www.bbc.com
"The mother said, in an agreed statement, she recalled CPR being performed on Child C, and the heart rate had fallen unexpectedly and rapidly. She says she did not grasp the gravity of the situation and was shocked when asked by a nurse if she wanted a priest. She asked if Child C was going to die - the nurse, described to be in her mid 20s, replied "Yes, I think so".3:27pm
Dr Gibbs said efforts to intubate were unsuccessful due to swollen vocal cords.
Sophie Ellis said she got upset at the situation, after Child C's mother arrived, as it was "overwhelming" and she had not been in that kind of situation before. Lucy Letby said to her: "Do you want me to take over?" Sophie Ellis said yes, left room 1 for a short break, then went to look after babies in room 2.
Dr Katherine Davis said "even the smallest, sickest babies" would respond to resuscitation, but Child C did not. Dr Gibbs said he could not find anything that would allow to restart long after resuscitation had stopped, and could not understand that from a natural disease process.
The mother said, in an agreed statement, she recalled CPR being performed on Child C, and the heart rate had fallen unexpectedly and rapidly. She says she did not grasp the gravity of the situation and was shocked when asked by a nurse if she wanted a priest. She asked if Child C was going to die - the nurse, described to be in her mid 20s, replied "Yes, I think so".
The father of Child C said a nurse, who he later believed to be Letby [based on her picture appearing in the newspaper] had said to the parents in the family room 'you've said your goodbyes now, do you want to put him in here?', referring to a basket for Child C. He said Child C's mother said "He's not dead yet", and the nurse then backtracked.
Letby had accepted she had made searches for Child C's parents on Facebook 10 hours after, but could not remember doing so, or why. She questioned whether she was the nurse who said the 'you've said your goodbyes...' comment, and did not recall saying it. She said she was very sad for the parents.
In evidence, she said she did not recall any specific contact with the parents. She said the search for the parents were as they were 'very much on her mind' at that time, as 'you don't forget' events like those which had happened to Child C.
Recap: Lucy Letby trial, July 3 - judge's summing up
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
Yes, the medical experts were meant to be witnesses, not advocates. Was there any doubt about how they did that? Only the jury can decide. They saw everything. We didn't.
www.bbc.com
I don't care about conspiracy theories.
You think I was suggesting a conspiracy theory?
I think we need to make a distinction between 'witnesses' and 'medical experts.'
I don't think the original pathologists is being disrespected. At the time, he made his conclusion based on the information available to him. he did not consider non-natural causes. We now have a lot more clinical information and know that baby c did not die of pneumonia, as that would look like a much more gradual decline with increased need of oxygen support over time. It would not look like a sudden collapse. The defence could have called the original pathologist as a witness. I'm thinking the reason they didn't is they wanted to avoid Johnson asking him whether he would still make the same conclusion given the extra clinical.information we have now.
Yes, but there is a difference between the medical experts hired to be investigators to find the truth, and her doctor colleagues, who testified to what they saw and experienced while working with the defendant. JMO
That's interesting. You think there's a difference in quality of evidence between those two sets of people?
No, not at all. But there is a difference because hired medical experts are unbiased and only going on medical facts they are given. They do not know the defendant.
So glad breary got that point in about every neonatal unit being stretched. The thing about the BAPM guidelines is you actually have to have the funds to implement them.10:44am
He says nurses were asked about staffing levels.
The court had heard from one nurse: "Sometimes there were more babies [on the unit] than there were meant to be". 2015-2016 "was a busy period" with more babies with higher acuity.
Staff "were giving up breaks" to provide care.
"It was always quite busy," said another nurse.
Dr Stephen Breary accepted nursing levels were lower than the gold standard guidelines. He added their levels were similar to other neonatal units, and staffing levels were better than those around Cheshire units. The court heard the other units did not have the mortality levels.
10:48am
The judge says the jury should consider if sub-optimal care was a factor in the collapses of the babies. He says in a few cases, it is accepted there was sub-optimal care.
He said Letby accepted herself that sub-optimal care played little or no part in most of the babies' cases.
He says [defence barrister] Benjamin Myers KC repeatedly suggested that doctors "had gone out of their way" to "damage" the defendant by blaming her for sub-optimal failures in care. He says she "did nothing to harm any baby".
He says it is up to the jury to find who is telling the truth and who is "reliable".
He adds he is not going to put a single document up for the jury to look at, as they have all the documents.
Recap: Lucy Letby trial, July 3 - judge's summing up
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…
Gosh, we are only on day one of summing up, jury are going to have a stack of these 'assertions' to rule out. Can you imagine how many people would have to be lying to the jury for LL to be telling the truth.
I agree no difference in quality, they talk a shared language when it comes to neonatal medicine which is how the whole sorry mess came to ahead in the first place. Funny how every doctor, involved or independent could see the same things and that makes them ' in a conspiracy'
On paper it looks that way, yes, but in reality I'm not so sure. If I was watching someone give evidence, and I had processed what they were being accused of the first time I heard it, if no proof was being offered for an attack and it looked to me to be unfounded, I wouldn't need to re-process it a second or third time during speeches or deliberations.
This incident is simply mind boggling
