She said, in room 1, Letby was already there at Child I's cotside and "had her hands in the incubator". Mr Johnson says Letby had sabotaged Child I, and caused Child I to cry.
Mr Johnson says Letby 'put Ashleigh Hudson off' by saying: "She just needs to settle".
'Air++' was aspirated from Child I. Mr Johnson asks how that could have got there other than being forced in by Lucy Letby.
Dr Rachel Chang could see air entry and chest movement on Child I, but Child I wasn't recovering. She said Child I's death was "inexplicable".
Dr John Gibbs noted mottling on Child I. He said he "could not understand" why Child I had died and referred the case to the coroner.
The grieving parents agreed to bathe Child I. Mr Johnson said despite having two designated babies to care for, and Child I not being her designated baby, Letby met the parents.
The mother said: "Lucy came back in. She was smiling and kept going on about how she was present at [Child I's] first bath and how much she [Child I] had loved it."
"I wish she had just sopped talking. Eventually I think she realised and stopped. It wasn't what we wanted to hear then."

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…

www.chesterstandard.co.uk

 

[notsure]

https://twitter.com/MrDanDonoghue

After Child I's death, Mr Johnson reminds the jury of what her mother had said - that while the parents were having their final moments, bathing their daughter. Ms Letby entered the family room 'smiling'
12:10 PM · Jun 22, 2023

He said Ms Letby went in, despite having two other babies to care for and not being Child I's designated nurse. He reminds the court that Child I's mother had said Ms Letby was talking about how she remembered being there for Child I's first bath
12:11 PM · Jun 22, 2023

'It wasn't something we wanted to hear', the mother said.

'We wished she'd have just stopped'
12:11 PM · Jun 22, 2023

 

[notsure]

@Tortoise - Will I continue with Dan's or do you want to?