UK - Lucy Letby Trial - Media, Maps & Timeline *NO DISCUSSION*

Defence Case Friday 2nd June 2023 - LUCY LETBY'S CROSS-EXAMINATION

CHILD I continued

Judith Moritz Tweets - https://twitter.com/JudithMoritz


Judith Moritz

@JudithMoritz
·
2h

Lucy Letby trial: After a break of 8 days, the trial is now continuing. Lucy Letby is in the witness box for the 10th day. She is still being cross-examined by lead prosecution counsel Nick Johnson KC.

Judith Moritz

@JudithMoritz
·
1h

Nick Johnson KC is continuing to question Lucy Letby about baby I - a little girl - who the nurse is accused of murdering in October 2015. She denies this. The prosecution allege that she tried unsuccessfully to kill the baby 3 times before succeeding on the 4th attempt.

Judith Moritz

@JudithMoritz
·
1h

Nick Johnson is looking at Lucy Letby's nursing notes from the occasion of the 3rd alleged attack on the baby. He compares them to other clinical records.

Judith Moritz

@JudithMoritz
·
1h

NJKC: "This is another example isn’t it, of you writing a nursing note that creates an impression of a more gradual decline than really happened"
Lucy Letby: "I don’t agree"
NJKC: "You sabotaged (baby I) didn’t you"
LL: "No"

Judith Moritz

@JudithMoritz
·
1h

NJKC: "You had inflated baby I with air hadn’t you?"
LL: "No" ...
NJKC: "And this is one of those cases where air was going in and out of her but she was not oxygenating"
LL: "Yes"
...
NJKC: "You were sabotaging her, weren’t you?"
LL: "No"

Judith Moritz

@JudithMoritz
·
1h

Lucy Letby is now being asked about the 4th occasion when she's alleged to have attacked baby I - this time resulting in her death.

Judith Moritz

@JudithMoritz
·
1h

Jury hears that baby I had been transferred to a different hospital and made good progress there. She was returned to
@TheCountessNHS. Lucy Letby agrees that 24 hours before baby I died, despite 3 life threatening situations within 3 weeks she was in a good condition.

Judith Moritz

@JudithMoritz
·
1h

Nick Johnson KC suggests to Lucy Letby that she "cooked the records" to make it look as though she was busy with another baby, at the time baby I collapsed. Nurse Letby denies this.

Judith Moritz

@JudithMoritz
·
59m

The trial earlier heard evidence from another nurse who said that when baby I collapsed she heard a cry the like of which she’d never heard before. Lucy Letby says she didn't hear such a noise, and the baby wasn't screaming.

https://twitter.com/JudithMoritz
@JudithMoritz
·
56m

Nick Johnson KC identifies 3 mistakes in the nursing paperwork within 25 minutes. He says "You were altering medical records to put some time between yourself and serious events weren’t you?"
Lucy Letby answers "No... I did not falsify any paperwork."

Judith Moritz

@JudithMoritz
·
43m

Nick Johnson KC: "You’d pumped baby I full of air hadn’t you?"
Lucy Letby: "No"
NJKC: "That’s why she was so distressed"
LL: "No"
NJKC: "Because you were doing your best to kill her"
LL: "No"

Judith Moritz

@JudithMoritz
·
39m

Earlier in the trial baby I's mum recalled Lucy Letby coming into the room when she and her husband were bathing the little girl after she'd died. She said the nurse was smiling and 'kept going on about how she was present at (her) first bath and how much she’d loved it'

Judith Moritz

@JudithMoritz
·
35m

Nick Johnson asks Lucy Letby why she made those comments. She replies "I was trying in that awful situation to have a little bit of normality. I was referring to a positive memory. Baby I had enjoyed her first bath. It wasn’t meant with any malice"

Judith Moritz

@JudithMoritz
·
33m

Lucy Letby: "You’d still talk to babies as though they were alive"
Nick Jonson KC: "Do you understand the difference between life and death?
Lucy Letby: "Yes"

Judith Moritz

@JudithMoritz
·
33m

Nick Johnson KC: "You were getting a thrill out of the grief and despair that you were watching in that room weren’t you?"
Lucy Letby: "Absolutely not"
 
Defence Case Friday 2nd June 2023 - LUCY LETBY'S CROSS-EXAMINATION

CHILD J

Chester Standard Updates - https://www.chesterstandard.co.uk/news/23563043.live-lucy-letby-trial-june-2---cross-examination-continues/


2:41pm

The trial has had a short break, and will be resuming shortly with Mr Johnson cross-examining Letby in the case of Child J.

2:51pm

Copies of Letby's defence statement, edited to the relevant parts in the case by agreement, are handed out to members of the jury.
Mr Johnson moves to the case of Child J, a baby girl born on October 31, 2015.
Letby, in her defence statement, said she had never seen a baby with stomas before at the Countess, and other doctors were "equally unsure about stomas", and the parents were "more proficient" than the Countess staff at dealing with stomas.
A handover sheet was taken to Letby's home, the defence statement adds, unintentionally.

2:52pm

The night shift rota for November 26-27 is put up. Two band 4 unit nurses are named in the rota.
Child J was in room 4. The designated nurse was Nicola Dennison, a band 4 nurse also looking after one other baby in room 4.
Letby was the designated nurse for two babies in room 3 that night.
Letby rules out staffing levels as a contributory factor in Child J's collapse, nor medical incompetence, nor staffing mistakes. She says the unit was busy at the time, but was not a contributory factor. She adds she does not know how Child J collapsed.

2:54pm

Letby accepts the evidence from Child J's mother that Child J was well and "about to go home in a day or two".

3:06pm

Letby adds there was an issue with Child J's stoma care, as it had been discussed among the nurses that they had little experience. She adds she does not "want to name names" on any specific nurses' lack of experience.
Mr Johnson refers to Nicola Dennison's previous experience with stomas, which she said in evidence she had experience of it.
Letby says over the years, she did not recall any other babies with stomas.
Mr Johnson says band 4 nurses, as said by Letby in evidence on May 16, should not be involved in stoma bag care, as they would be unfamiliar with the procedure. Letby said: "The unit was very busy and we had to use staff where we could."
Letby says she was not referring to Nicola Dennison specifically, but the nursing situation overall.
She says there was not an issue over staffing levels at the time of Child J's collapse.
Asked to explain a text message she had sent to a colleague Letby tells the court: "Sometimes I felt nurses would take on roles which I didn't think they were trained enough in".
The next message adds: "It's shocking really that they are willing to take the responsibility for things that they have no training or experience etc on. Don't think they appreciate the potential difficulties X"
Letby agrees she believed it was "potentially dangerous".
Mr Johnson says the impression of the court was that band 4 nurses were not qualified in stoma care, and the hospital was 'cutting corners' by assigning such nurses to those tasks. Letby agrees.
The court is shown a document about the duties for special care babies [such as Child J], which includes stoma care.
LL: "You need to appreciate the context that the unit was not familiar with stomas."
NJ: "This nurse was familiar with stomas, wasn't she?"
LL: "In her opinion, yes."
Mr Johnson says Letby was deliberately creating the impression to the jury that the care for Child J was deficient.
LL: "I do think that. I don't think she had a high standard of care.
"I don't think anyone was overly confident in saying 'I know what to do with a stoma'. We were led by the parents..."
Mr Johnson asks why Nicola Dennison was not challenged about this.
LL: "I can't answer that."

3:10pm

Letby denies not being happy in nursery room 3, or being happier in nursery room 1.
Letby accepts the evidence of Nicola Dennison that babies in room 4 should have the light off overnight, as they are due to go home.

3:11pm

Mr Johnson says two pairs of events for child J happened; one pair in room 4, one pair in room 2.
The room 4 incidents happened at 3am and 4.57am, and the room 2 incidents happened either side of 7am. Letby accepts this was the case.

3:15pm

The court is shown a night shift staffing rota at the end of the night, in which Child J was in room 2.
Letby is asked if she has any memory of the earlier pair of incidents. She says she does not have a recollection.
She says from her memory, Child J had a seizure and was moved to room 2. She says she could be mistaken in her memory.

3:21pm

The court is shown an apnoea/brady/fit chart for Child J on November 27, recording events for Child J at 4.40am and 5.03am, recorded by nurse Nicola Dennison, in nursery 4.
The desaturations are recorded by Dr Kaliyilil Verghese.
Letby recalled when she was called in to room 4, Child J was 'fitting', not desaturating.
Letby accepts that by 6.28am, Child J had been moved to room 2, as a text message written by her to a colleague had said that was the case.

3:30pm

Letby says she cannot recall where she was when she sent the 6.28am message, whether she was in room 2 or not.
The message added: 'only 5 staff!'
Mr Johnson: "So it was all hands to the pump then?" as twins had been admitted to room 1 as an emergency.
LL: "Yes."
Mr Johnson says all staff would have been concentrated in room 1.
LL "Not all, but most, yes."
NJ: "You were not involved in that, were you?"
LL: "Not from memory, no."
Mr Johnson says the message sent at 6.31am would have meant Letby would not have been in room 1. Letby agrees.
Letby says Mary Griffiths would not have been in room 1 as she was not an intensive treatment unit-trained nurse. She denies she would have been the last nurse for room 2.
Letby accepts, from looking at the neonatal schedule, she would have been in room 2 when the emergency twins were admitted to room 1.
NJ: "There would have been a lot of distractions...wouldn't there?"
LL: "I don't know what you're implying."
NJ: "The medical staff would have their attention focused on the twins, and any help that could be spared would have gone on the twins.
NJ: "Do you accept that a lot of help was needed?"
LL: "It would be normal practice to get in the consultant when we only had the registrar, yes."
Dr John Gibbs arrives at 6.34am, earlier than normal for his shift, to assist.

3:31pm

The last message Letby sent to her colleague was 6.49am. The colleague sent three messages which were not replied to in the following minutes.
NJ: "That's because you were in nursery room 2, sabotaging [Child I], weren't you?"
LL: "No, I wasn't."

3:35pm

Letby accepts that, on the neonatal schedule, she is not recorded doing anything in the half hour prior to Child J's collapse at 6.56am.
Mr Johnson refers to Dr John Gibbs's notes of 'sudden desats (to unrecordable levels) at 6.56 and at 7.24 and bradycardia. Both associated with clenching of hands, stiff limbs, and on second occasion, eyes deviated to left.'
NJ: "This was your doing?"
LL: "No, it wasn't."
Letby accepts it was an emergency situation and Dr Gibbs had to be called away from room 1 to Child J in room 2.

3:42pm

NJ: "You took your opportunity, when all the resources at the NNU were concentrated on the twins who had been admitted as an emergency."
LL: "No."
Letby accepts evidence had been heard saying there was no known cause for Child J's deterioration.
Letby had care of Child J the following night, which the court is shown, from Letby's notes for that night, 'nothing happened'.



Sky News Updates - https://news.sky.com/story/lucy-letby-murder-trial-latest-former-nurse-tells-court-why-she-repeatedly-searched-for-dead-babys-mother-on-facebook-12868375

14:51

Recap: Who is Child J?​

The prosecution is now moving on to the case of Child J.
Child J is a baby girl. Letby faces one count of attempted murder.
The infant was born with a perforated and necrotic bowel, which required an operation at Alder Hey.
She "recovered well", but on the night shift of 26-27 November 2015, around five weeks after Child I died, she suffered an unexplained collapse - her oxygen levels collapsed and she showed signs of a seizure.
Letby was not her designated nurse but four minutes after Letby gave her a glucose infusion, she collapsed again.
She recovered - an independent medical expert was not able to rule out the presence of an infection, but ruled airway obstruction "the most likely cause".

14:59

Child J was hoping to go home before she suddenly collapsed​

Letby's defence statement says she 'did nothing to harm Child J'.
The child had a stoma, and Letby has previously said the nursing team were apprehensive about how to treat this and was "reliant" on the infant's parents telling them what to do.
As the shift began on Thursday, 26 November 2015, Letby was in nursery three looking after two other children (that do not form part of this case).
Child J was in nursery room four.
Mr Johnson asks the same questions he has asked in all cases - if Letby thinks staffing issues, incompetence or individual mistakes contributed to Child I's death.
"It was a very busy shift, but I don't know what exactly happened to [Child J]," Letby says. She says incompetence or mistakes did not play a part.
In the days beforehand, Child J's mother had described her as "well" and she had been due to go home "within a day or two".
A colleague had texted Letby asking how Child J was doing.
Letby replied: 'She's good I think, in 4. Doing well with feeds, hoping to get home soon'.

15:10

Letby had concerns about Child J's stoma care​

Nick Johnson, prosecution, asked if Child J's stoma made it difficult for staff to treat her.
"At times yes, some of the staff couldn't cope with it," Letby tells the court.
Letby says she raised concerns "generally, [about] nursery nurses having Child J over this period of time".
But she says this was not a particular concern at the time the infant collapsed.
The court is then shown a series of text messages between Letby and a colleague where they were complaining about nursery nurses taking on more qualified roles.
Letby's colleague said someone raised concerns about one of the staff looking after Child J.
"Hmm don't know when to stop do they' Letby wrote.
She tells the court: "Sometimes I felt that nursery nurses would undertake roles they were not experienced enough in doing."
A second message from Letby reads: 'It is shocking really that they are willing to take the responsibility for things that they have no training or experience etc on. Don't think they appreciate the potential difficulties.'
The court is then shown guidelines for stoma care that says they "do not require either Intensive or High Dependency care".
Mr Johnson says Letby is trying to create the impression: "The care provided to Child J was in 'some way deficient'.
"I don't think she had a high standard of care," Letby says.

15:24

'You didn't like being in nursery three, did you?'​

Letby has previously described this shift as "a very busy shift and doctors were present for quite a lot of the shift".
"You didn't like being in nursery three, did you?", the prosecution says.
"No, I disagree," says Letby.
She denies she would rather have been in nursery one.
On this particular shift, there were "two pairs of incidents". The first happened in nursery four, and the second in nursery two.
(Child J started in nursery four, and by the end of the shift, had moved into nursery two).
"From my memory, Child J had a seizure in nursery four and that is why she was moved up," says Letby.
"You were involved in an incident in nursery four weren't you?" Mr Johnson, prosecuting, asks.
"Yes," says Letby.
A nursery note wrote that "shortly after 4am", Child J became unwell and desaturated.

15:39

Texts show Letby was left alone with Child J​

The court is then shown messages Letby sent to her colleague early in the morning.
Colleague [6.24am]: Good night? X
Letby [6.28am]: No [Child J] in 2 screened had profound de sats and just got 32-week twins born at home one with cleft lip and only 5 staff! X

The prosecution alleges this was evidence Letby was in nursery two with Child J, while her colleagues concentrated on the twins.
"I can't recall where I was when I sent that message," Letby says.
Mr Johnson then asks: "Only five staff, it was all hands to the pump wasn't it?"
"Yes," says Letby.
"For the twins," Mr Johnson says.
"Yes," says Letby.
"So resources at about 6am on 27 November would all have been concentrated in nursery one, wouldn't you agree?" Mr Johnson asks,
"Not all efforts but a lot of it," Letby says.
"You were not part of that effort were you?" Mr Johnson asks.
"I can't say from my memory," Letby says.
The second twin arrived at the unit at 6.29am but Letby was texting a colleague at 6.31am. The prosecution says this is proof Letby wasn't in nursery one and was left alone looking after the children in nursery two - including Child J.

15:42

Neonatal unit was 'distracted' after twins were admitted​

An emergency unfolding in an adjoining nursery room would have allowed Lucy Letby the time and space to "sabotage" Child J, the prosecution is now claiming.
Two twins were admitted to the nursery, one with a cleft palate, just before 6.30am.
"You were in nursery two weren't you," Mr Johnson asks.
"Yes," says Letby.
"When the emergency was unfolding relating to the twins who had been admitted," Mr Johnson says.
"Yes," says Letby.
"There would have been lots of distractions with these two emergencies," Mr Johnson says.
"I don't know what you are implying," Letby replies.
"I am implying the medical staff would have had their attention focused on the twins, would you agree?" Mr Johnson says.
"Yes," says Letby.
Text messages show Letby telling her colleague one of the newborn twins was being tubed.
Letby says she wasn't "keeping an eye" on what was going on in the room, but was aware of what was unfolding next door.
Letby stopped replying to her colleague's text messages at 6.49am.
"Because you were in nursery two sabotaging Child J, weren't you?" Mr Johnson says.
"No," says Letby.
For half an hour, there is no record of what Letby was doing on the unit.

15:43

'I can't say where I was'​

Letby "took the opportunity" when her colleagues were distracted, Nick Johnson, prosecution barrister says, to hurt one of the babies at the neonatal unit.
The doctors on the unit later said there was no explanation for what happened to Child J.
"I can't say where I was - I don't know if I was with Child J at that time," Letby says.
The emergency collapse of Child J was so serious it diverted the doctor from dealing with the emergency admissions in nursery two.
The following night, nothing happened to Child J - while Letby has tried to claim this is evidence she didn't hurt her (because why would she hurt her on one shift and not another), the prosecution points out that the following night Child J's parents were present on the unit.



Judith Moritz Tweets - https://twitter.com/JudithMoritz

Judith Moritz

@JudithMoritz
·
34m

Nick Johnson KC now begins asking Lucy Letby about the next baby - a girl, known as baby J, who it's alleged the nurse attempted to murder in November 2015. She denies the charge, as well as another 21 charges on the indictment.

Judith Moritz

@JudithMoritz
·
33m

Nick Johnson KC: "Do you accept the evidence of baby J's mum that in the days before the collapse, the baby was well, had progressed well, and was about to go home within a day or two?"
Lucy Letby: "Yes"

Judith Moritz

@JudithMoritz
·
14m

Baby J had a stoma bag fitted. Lucy Letby says she believes the care offered to her by staff at
@TheCountessNHS was deficient, saying "I don’t think anyone on the (neonatal) unit was able to say we knew what to do with stomas"

Judith Moritz

@JudithMoritz
·
19s

Nick Johnson KC says Lucy Letby attacked baby J when most staff on the unit were dealing with a separate emergency relating to a pair of twins. He says "You sabotaged her and you took your opportunity when all the resources were concentrated on another emergency".
LL: "No"
 
Defence Case Friday 2nd June 2023 - LUCY LETBY'S CROSS-EXAMINATION

CHILD K

Chester Standard Updates - LIVE: Lucy Letby trial, June 2 - cross-examination continues


3:46pm

Mr Johnson moves on to the case of Child K, born on February 17, 2016.
Letby said, in her defence statement, she did not recall the events of February 17, and did not recall saying to Dr Ravi Jayaram that Child K had just started deteriorating.
She said she had done nothing to interfere with Child K's tube or the alarm.
She added the Countess neonatal unit was not capable, given its staffing levels, of looking after a baby of Child K's gestational age.
Letby tells the court she has no memory of such a conversation with Dr Jayaram. She says it is "difficult" to dispute Dr Jayaram's recollection of the event as she had no memory of it.
She denies she has changed her version of events since starting to give evidence.

3:50pm

Letby is asked if she understands the reason why Child K was born at the Countess.
LL: "Yes."
Mr Johnson tells the court it was deemed 'too risky' to transfer Child K and her mother to another hospital at that stage, and that was why Child K was born at the Countess.
LL: "I don't know why more effort was not made to find a bed for her [elsewhere]."
NJ: "You have persistently given the impression that the Countess has taken on babies it [is not able to look after and that is why they collapse]."
LL: "Yes."
NJ: "Is that the reason you said to the jury you didn't understand why [Child K] was born at the Countess?"
LL: "I don't understand why she was born at the Countess."
NJ: "Is it to bolster your defence?"
LL: "No."
LL: "I understand why she was born there but I don't necessarily agree [with the decision to have her born there]."

3:53pm

Letby says she does not recall the latter two desaturations for Child K, and does not accept Dr Jayaram's evidence in the first desaturation.
Mr Johnson says he will deal with these in a different order than chronologically; he will cross-examine on the second desaturation first.

3:54pm

Letby says she does not know what happened to Child K, so does not cite staffing levels as a contributory factor in Child K's desaturations.
She says she feels "potentially" the ET Tubes were not secured for Child K.

4:03pm

The second desaturation occurred at 6.10-6.15am on February 17, 2016.
The court hears a note on Child K's birth and assessment was typed up by Letby on a computer from 6.04am-6.10am. The note would have been taken from paper charts taken by the cotside.
NJ: "You were at [Child K's] cotside a minute or two before she desaturated, didn't you?"
Letby says she would have got the notes from the cotside "at some point" prior to her typing them up.



Sky News Updates - https://news.sky.com/story/lucy-letby-murder-trial-latest-former-nurse-tells-court-why-she-repeatedly-searched-for-dead-babys-mother-on-facebook-12868375

15:51

Recap: Who is Child K?​

Nick Johnson, prosecution, is now moving on to the case of Child K.
Child K is a baby girl who survived an alleged murder attempt but later died. Letby is charged with attempted murder.
The infant was born weighing just under 700g, she needed help with breathing but soon stabilised.
On 17 February 2016, Letby was alone in the nursery with her while her designated nurse updated the family, ahead of Child K being transferred to a more specialist unit.
The paediatric consultant began to feel "uncomfortable" when he realised this "because he was beginning to notice the coincidence between the unexplained deaths/serious collapses and the presence of Lucy Letby".
He went to check on Child K and found Letby standing over the incubator, and the child collapsed. An independent expert ruled her failure to summon help was unusual.
Child K was moved to Arrowe Park Hospital but died on 20 February 2016.

15:53

Letby says she 'doesn't understand' why Child J[K] was born at Countess of Chester Hospital​

Letby is accused of standing over Child K "as she desaturated".
"I have no recollection of that," Letby says.
She adds: "I have no memory of myself being in there at that time."
Letby also tells the jury she "doesn't understand why [Child K] was born at Chester."
The infant was born weighing just under 700g. She was born at the Countess of Chester Hospital after her mother went into labour and there were no beds available at Arrowe Park. The next nearest specialist hospital was in Bristol.
"You have persistently tried to create the impression that Chester were taking on babies for whom they were not capable of caring and that is the reason why they collapsed," Mr Johnson says.
"Yes," says Letby.

16:05

Letby's lawyer objects to 'belittling' comments​

"I don't know what happened to [Child K]," says Lucy Letby.
Nick Johnson, the prosecution barrister, asks the same questions he has asked in all cases - if Letby thinks staffing issues, incompetence or individual mistakes contributed to Child K's death.
"I potentially feel the EG tubes were not secured appropriately," she says.
Child J collapsed due to difficulties with her tube at 6.15am on 17 February 2016.
"Just before that desaturation you were with Child J, weren't you," Mr Johnson says.
"I don't recall," says Letby.
Mr Johnson then asks about the admission form Letby filled out. She says she got these from the cot side and took them to the computer.
"I think I know where you are going, we will dance the dance if you want to," Mr Johnson says.
Letby's defense barrister objects to this, saying comments like this are "belittling". The judge agrees and asks Mr Johnson to refrain from such remarks in future.

16:06

Letby accused of moving Child K's tube​

Letby is accused of moving Child K's tube, causing her to collapse.
"You moved Child K's tube when you took those notes back to her cot side," Mr Johnson asks.
"No I did not," says Letby.
Court is now adjourned for the day. It will resume at 10.30am on Monday.



Judith Moritz Tweets - https://twitter.com/JudithMoritz

Judith Moritz
@JudithMoritz
·
4m

Nick Johnson moves on to asking Lucy Letby about baby K - a girl who she denies attempting to murder in Feb 2016.

Judith Moritz
@JudithMoritz
·
6m

Baby K is the baby that the prosecution alleges Lucy Letby was attempting to murder when a consultant - Dr Ravi Jayaram - interrupted her.

Judith Moritz
@JudithMoritz
·
3m

Dr Jayaram previously gave evidence, telling the court that when he went into the room where baby K was, her breathing tube had been dislodged, her oxygen levels were dropping, and Lucy Letby was standing over her doing nothing. The nurse denies this.

Judith Moritz
@JudithMoritz
·
9m

NJKC: Are you saying you were not with baby K when Ravi Jayaram says he saw you standing over her?
LL: I have no recollection of that
NJKC: Are you saying Dr J has made that up?
LL: I’m not saying he’s made it up. I have no memory of it... (1/2)

Judith Moritz
@JudithMoritz
·
9m

NJKC: Do you dispute it?
LL: I think that’s difficult when I have no memory of it.
NJKC: Have you changed your position since I started asking you about this?
LL: No

Judith Moritz
@JudithMoritz
·
5m

Nick Johnson KC "You moved baby K's breathing tube didn't you"
Lucy Letby: "no I did not"

Judith Moritz
@JudithMoritz
·
5m

Court has finished for today. The trial of Lucy Letby will resume on Monday morning.
 
Defence Case Monday 5th June 2023 - LUCY LETBY'S CROSS-EXAMINATION

CHILD K continued

Chester Standard Updates -https://www.chesterstandard.co.uk/news/23566971.live-lucy-letby-trial-june-5---cross-examination-continues/


10:37am

The trial is now resuming. The judge, Mr James Goss, informs jurors the court will be sitting no later than 3pm on Wednesday.
Nicholas Johnson KC, for the prosecution, is continuing to cross-examine Lucy Letby on Child K.

10:40am

Mr Johnson asks Letby about an ET tube document, which she had entered at 06.10am on February 17, 2016. Child K desaturated at 6.15am.
Letby says she has "no memory of being at [Child K's] cotisde."

10:41am

Letby agrees Child K had been on morphine and would have been "well sedated"
NJ: "And yet the tube slipped again at 6.15am - just after you had been with her?"
LL: "I can't say that I was physically with her, no."
Letby says the notes she would have obtained for Child K were at the end of the bed, and she has no recollection of being physically with Child K at the cotside.

10:47am

Mr Johnson asks about the 7.25am-7.30am desaturation. Letby says she has no memory of it.
Letby says she cannot recall any intervention regarding Child K at this point.
Mr Johnson says one of Letby's colleagues was called to the nursery.
NJ: "What were you doing in nursery room 1 at 7.30am?"
LL: "I can't answer that, I don't have any recollection of it."
The neonatal review is shown for February 17, 2016. Letby's duties include tending to her designated baby in room 2 at 7am.
Mr Johnson says there was no reason for Letby to be in room 1 at 7.30am. Letby says there can be many reasons.
Mr Johnson says Letby was "sabotaging [Child K] yet again, weren't you?"
Letby: "No."
Letby says she has no memory of it.

10:53am

Letby says she "cannot say" if Child K moved her ET Tube more than once.
"I don't have independent memory of the tube slipping."
Letby is asked to look at her police interviews for Child K. Within there, Letby said she had believed Child K's tube had slipped at an earlier point.
Letby denies dislodging Child K's tube. Asked if she disputes her colleague's recollection of Child K's desaturation, Letby says she cannot recall.

10:59am

Mr Johnson moves to the 3.50am desaturation - the first of the three desaturations for Child K.
Letby agrees Joanne Williams was Child K's designated nurse. She agrees Joanne Williams left Child K before the 3.50am desaturation. She accepts that nurse left at 3.47am.
Letby says she cannot recall Dr Ravi Jayaram's whereabouts at this point.

11:03am

A note from the transport team at 3.41am is shown to the court: 'Called Dr Jayaram back with the above plan and he was agreeable totally with all the above'.
Letby accepts that if this note is accurate, Dr Jayaram would have been around the nursing station at this time.
Letby accepts that Joanne Williams would have asked someone to 'babysit' Child K in her temporary absence from the nursery.
Asked if she disputes it was her to babysit Child K: "I have no memory of that."
Letby says she has no memory of Dr Ravi Jayaram's account of him walking into the unit and seeing her standing over Child K's cotside, or that Child K was desaturating, or that Child K's ET Tube was displaced.

11:13am

Letby denies trying to kill Child K.
Letby is shown a copy of her 2019 police interview, specifically police talking through Dr Ravi Jayaram's account of events from the night.
That was the evidence he had given in the trial, that he had felt 'uncomfortable' with Letby being in the nursery room 1 and entered, and saw Letby.
Letby, in police interview, said she "didn't remember" the event. Mr Johnson suggests Letby is lying. Letby denies this.
Letby denied, in police interview, dislodging the tube.
Mr Johnson says Letby had earlier said the event "didn't happen".
LL: "I don't believe it did happen, but I have no direct memory of it."

11:15am

Letby says it was "standard practice" at the Countess of Chester Hospital's neonatal unit to wait "a few seconds" - "10, 20" to see if a baby self-corrected during a desaturation.
NJ: "30 seconds?"
LL: "I can't say."
NJ: "You are lying, aren't you?"
LL: "No."
NJ: "Because you were trying to kill [Child K]."
LL: "No."

11:21am

The nursing notes for Joanne Williams recorded 'large amount blood-stained oral secretions' for Child K.
Letby says she did not believe she gave Joanne Williams that information.
NJ: "Did you ever see [Child K's] parents?"
LL: "I can't recall."
NJ: "Did you ever meet them?"
LL: "I can't recall."
NJ: "Then why did you search for them [on Facebook] on April 20, 2018?"
LL: "Because I have thought of babies on the unit over the years, and I do look back at them."
NJ: "You have a very good memory for names?"
LL: "Yes."
NJ: "Her name didn't appear on the handover sheet, did it?"
LL: "I can't say."
Mr Johnson says Child K had been born earlier that day, and handed over to the care of Melanie Taylor, and Child K was transferred out of the hospital.
NJ: "How can you remember that name [of Child K]?"
LL: "I can't."
NJ: "Can't or won't?"
LL: "I can't."
NJ: "What was the significance of April 20, 2018?"
LL: "I can't recall."
NJ: "Do you remember the answer you gave to your counsel on May 16?"
LL: "No."
Mr Johnson says Letby said you look back on 'all the babies you care for'.
Letby says it was taken out of context, and she played a part in Child K's care via the morphine infusion.



Sky News Updates - https://news.sky.com/story/lucy-letby-murder-trial-latest-former-nurse-tells-court-why-she-repeatedly-searched-for-dead-babys-mother-on-facebook-12868375

10:51

Tube 'slipped' despite infant being 'well sedated'​

Prosecution barrister Nick Johnson begins - as he has every day - by asking Letby if "having the opportunity over the weekend to think about what you have said, is there anything you would like to review?"
"No," says Letby.
He then continues with the case of Child K, whose tube was dislodged, causing her to "desaturate" - meaning Child K ended up with low blood oxygen levels.
The prosecution claims Letby was responsible for this.
"I have no memory of being at [Child K's] cot side," she tells the court.
A morphine infusion had been running since 3.50am that day, the court heard, but Child K desaturated just under two hours later.
Because of the morphine, by the time her oxygen levels dropped, she was "well sedated", the prosecution says.
"And yet the tube slipped again," Mr Johnson says.
"Yes," says Letby.
Mr Johnson then asks: "Just after you had been with her?"
"I can't say I was physically with [Child K]," Letby replies.

10:59

Letby 'can't say' how tube was dislodged​

Child K's tube "slipped" multiple times during Letby's shift on 17 February 2016, the court has heard.
Prosecution barrister Nick Johnson KC then asks why Letby was in nursery one at 7.30am when she should have been handing over the babies she was caring for in a different room.
"I can't answer that, I don't have any recollection of that," Letby says.
She also says "staff go between the nurseries all the time".
Half an hour before Child K's oxygen levels dropped, the notes show Letby was looking after another child (one she is not accused of harming) in nursery two.
"There is no reason for you to have been in nursery one at 7.30am," Mr Johnson says.
"I can't answer that now," says Letby.
"There are many reasons staff would enter a different nursery."
Mr Johnson then presses further: "The answer is you were sabotaging [Child K] yet again, weren't you?"
"No," says Letby.
Letby says she has "no memory" of Child K's tube slipping.
"Were you trying to create the impression [Child K] habitually moved her own tube?" Mr Johnson asks.
"No," says Letby.
She says she "can't say how the tube was dislodged".

11:12

Key timings in the case of Child K​

The court has been hearing about the timings in the case of Child K.
  • At 3.50am on 17 February 2016, Child K desaturated (her oxygen levels dropped).
  • At 3.30am, Letby is recorded as feeding another child in nursery two. (This child is not one Letby is charged with harming). Letby has previously told the court that the amount of milk given meant it would have taken her about 20-25 minutes to feed the other infant.
  • At 3.41am, a doctor on the unit was making a phone call to the transport team about moving Child K to a different hospital with a specialist unit (the child had been born weighing just 629g).
  • During this shift, Letby was not the designated nurse for Child K. But the child's designated nurse left the unit at 3.47am, according to pass swipe data shown to the court.
'I have no memory of that'
Letby agrees it would have been "common practice" for the infant's assigned nurse to have asked a colleague to watch Child K when she was gone.
Mr Johnson asks if Letby was asked to oversee Child K.
"I have no memory of that," Letby says.
"But do you dispute the evidence it was you?" Mr Johnson asks.
"I don't know how I can answer that," she says, adding that if she can't remember she cannot say if someone else's recollection is right.
The doctor at the nurse's station has previously told the court he walked into Child K's room and - despite her oxygen levels being dangerously low - the alarm was not sounding as it should have been.
He noted that Letby was making no effort to help Child K.

11:22

Letby says she was waiting to see if child 'self-corrected' when oxygen levels dropped​

A colleague working on the unit the night Child K's tube was dislodged three times had grown suspicious of Letby, the trial has heard.
He felt uncomfortable knowing she was alone with the infant, so went into nursery one.
He has previously said he saw Letby standing over the cot, failing to summon help as Child K's oxygen levels dropped.
Letby previously told the police she did not remember this.
"I can't say whether it did, or it didn't. I have no memory of it which is what I have said throughout," Letby now tells the court.
"I don't believe it did happen. But I have no direct memory of it," she adds.
'Not normal nursing practice'
"I think it happened twice again on that shift, didn't it?" Mr Johnson asks for the prosecution.
"What's that?" Letby asks.
"A desaturation in your presence," Mr Johnson adds.
Letby agrees but says in this first incident, at 3.50am, she would have been waiting to see if the child "self-corrected" when her oxygen levels first dropped.
But one of Letby's colleagues said this was "not normal nursing practice".

11:29

'You remembered her because you tried to kill her'​

Letby is now being asked about Child K's parents.
The prosecution asks her: "Did you ever meet them?"
"I can't recall," Letby says.
But on 20 April 2018, Facebook data shows she searched for Child K's parents.
"Do you have a very good memory for names?" prosecution barrister Mr Johnson asks.
"Yes," says Letby.
The prosecution then put it to Letby: "You remembered her because you tried to kill her [Child K]."
"No," says Letby.
Mr Johnson asks why Letby told her defence lawyer "you still think of patients that you cared for" - when she hadn't directly cared for Child K.
"I think that is taking it out of context," Letby says,
She says it doesn't have to be a baby she directly looked after to remember them, and added she had played a part in her care.
She also said she had provided Child K with a morphine infusion at one point.
"A single morphine infusion was enough to fix her in your brain?" Mr Johnson asks.
He then asks Letby why she, therefore, cannot remember "standing over her" as Child K desaturated.
Letby says she cannot answer.

Judith Moritz Tweets - https://twitter.com/JudithMoritz

Judith Moritz
@JudithMoritz
·
18m

Nick Johnson KC suggests to Lucy Letby that she has tried to create the impression that baby K was a child who habitually displaced her own breathing tube.

Judith Moritz
@JudithMoritz
·
17m

Lucy Letby: "No. But the tube did come out more than once" Nick Johnson KC: "Oh it did, because on three occasions we suggest, you displaced it because you were trying to kill her". Lucy Letby: "No"

Judith Moritz

@JudithMoritz
·
29m

Baby K is the baby whom the prosecution allege Lucy Letby was trying to kill when a consultant, Dr Ravi Jayaram, walked into the room and interrupted her. The nurse is asked about this and repeatedly says she can't remember it happening.

Judith Moritz

@JudithMoritz
·
5m

NJKC: "Do you dispute that you were standing over baby K when Dr Jayaram came in?"
LL: "I have no recollection"
NJKC "That the oxygen monitor was down into the 80s?"
LL: "I have no memory of it"
NJKC: "That the alarm wasn’t sounding?"
LL: "I can’t answer because I can’t remember"

Judith Moritz

@JudithMoritz
·
3m

NJKC: "There were 3 times when baby K desaturated"
LL: "Yes"
NJKC: "And each time her breathing tube was displaced"
LL: "I can’t remember"
NJKC: "And each time you were there"
LL: "I can’t say"
NJKC: "And each time you were trying to kill baby K weren’t you?"
LL: "No"

Judith Moritz

@JudithMoritz
·
2m

Lucy Letby is asked why she searched for the parents of baby K two years later, when she says she doesn't know if she ever met them. She says she often searched for people she was thinking of, and has a good memory for names.

Dan O'Donoghue Tweets - https://twitter.com/MrDanDonoghue

Dan O'Donoghue
@MrDanDonoghue
·
30m

Mr Johnson asks Ms Letby why she was seen in nursery one, where Child K was being cared for, on the morning of 17 February 2016. Ms Letby was assigned babies in nursery two

Dan O'Donoghue
@MrDanDonoghue
·
31m

She says she doesn't have a specific memory of that but says 'staff go between nurseries all the time'

Dan O'Donoghue
@MrDanDonoghue
·
27m

Mr Johnson puts it to Ms Letby that she was in nursery one as she was 'sabotaging (Child K) yet again', Ms Letby says 'no'

Dan O'Donoghue
@MrDanDonoghue
·
24m

Mr Johnson tells Ms Letby 'on three occasions you deliberately displaced (Child K's tube)…because you were trying to kill her' - Ms Letby rejects this

Dan O'Donoghue
@MrDanDonoghue
·
12m

Mr Johnson is turning to Dr Jayaram's account of an incident at 03:50 on 17 February 2016. Dr Jayaram has told the court he found Ms Letby alone with Child K in nursery one while the infant was desaturating, with no alarm sounding

Dan O'Donoghue
@MrDanDonoghue
·
11m

Ms Letby has said she has 'no memory' of this incident and cannot 'confirm or deny' Dr Jayaram's recollection.

Dan O'Donoghue
@MrDanDonoghue
·
39s

Dr Jayaram said in his evidence that for a baby to reach the level of desaturation Child K had, she would have had to have been desaturating for 30 seconds. Mr Johnson puts this to Ms Letby

Dan O'Donoghue
@MrDanDonoghue
·
25m

She tells the court it was 'standard practice' at the Countess of Chester to wait 'a few seconds', (she says 10 or 20) to see if a baby self-corrected during a desaturation

Dan O'Donoghue
@MrDanDonoghue
·
25m

Mr Johnson asks "30?", she says 'I can't say'. 'You are lying, aren't you?', Mr Johnson says. 'Because you were trying to kill (Child K)' 'No', she says
 
Last edited:
Defence Case Monday 5th June 2023 - LUCY LETBY'S CROSS-EXAMINATION

CHILD F

Chester Standard Updates -https://www.chesterstandard.co.uk/news/23566971.live-lucy-letby-trial-june-5---cross-examination-continues/


11:24am

Mr Johnson moves on to the case of Child F, the first of the two babies the prosecution say Letby poisoned with insulin. Child L is the other child allegedly poisoned by Letby. Letby denies she did this. Mr Johnson previously told the court the cases of Child F and Child L would be part of the cross-examination process together.
Letby accepts the insulin readings which were shown for Child F - the insulin and insulin c-peptide numbers.

11:32am

Letby says "there may have been some discrepancies" in the blood sugar levels for Child F.
Mr Johnson says Prof Hindmarsh had told the court there would be discrepancies between a lab result and that taken from blood gas tests, 'of about 10-15%'.
Letby says she does not remember who put up the bag, as she did not recall, but as she had no recollection of it, it would have been her nursing colleague [who cannot be named due to reporting restrictions].
Letby says she co-signed the bag with [colleague].
LL: "To me, the other person who could have [put up the bag] would have been [my nursing colleague]."
Letby says: "I can't answer that" to Mr Johnson's suggestion Child F had been targeted with insulin poisoning.
Letby says she can accept insulin was given to Child F at some point. She says "if that's the evidence", then the insulin would have been administered via the TPN [nutrition] bag.
Letby accepts at the time of her arrest, she did not know or had heard about insulin c-peptide.
Mr Johnson says the ratio between insulin and insulin c-peptide from the result had shown insulin had been administered.
Letby says the TPN bag could have come from some other area than the neonatal unit.

11:37am

The nursing staff rota for August 4-5 is shown to the court. Child F is in room 2, with Letby's colleague the designated nurse. Letby was in room 2 as the designated nurse for another baby.
Letby says she cannot say how the insulin got in Child F, so "I don't think I can answer" if staffing levels played a part in the poisoning of Child F.
Mr Johnson says Letby was "very keen" to ask police about the TPN bag said to have had insulin in it.
LL: "Because I was being accused of placing insulin in the bag - I thought someone would have checked the fluids."
LL: "I wanted them to check the bag, yes - I thought it would have been standard practice [on the unit]."

11:42am

Mr Johnson says Letby had not been questioned about Child F and Child L in 2018, but was questioned about it in the following interviews. In it, Letby asked police about the nutrition bags said to have had insulin in.
NJ: "You knew very well the bags wouldn't have been kept, didn't you?"
LL: "No."
Letby had said to police if there had been concerns over the bags, they would have been kept.
NJ: "You knew no concern had been expressed, didn't you?"
LL: "I didn't know no concern had been expressed at the time of this interview, no."
Police had asked why Letby had asked about the nutrition bags.
Letby had said to police there may "have been an issue with something else."
Letby tells the court the issue may have been insulin coming from outside the unit. She says at that point it was not known where the insulin had come from, and it was not known if it was in the bags.

12:12pm

Letby says she does not recall there were concerns for Child F's blood sugar level in her police interview in 2019.
Mr Johnson says she was aware at the time. Text messages are shown to the court with Letby messaging a colleague about a low blood sugar reading.
NJ: "Had you seen something like this before? Babies having loads of dextrose and still having low blood sugars?"
LL: "Yes."
NJ: "You were trying to [place it as natural causes]."
LL: "I don't think I was trying to provide an explanation."
Letby's message: "Wonder if he has an endocrine problem then."
Mr Johnson: "Does that mean natural causes then?"
LL: "Yes."
Mr Johnson asks about the security of nutrition bags in the fridge, under lock and key. He says they are not safe from someone with a key who can inject 'a tiny amount of insulin' into the bag.
LL: "The bags are sealed and you would have to break the seal to do that."
Mr Johnson asks if that would prevent someone from the previous shift from inserting insulin into the bag.
LL: "I can't say that as I wouldn't put insulin into a TPN bag."
Mr Johnson says the prescribed bag must have been 'tampered with' between 4pm on August 4 and 1am on August 5. The replacement bag was a generic one.
Mr Johnson describes how the insulin could be administered after the bag has been delivered to the ward. One method is after the cellophane wrap has been removed, to which he says that would mean there would be 'very few candidates' who could have done that.
NJ: "Why would you not put insulin in the bags?"
LL: "Because that would go against [all standard practice]."
NJ: "It is highly dangerous.
LL: "Yes."
NJ: "Life-threatening to a child."
LL: "Yes."
NJ: "Something that would never cross the minds of medical staff?"
LL: "At the time? No."

12:14pm

Letby says she "cannot answer" if Child F was deliberately poisoned as she does not know how the insulin got there, who was there, or why.

12:15pm

Mr Johnson asks about the Facebook searches for Child E and Child F's mother carried out in the months after August 4, 2015.
Letby says she got on well with the mother at the time, that she thought about Child E often, and wanted to see how Child F was doing.

Sky News Updates - https://news.sky.com/story/lucy-letby-murder-trial-latest-former-nurse-tells-court-why-she-repeatedly-searched-for-dead-babys-mother-on-facebook-12868375

11:43

Questions over 'unlawful' use of insulin​

The prosecution is now returning to the case of Child F.
Child F was one of two twin boys - he survived, while his brother, Child E died.
This case is being dealt with alongside Child L - rather than chronologically - because both infants appear to have been harmed by the use of insulin.
Mr Johnson, the prosecution barrister, says the reason he is dealing with these two cases together is that "I am going to suggest to you the insulin that went into Child L's dextrose [sugar substitute] bag definitely went in on the neonatal unit".
Letby is accused of using insulin for the first time on Child F.
She agrees with the prosecution that someone must have given Child F insulin "unlawfully".
Letby has also previously agreed a "mistaken administration of insulin wasn't an option here".
"Do you still agree?" Mr Johnson asks.
"I don't think that could have happened on the neonatal unit," Letby agrees.
Letby cannot say when insulin was put into the bag, or if it even happened on the neonatal unit.

11:44

'I don't know how the insulin got there'​

In the case of Child F, Letby is accused of placing insulin into his fluid bag.
"I don't know how the insulin got there so I can't possibly answer how it might have happened or why," Letby tells the court.
Letby is asked why she was concerned to know - when being questioned later - if the police had kept the bag of fluid.
"I was being accused of placing the insulin in the bag," she says, before adding: "In other cases, we would keep the fluid bag if there were any concerns."
"You knew very well the bags hadn't been kept," Mr Johnson says.
"No, I didn't," Letby replies.

12:14

WhatsApp evidence contradicts Letby's account on baby's blood sugar​

Letby has denied being aware Child F had problems with his blood sugar - despite evidence that she texted a colleague about it.
"Do you remember telling the police in interview, you were not aware of there being a concern of Child F having blood sugar problems?" Mr Johnson asks for the prosecution.
"No," says Letby.
The court is then shown a transcript of Letby's police interview, where she tells police she was not aware the infant had problems with his blood sugar.
"You were aware though, weren't you, at the time?" Mr Johnson asks.
"No," says Letby.
The court is then shown a WhatsApp conversation between Letby and her colleague on 5 August 2015.
Letby: Did you hear what Child F's sugar was at 8?
Letby: 1.8
[Colleague]: S***!!!
Letby: Wonder if he has an endocrine problem then. Hope they can get to the bottom of it.

The prosecution claims Letby was trying to create the impression in the messages that the child's blood sugar collapse was the result of natural causes - not sabotage.
"Yes, the only other babies I had seen like that had a condition," Letby tells the court.
Letby says the nutrition bags she is accused of tampering with would have been secure - but a doctor has previously demonstrated to the trial how the tamper-proof bag could have been broken.

12:21

Letby says she searched for victim's family on Facebook to see how surviving twin was​

Letby is asked about why she repeatedly searched for Child F's mother on Facebook.
Child F was a twin who survived - his brother, Child E, died (allegedly at the hands of Letby).
"He was often on my mind. Child E's death stood out to me and I often thought about his family," Letby tells the court.
She said she wanted to see how Child F had been.
"I had got to know the family and obviously he was the surviving twin," she says.

12:27

'Do you accept Child F was poisoned deliberately?'​

A nutrition bag must have been tampered with between 4pm on 4 August and 1am on 5 August in 2015 in the case of Child F, the prosecution claims.
The trial has already heard today of the baby's issues with blood sugar levels.
The bags are kept locked down on the unit, but "they are not secure from someone who has a key and wants to tamper with them," prosecution barrister Nick Johnson KC says.
"In order to get insulin into the bag once it has come up to the ward if it is still in the cellophane wrapper you have to get the insulin through the cellophane wrapper," Mr Johnson says.
This would have involved a needle through the tamper-proof cap and required not leaving a trace on the wrapper.
Letby agrees it would be highly dangerous and life-threatening to put insulin in one of the fluid bags.
"Do you accept Child F was poisoned deliberately?" Mr Johnson asks.
"I can't answer that," Letby says, adding that she cannot say how the insulin got there, who put it there, or why.



Judith Moritz Tweets - https://twitter.com/JudithMoritz

Judith Moritz

@JudithMoritz
·
3h

Nick Johnson KC has now begun asked Lucy Letby about baby F - a boy - who the nurse denies attempting to murder by adding insulin to his nutrient bag.

Judith Moritz

@JudithMoritz
·
2h

Earlier in the trial Lucy Letby agreed that evidence shows that insulin was given to baby F unlawfully, but said that it was not done by her. She is asked if she still agrees with these points. She says she does.

Judith Moritz

@JudithMoritz
·
2h

Nick Johnson KC: "Do you accept that (nutrient) bags aren’t secure?"
Lucy Letby: "I think they are"
NJKC: "Secure in the sense they’re under lock and key?"
Lucy Letby: "Yes"
NJKC: "They’re not secure from someone who has the key and wants to tamper with them…"
LL: "No"

Judith Moritz

@JudithMoritz
·
2h

NJKC: "Why would you NOT put insulin into one of these bags?"
LL: "Because it’s against all practice"
NJKC: "It’s highly dangerous isn’t it?"
LL: "Yes"
NJKC: "Life threatening to a child of this age?"
LL: "Yes"

Judith Moritz

@JudithMoritz
·
2h

Nick Johnson KC: "Do you accept that insulin was either in the bag when it was hung or it was put into the bag shortly afterwards?"
Lucy Letby: "Yes"

Judith Moritz

@JudithMoritz
·
2h

NJKC: "So do you accept that baby F was poisoned deliberately?"
LL: "I can’t answer that because I don’t know how insulin got into the bag, or who put it there or why"


Dan O'Donoghue Tweets - https://twitter.com/MrDanDonoghue

Dan O'Donoghue

@MrDanDonoghue
·
3h

Mr Johnson is now moving to the case of Child F - the prosecution say he was injected with insulin by Ms Letby. The court has been told that shortly after the baby received intravenous nutrients on 4 August 2015, his heart rate surged and his blood sugars plummeted.

Dan O'Donoghue

@MrDanDonoghue
·
3h

The jury have heard that blood samples showed an "extremely high" insulin level and a very low C-peptide level in Child F, which a medical expert said had "only one explanation", that being that the child "received insulin from some outside source".

Dan O'Donoghue

@MrDanDonoghue
·
3h

Ms Letby tells Mr Johnson that she accepts the insulin and c-peptide levels detected in the blood of Child F

Dan O'Donoghue

@MrDanDonoghue
·
3h

Mr Johnson asks if Ms Letby agrees that someone targeted Child F and injected insulin into his feed bag - she says she 'can't answer that'. But says 'I accept that he was given insulin at some point yes'

Dan O'Donoghue

@MrDanDonoghue
·
3h

Ms Letby says she 'can’t say where (the insulin) went in, whether on the unit or elsewhere'. She explains that bags are made up in a separate bit of the hospital Mr Johnson says Ms Letby does know where the insulin entered the bag, 'because you put it there' - she says 'no'

Dan O'Donoghue

@MrDanDonoghue
·
2h

Mr Johnson asks Ms Letby 'why would you not put insulin in (a TPN bag)' She says 'that's against all practice. TPN does not have insulin in it' She agrees it would be 'highly dangerous' to add it

Dan O'Donoghue

@MrDanDonoghue
·
2h

Mr Johnson asks Ms Letby if she 'accepts that (Child F) was poisoned deliberately' She says she 'can’t answer that' as she does not 'know who put (the insulin) there or why'
 
Defence Case Monday 5th June 2023 - LUCY LETBY'S CROSS-EXAMINATION

CHILD L

Chester Standard Updates -https://www.chesterstandard.co.uk/news/23566971.live-lucy-letby-trial-june-5---cross-examination-continues/


12:22pm

Mr Johnson moves to the second insulin case, for Child L, who was a twin to Child M.
Letby's defence statement said she had done nothing wrong and had not deliberately harmed either twin.
Letby agrees this was a case when she challenged doctors if she believed the course of care being given was not correct.
Letby said in her defence statement the unit was "exceptionally busy" on April 9, 2016, the day after Child L and Child M had been born.
Letby said, at the time, she "could not understand" Child L's insulin levels at the time and "could not understand" why there was not an investigation at the time.

12:23pm

Letby denies 'using' the hypoclycaemic pathway not being followed as an 'opportunity' to attack Child L.

12:24pm

Letby says she accepts someone put insulin into the dextrose solution for Child L, and accepts there would be "no reason" for doing this, and that it would be "highly dangerous".

12:30pm

Letby accepts the blood results 'prove' insulin was placed in the dextrose solution.
Prof Hindmarsh had previously given evidence to say insulin had been administered between midnight and 9.30am on April 9.
NJ: "Do you accept that?"
LL: "Yes."

12:34pm

Mr Johnson says the insulin administered to Child L was a 'targeted attack' as the dextrose bag had been in place since noon on April 8.
"It follows that insulin was administered while the [dextrose] bag was hanging, doesn't it?"
Letby: "I don't know."
Mr Johnson talks through the process and repeats that, from evidence, the bag must have been in place when insulin was administered.
LL: "If that's what the expert suggests, yes."
NJ: "It follows that it was a targeted attack?"
LL: "I can't answer that."

12:38pm

Mr Johnson says the only two staff members on duty for both days, when Child F and Child L were poisoned with insulin, were Letby and Belinda Williamson [Simcock].
A staffing rota for the April 9 day shift is shown to the court. Child L and Child M are in room 1, with designated nurse Mary Griffith. Letby is designated nurse for two other babies in room 1. Belinda Williamson is the designated nurse for three babies in room 3. Four babies are in room 2 and four babies are in room 4.

12:49pm

The neonatal schedule for April 9 is shown. Mr Johnson says it is to show what Lucy Letby was doing between 9am-9.30am.
The schedule shows Letby was a co-signer for medication for one baby in room 2, and giving a feed to her designated baby in room 1.
Letby was the co-signer for medication for a room 1 designated baby around 9.10am.
Mr Johnson says a series of prescriptions for three different babies at 9.25-9.29am, co-signed by a nursery nurse and Mary Griffith, gave Letby the "opportunity" to administer the insulin for Child L.
Letby says: "No, I don't know how the insulin got there."
Mr Johnson says it has already been established the insulin was administered on the unit, on the bag that was connected to Child L throughout that time.
NJ: "That's what it's a targeted attack, isn't it?"
Letby pauses.
NJ: "What do you say?"
LL: "Not by me it wasn't."
Letby says she can "only answer for herself" in relation to the accusation by Mr Johnson that the insulin poisoning for Child F and Child L "can only be you or Belinda Simcock".

12:57pm

Mr Johnson says despite the fact the bag was changed at noon on April 9, the insulin kept being administered to Child L, "didn't it?"
Letby: "Yes."
Mr Johnson says "we know that" because the blood sample taken to the lab was taken at 3.45pm "contained exogenous insulin".
Letby: "I can't recall."
Mr Johnson says Child L was targeted with a second bag of insulin.
Letby: "I'd have to be guided by the evidence - the expert evidence."
Mr Johnson says a third bag is hung up at 4.30pm. The hypoglycaemia "continued". Letby agrees.
The fourth bag, hung up the following day "when you [Letby] were not working" was put up, and the hypoglycaemia "gradually resolved". Letby agrees.

12:58pm

Mr Johnson says the reason for the hypoglycaemia was that someone had poisoned Child L through 'at least two' bags of insulin.
LL: "Yes."
NJ: "And that was you, wasn't it?"
LL: "No."

2:16pm

The judge, Mr Justice James Goss, has entered the courtroom.
The jury have been sent home as one of the jurors is unwell.

2:19pm

The court is told the trial will not be hearing new evidence in the cross-examination this afternoon or tomorrow (Tuesday).

Sky News Updates - https://news.sky.com/story/lucy-letby-murder-trial-latest-former-nurse-tells-court-why-she-repeatedly-searched-for-dead-babys-mother-on-facebook-12868375

12:30

Recap: Who are Children L and M?​

The prosecution is now moving on to the case of Child L - one of two twin boys.
Children L and M are twin boys who both survived an alleged murder attempt.
In their case, Letby faces two charges of attempted murder.
Child L was allegedly poisoned with insulin on 9 April 2016. This happened after Letby was moved from night shifts.
As his twin’s blood sugar levels dropped dangerously Child M (also on 9 April) was harmed by having air injected into his bloodstream and came close to death.
Just 15 minutes before his collapse he received intravenous antibiotics - from Letby or another nurse.
He was left brain damaged.

12:31

'I can't answer that'​

Child L - like Child F - was allegedly also poisoned with insulin via his fluid bag of dextrose.
Letby previously told police she "did not accept" the accuracy of the tests performed in the wake of the alleged attack.
The prosecution asks if she now accepts the accuracy of the tests.
"Yes," she tells the court.
Mr Johnson says: "Somebody had put insulin into the dextrose."
"I can't answer that," Letby says. She agrees there would have been no legitimate reason for there to be insulin in the dextrose.
Mr Johnson then says: "There was insulin in at least one bag of dextrose that was attached to [Child L]."
"I am not sure without looking," Letby replies.
"At least one - we will come to the precise number later," Mr Johnson says. "Do you accept it was in a bag of dextrose at any point?"
"Yes, that is the evidence," Letby says.
Mr Johnson then asks if Letby agrees the insulin was added between midnight and 9.30am on 9 April 2016.
"I don't think I can answer that, I am relying on the expert opinion," says Letby.

12:36

Letby says she can't say if infant was victim of 'targeted attack'​

Nick Johnson, the prosecution's barrister, suggests the attack on Child L was "targeted".
The same fluid bag was hanging next to the infant from midday on 8 April 2016 to midday on 9 April 2016.
There was no insulin recorded in the bag on 8 April.
"It follows that somebody has put [insulin] into the bag whilst it was hanging [next to the child]," Mr Johnson says.
"If that is what the experts suggest, yes," replies Letby.
"It is what the experts suggest," Mr Johnson says. "Therefore it follows it was a targeted attack, the victim has been selected."
"I can't answer that," Letby says.

12:56

Silence before Letby denies attack​

Only two staff members worked the same shift when Child F received insulin (5 August 2015) and when Child L received insulin (9 April 2016) - Letby, and her colleague.
Sky News is not naming any of the other medical staff at the Countess of Chester Hospital.
"Whoever did it, did it deliberately," Mr Johnson says to Letby for the prosecution.
"If it happened on the unit, yes," Letby replies.
"That's why it was a targeted attack, wasn't it?" Mr Johnson asks.
There is silence from Letby.
"What do you say?" Mr Johnson presses.
"Not by me it wasn't," Letby replies.

13:05

At least two bags were 'poisoned with insulin' - but Letby denies being responsible​

Nick Johnson KC, for the prosecution, argues that not only was Child L given insulin in one bag, but blood tests showed he was also given a second bag that had been tampered with.
A dextrose fluid bag is changed every 24 hours.
"I would have to be guided by the expert evidence," Letby says in response to the prosecution's argument.
By 11pm on 11 April, Child L's issues with hypoglycemia - a low blood sugar level - had resolved.
"Somebody had poisoned at least two glucose bags with insulin," Mr Johnson says.
"Yes," Letby replies.
"That was you wasn't it?" Mr Johnson asks.
"No," says Letby.



Judith Moritz Tweets - https://twitter.com/JudithMoritz

Judith Moritz

@JudithMoritz
·
2h

Nick Johnson KC now moves to begin asking Lucy Letby about baby L - the second baby who the nurse is accused of poisoning with insulin. She denies this.

Judith Moritz

@JudithMoritz
·
2h

It's alleged that Lucy Letby added insulin to the dextrose bag which was attached to baby L.

Judith Moritz

@JudithMoritz
·
2h

NJKC: "Do you accept that somebody put insulin into the dextrose?"
LL: "Yes"
NJKC: "And there was no legitimate reason for it"
LL: "Yes"
NJKC: "It’s highly dangerous"
LL: "Yes"
NJKC: "And the results of the blood test prove somebody put insulin into Baby L’s dextrose"
LL: "Yes"

Judith Moritz

@JudithMoritz
·
2h

NJKC "Do you remember me suggesting this was a targeted attack against baby L?"
LL "Yes"
NJKC "Because the same bag was hanging from 12pm on the 8th April, to 12pm on the 9th"
LL "Yes"
NJKC "It didn’t have insulin in it on the 8th"
LL "No"
NJKC "But it did on the 9th"
LL "Yes"

Judith Moritz

@JudithMoritz
·
2h

Nick Johnson KC: "So it follows that insulin was put into the bag whilst it was hanging doesn’t it…"
Lucy Letby: "I don’t know".

Judith Moritz

@JudithMoritz
·
2h

NJKC: "It follows that it was a targeted attack. The victim was selected."
LL: "I can’t answer that"
NJKC: "Well alright, somebody has injected insulin into the bag whilst it was hanging"
LL: "If that’s what the experts suggest, yes"
NJKC: "It is"

Judith Moritz

@JudithMoritz
·
2h

Nick Johnson KC tells the court that there are only two nurses who were present when baby F received insulin (Aug 2015) and also when baby L was given it (April 2016).

Judith Moritz

@JudithMoritz
·
2h

Nick Johnson KC: "It was a targeted attack wasn’t it. What do you say?"
Lucy Letby: "Not by me it wasn’t"
NJKC: "Poisoning a child in the same way baby F was poisoned"
LL: "Yes"
NJKC: "With the same substance"
LL: "Yes"

Judith Moritz

@JudithMoritz
·
2h

NJKC: "Isn’t the reality that unless there's more than one poisoner it has to be you or (the other nurse)”
LL: “I can only answer for myself and say I’ve never put insulin into any bags”
NJKC: “It was never suggested that it was her”
LL: “I can’t answer that”.

Judith Moritz

@JudithMoritz
·
54m

LUCY LETBY TRIAL - One of the jurors has become unwell, and no more evidence will be heard for the rest of today, or tomorrow.

Dan O'Donoghue Tweets - https://twitter.com/MrDanDonoghue


Dan O'Donoghue

@MrDanDonoghue
·
2h

We're now moving to twin boys Child L and M born in April 2016. The court has heard that in the hours that followed Ms Letby's arrival on 9 April, Child L's glucose levels fell to abnormally low and he had to be given glucose in an attempt to correct hypoglycaemia.

Dan O'Donoghue

@MrDanDonoghue
·
2h

The prosecution said blood tests revealed a very high level of insulin, which they said had been caused by the administering of synthetic insulin in a "deliberate act of sabotage" by Ms Letby.

Dan O'Donoghue

@MrDanDonoghue
·
2h

Mr Johnson asks Ms Letby if she accepts somebody added insulin to Child L's dextrose - she says yes. She also accepts adding insulin would be 'highly dangerous'

Dan O'Donoghue

@MrDanDonoghue
·
2h

Mr Johnson says this was a 'targeted attack' that the victim had been 'selected' - Ms Letby says she 'can't answer that'

Dan O'Donoghue

@MrDanDonoghue
·
2h

Mr Johnson says 'I'm going to suggest you put insulin into (Child L's) bag just before 9.30am on 9 April (2016)'. Ms Letby rejects this.

Mr Johnson says, it was a 'targeted attack'

'Not by me it wasn't', she responds

Dan O'Donoghue

@MrDanDonoghue
·
54m

We're stopping there for today - unwell juror
 
"Mr Johnson accused Letby of attacking Child L when the youngster’s designated nurse had left the room to give medications to other babies in the unit.

[...]

Mr Johnson suggested it was a “targeted attack”.

Letby replied: “Not by me.”

Mr Johnson said: “Not by you, somebody else?”

“Yes,” said Letby.

Mr Johnson said: “Poisoning of a child in the same way that (Child F) was poisoned?”

Letby said: “Yes.”

Mr Johnson said: “With the same substance?”

“Yes,” repeated Letby.

Mr Johnson said: “Is the reality that unless there is more than one poisoner it has to be you or Belinda Williamson?”

Letby replied: “I can only answer for myself and say I have never put insulin into any bags.”

Mr Johnson said: “It was never suggested (by Letby’s counsel) to Belinda Williamson that she did it.”

Letby said: “I can’t answer that.”

 

Episode 37, Dancing the dance​




In this episode Caroline and Liz explain what Lucy Letby said when questioned by the prosecution about three of the alleged victims in the case - Baby I, Baby J and Baby K.
 
BBC reporter - re Monday 5th June 2023 - https://twitter.com/MerseyHack

Child K - Lucy Letby Cross Examination


Andy Gill

@MerseyHack
·
Jun 5

Mr Johnson is asking Miss Letby about a baby girl known as Child K, whom she allegedly tried to murder in February 2016 by allegedly dislodging her breathing tube.

Andy Gill

@MerseyHack
·
Jun 5

Mr Johnson says K had been “well sedated” with morphine for nearly 2 and a half hrs before her 2nd desaturation (drop in blood oxygen) yet her breathing tube became dislodged again just after Miss Lebty had been with her. Miss Letby says she doesn’t have a memory of being with K.

Andy Gill

@MerseyHack
·
Jun 5

Re another collapse, NJKC asks Miss Letby why she was in nursery 1 where K was when she was designated to other babies in nursery 2. She says “I can’t answer that question.” He says “the answer Lucy Letby is that you were sabotaging [K] yet again weren’t you .” She replies “No.”

Andy Gill

@MerseyHack
·
Jun 5

Mr Johnson asks if she , Lucy Letby, tried to create the impression that Baby K habitually dislodged her own breathing tube. Miss Letby says “No.”

Andy Gill

@MerseyHack
·
Jun 5

Court has previously heard that on one occasion when K collapsed Dr Ravi Jayaram walked in and saw Miss Letby standing over K’s incubator. Jury have been told he was beginning to notice coincidence between unexplained collapses and presence of Lucy Letby.

Andy Gill

@MerseyHack
·
Jun 5

On this occasion Dr Jayaram noticed that K’s blood oxygen was falling to dangerous levels, that the alarm was not sounding and that Miss Letby had allegedly not called for help and was allegedly making no effort to help K.

Andy Gill

@MerseyHack
·
Jun 5

Today when asked question about what she recalls of this incident, Miss Letby repeatedly says she has “no memory” of the details of who was there and what happened.

Andy Gill

@MerseyHack
·
Jun 5

Mr Johnson says the evidence is that K desaturated 3 times on the shift, on each occasion because her breathing tube dislodged and “the evidence is that on each occasion you were there.” Lucy Letby replies ‘I can’t say that.”

Andy Gill

@MerseyHack
·
Jun 5

Miss Letby also says it’s common practice with babies of K’s gestation (25 weeks) to wait a few seconds after they desaturate to see if they self correct. Miss Letby disagrees with the earlier evidence of a prosecution expert nurse that it would not be common practice.

Andy Gill

@MerseyHack
·
Jun 5

Miss Letby can’t recall if she ever saw or met K’s parents yet she searched for their names more than 2 years after the alleged incidents involving the baby. She says she remembers babies she cared for.
 
BBC reporter - re Monday 5th June 2023 - https://twitter.com/MerseyHack

Child F - Lucy Letby Cross Examination


Andy Gill

@MerseyHack
·
Jun 5

Mr Johnson is now asking about an alleged victim, a baby boy known as Child F. She denies trying to murder him in August 2015 by injecting him with insulin. He’s the twin of Child E whom Miss Letby denies murdering.

Andy Gill

@MerseyHack
·
Jun 5

Mr Johnson is also going to ask questions about an alleged victim Child L, whom Miss Letby is accused of trying to kill. The prosecution say both F and L were poisoned by insulin. Miss Letby’s denies the accusations in these 2 cases, as she denies all the allegations she faces.

Andy Gill

@MerseyHack
·
Jun 5

Mr Johnson asks Miss Letby if she thinks staffing levels (at Chester neonatal unit) had anything to do with what happened to F. She says “I don’t know how the insulin got there so I can’t say how it might have happened or why.”

Andy Gill

@MerseyHack
·
Jun 5

The Crown assert that Miss Letby put insulin in intravenous feed bags that both alleged victims, F and L, were attached to. The alleged attempt on F happened in August 2015. The alleged attempt on L happened in April 2016.

Andy Gill

@MerseyHack
·
Jun 5

Court shown messages from Miss Letby in August 2015 to a colleague questioning whether problems with F’s blood sugar may have had a natural cause.

Andy Gill

@MerseyHack
·
Jun 5

Mr Johnson says tampering with the iv bags would be difficult before they got to the ward because of the cellophane wrapping. Miss Letby agrees it would be easier to put insulin in them once they arrive on the neonatal unit. Also agrees it would be highly dangerous to do that.

Andy Gill

@MerseyHack
·
Jun 5

Asked if she accepts that F was deliberately poisoned, Miss Letby says “I can’t answer that because I don’t know how it (the insulin) got there or who put it there or why.”

Child L

Andy Gill

@MerseyHack
·
Jun 5

Mr Johnson says insulin must have been put into L’s dextrose bag while it was hanging (connected to him) between noon on 8/4/16 and noon on 9/4/16. Miss Letby says “If that’s what the expert suggests, yes.”

Andy Gill

@MerseyHack
·
Jun 5

When asked if she accepts that makes it a “targeted” attack on L, Miss Letby says “I can’t answer that.” But she agrees somebody injected insulin into a bag connected to a specific child.

Andy Gill

@MerseyHack
·
Jun 5

Miss Letby agrees that the only nursing staff common to the times (August 2015 and April 2016) when F and L received insulin were her and another nurse.

Andy Gill

@MerseyHack
·
Jun 5

Court now breaking for lunch

Andy Gill

@MerseyHack
·
Jun 5

Court not now sitting this afternoon or tomorrow. Juror unwell.
 


Dr Jayaram told the court: “They were patches of very bright pink on his torso that flittered around. They would appear and disappear.

“Once circulation was restored and his heart rate came up above 100 (beats per minute) they vanished.”

He said the discolouration was “very similar” to what he had seen in his treatment of Child A, the first alleged murder victim.

Other colleagues had spoken of seeing skin discolouration in other babies who had also collapsed on the unit, he said.

A meeting of a consultants was held on June 29 2016, the court heard.

[...]

Dr Jayaram said it prompted him that evening to conduct a literature search in which he found a research paper which described the effects of air embolism.

He said: “I remember sitting on my sofa at home with the iPad and reading that description, and the physical chill that went down my spine because it fitted with what we were seeing.”

Dr Jayaram emailed colleagues a link to the research paper the next day.
great info
 
Defence Case Wednesday 7th June 2023 - LUCY LETBY'S CROSS-EXAMINATION

CHILD M

Chester Standard Updates -https://www.chesterstandard.co.uk/news/23572442.live-lucy-letby-trial-june-7---cross-examination-continues/


10:32am

The trial is now resuming, with the 12 members of the jury in attendance.
Nicholas Johnson KC is continuing to cross-examine Lucy Letby, turning to the case of Child M.
Letby confirms there is nothing she wishes to change in her evidence given in cross-examination so far.

10:36am

Mr Johnson says for Child M, Letby - in her defence statement - said Child M 'was slotted into a space' in nursery room 1 which was 'full'.
Child M was 'apnoeic', and it was not known if he had a desaturation.
A crash call was put out, and Child M was turned around in an incubator by a nursing colleague, to get him on to a monitor.
Letby added she did not notice any skin colour changes in Child M at the time.

10:45am

Letby said in her statement she had written notes on Child M's resuscitation on a paper towel which ended up in her pocket and were taken home with her.
Letby tells the court it would have been used to write up [nursing] notes.
Letby says Child L and Child M 'stood out' in her mind at the time, as they were the first twins delivered where she was the allocated nurse.
Letby agrees Child M was 'not an intensive care baby' and had been doing well.
Asked if staffing levels were a contributory factor in Child M's collapse, Letby says the "unit was very stretched" during the April 9 shift. She adds she does not know what caused Child M's collapse.
Asked to clarify by Mr Johnson, she says it "was a potential" factor.
Letby tells the court Child M had been in a corner unit in a full nursery, and "as nursing and medical staff we were very stretched that day".
Staffing "was not at a great level".
Letby says she "does not know" what caused Child M's collapse, so rules out a mistake by staff. She says it is "hard to say" if staff competencies were a factor in the collapse.

10:47am

Mr Johnson says Dr Ravi Jayaram observed skin colour changes in Child M at the time of the collapse.
He says "because [Child M] was darker skinned, it was more obvious."
He said Child M was pale with pink 'blotches' on the torso that would 'appear and disappear'. He said he noted the most 'obvious' patches on the abdomen.
"I noted them when I got there at the start of the resuscitation".
He added he had only seen that once before, in the case of Child A.
Letby says "I did not see anything like that, no".

10:51am

Letby is asked if the lighting was an issue in nursery room 1.
Letby had told police in interview the lighting was "poor" in room 1, and she tells the court she has an independent memory of that event. Child M was "in a darker corner of the nursery", Letby tells the court.
She added to police: "I do remember his [Child M] colour being harder to assess as he was an Asian baby."
Letby tells the court the colour change, if any, was more difficult for her to see.

10:53am

Mr Johnson asks why was it necessary for Child M to be in a corner of room 1 if there were four babies in there for a capacity of four.
Letby says there always needs to be an incubator free for emergency admissions in room 1.
There were four babies in nursery room 2, three in nursery 3 and four in nursery 4.
The court hears the neonatal unit was "at effective capacity".

11:01am

The court is shown a clinical note by Dr Anthony Ukoh, made at 10.25am on April 9.
Letby says she does not remember if she had involvement with Child M at this time. Child M was not Letby's designated baby on this day.
A neonatal schedule for Letby on April 9 shows a number of duties Letby had for her designated babies in room 1 between 9am-9.11am.
Letby says one of the designated babies was "not a low-maintenance baby", with complex cannulation issues, and was on the ward for a long time. Mr Johnson says Letby has an "extraordinary memory" for this baby, seven years on, but not for Child D, who had died.

11:07am

The court is shown a 1.5ml bile-stained aspirate is recorded for Child M, following which Child M was nil by mouth, and the naso-gastric tube was put on free drainage.
Mr Johnson says at 3.30pm, a 10% dextrose fluid bag is started for Child M.
Letby agrees with Mr Johnson there is nothing to suggest insulin was put in this bag.
Letby says she cannot recall what Mary Griffith was doing at this time. Mr Johnson suggests this was when Ms Griffith was collecting a blood sample for Child L to be 'podded' and sent to a laboratory for analysis.

11:14am

Letby says she "couldn't say" how long it would take to draw up a 12.5% dextrose solution, which in this case was for Child L, the twin of Child M.
Letby agrees it would have been after 3.45pm that that process would have started.
Letby denies that it was around 3.45pm that she "sabotaged" Child M.
Mr Johnson says the twins' mother said in an agreed evidence statement, she had to be taken back to the unit in a wheelchair, having been alerted by nurse Yvonne Griffiths, and she observed "one of the doctors was pressing [Child M's] chest." Mr Johnson says this is another case where a baby collapsed when the parents were away.
Letby says she was with Mary Griffith at the time of Child M's collapse.
Letby agrees Child M recovered quickly following the collapse.
Letby says she did not see skin discolouration, and it was not discussed at the time.

11:18am

A colleague had previously told the court Child M's blood gas record sheet was disposed of in a confidential waste bin.
Asked how it had ended under Letby's bed at home, Letby says she has never taken anything out of the confidential waste bin.
Letby says she does not know how many blood gas records she has taken home. She says it has been put in her pocket and taken home with a handover sheet.
She says she "probably" put it in her pocket, and put it under her bed.
Asked why, Letby replies: "Because I collect paper".
Letby says household bills and bank statements would be shredded as they were 'there and then'. Other sheets such as handover sheets were not thought about.

11:24am

Dr Ukoh's records on the resuscitation for Child M are shown to the court. Mr Johnson says the record is "meticulous", including six adrenaline doses.
Mr Johnson says the data for the resuscitation efforts is on the paper towel [that Letby took home], which Mr Johnson says he must have had in his hand at some point. Letby agrees.
Mr Johnson says that was in his hand at 8.25pm when he wrote up his notes.
Letby said she had to stay late that shift for the handover and writing up medical notes for Child M. She denies "waiting an hour and a quarter" to write up those nursing notes or "hanging around" to get the note Dr Ukoh had when writing up the note.
Letby denies "rooting around in the bin" for the blood gas record for Child M to take home. She also denies sabotaging Child M.



Sky News Updates - https://news.sky.com/story/lucy-letby-murder-trial-latest-former-nurse-tells-court-why-she-repeatedly-searched-for-dead-babys-mother-on-facebook-12868375

10:37

Child M: Twin left brain-damaged​

Lucy Letby is first asked if there is anything she has previously told the court that she would wish to "amend".
"No," she says.
"Do you give that some thought at the end of each day?" Nick Johnson KC, the prosecution barrister, asks.
After a pause, she replies: "Yes."
"You reflect on the evidence you have given?" he asks.
"As much as I can remember," she says.
Earlier this week, the court was told about Child L, who was allegedly poisoned with insulin.
Now the prosecution turns to his twin, Child M, who was also allegedly attacked by Letby - this time having air injected. He survived but was left brain-damaged.

10:46

Neonatal unit was 'very stretched' when Child M collapsed, says Letby​

After Child M collapsed, Letby made notes on a paper towel "that remained in my pocket and ended up at home with me", according to a previous police statement.
Nick Johnson KC, for the prosecution, asks Letby what she means by this.
"I am saying I wrote notes on a paper towel, yes," she says. "And at the end of the day it came home with me in my pocket."
"Where had it been in between?" Mr Johnson asks.
"It would have been used in the shift to write up notes," Letby says.
Child M was born in "good condition" and was breathing by himself. He had his observations taken every two hours.
Letby agrees this was the case.
"He was not an intensive care baby, was he?" Mr Johnson asks.
"No, I don't believe he was at this time," Letby says.
Mr Johnson asks - as he has done with all the cases - if staffing levels contributed to Child M's collapse.
Letby says she doesn't know what caused Child M to collapse, but says the unit was "very stretched" at the time.
"Are you suggesting there was a positive association between staffing levels and his collapse?" Mr Johnson asks.
"I think there was a potential," Letby says.

10:49

'I don't know what happened'​

Lucy Letby has repeatedly told the court she does not know what happened to cause Child M to collapse.
"I don't know what happened to Child M but as nursing medical staff we were very stretched that day," Letby says.
She clarifies that "staffing wasn't at the right level, doctors were very busy" and babies didn't have as close monitoring as they should have done.
Nick Johnson KC, for the prosecution, then asks if any medical mistakes caused the collapse.
"I don't know what caused [Child M's] collapse," Letby says again.
Mr Johnson then asks if incompetence by any of the staff on the unit caused the collapse.
"Again, that is hard to answer when I don't know exactly what happened to [Child M]," Letby replies.


10:56

Letby asked about lighting in nursery where Child M collapsed​

Lucy Letby is being asked about Child M, whom she is accused of leaving brain-damaged after injecting with air.
"Did the lighting in the nursery make it difficult to see?" Nick Johnson KC, the prosecution barrister, asks her.
"No," says Letby.
Letby previously told the police the lighting was "poor" in the space where Child M was.
Her police interview is then read to the court.
Police: Do you know why he was desaturated?
Letby: No
Police: So when you attended to him there was nothing obvious that caused this desaturation?
Letby: No
Police: Any other questions?
[This was asked to another officer.]
Letby: But I do remember that his colour was a little bit harder to assess... and he was in a space with poorer lighting.
The prosecution points out that Letby has previously said she was able to see Child I had become "very pale" when in a darkened room at night, so questions why she could not see Child M in a well-lit room in the middle of the day.

11:04

Unit was at capacity when infant collapsed​

On 9 April 2015, the day Child M collapsed, there were 15 babies on the neonatal unit.
The capacity of the unit was 16, but one incubator had to be kept free for emergency care, so on this day it was running at full capacity.
The baby allocated to Lucy Letby (one she is not accused of harming) is described by the prosecution as "low maintenance", and did not require much intervention from Letby.
Letby disputes this, and says the baby (not Child M) was moved into nursery one "because she was very unwell".
When questioned about how she remembers so much about this other child, she describes her as a "very complex baby who was on the unit a very long time".

11:17

Child M collapsed 'ten minutes' after his parents left him​

At 3.30pm on 9 April 2015, half an hour before Child M collapsed, he was given an antibiotic infusion, either by Lucy Letby or a colleague.
Letby is asked what her colleague was doing at the time.
"I can't say without looking."
Letby's colleague previously said she was dealing with a blood sample for Child L and was interrupted by Child M's emergency call.
"It was while [the colleague] was getting sterile that you sabotaged Child M," Nick Johnson KC, the prosecution barrister, says.
"No."
An extract from the witness statement of Child M's mother is then read to the court.
She said: "About ten minutes after we left the boys, a nurse came running up and said we had to go back and took me down in a wheelchair."
"Whatever happened, happened after his mum and family had left him," Mr Johnson says.
Letby says she does not recall "exact timings".
It is "another case where the parents are there and they leave and the baby collapses", Mr Johnson says.
Letby agrees this appears to be the case, but reiterates that she was with a colleague at the time.

11:23

'I collect paper': Letby stored 'confidential' notes from Child M under her bed​

Lucy Letby is asked why medical notes from Child M - an NICU blood gas record - were found in a bag under her bed.
It was among a series of notes found during a police search of Letby's home.
Nick Johnson KC, for the prosecution, asks if she removed this from the waste bin on the unit.
She tells the court: "I definitely did not take anything out of the confidential waste bin."
When asked why she stored it in a bag under her bed, Letby says: "Because I collect paper."
Letby is then asked why she has shredded a bank statement, yet kept this medical record.
"What made this collectable?" Mr Johnson asks.
She says she would have shredded the bank statement because it would have been "at the forefront of my mind".

11:29

Letby denies 'rooting in the bin' for confidential notes​

Medical notes written on a paper towel - which was later found in Lucy Letby's possession - would have been handed to a doctor for him to make his notes at 8.25pm on the day Child M collapsed, the court is told.
Nick Johnson KC, the prosecution barrister, then asks how it came to be in Letby's pocket again.
"You hung around to get your hands on it before you left," he says.
Letby says she stayed late that night to finish "all the work that needed doing". Medical records show she was still on the unit an hour and 15 minutes after her shift ended.
The prosecution claims she "hung around" on the unit to collect the paper towel, and removed confidential paperwork from the bin.
"No, I have never rooted in the bin," Letby says.
The prosecution claims she wanted the notes because she "sabotaged" the infant. Letby denies this.

Judith Moritz Tweets - https://twitter.com/JudithMoritz

Judith Moritz

@JudithMoritz
·
57m

Lucy Letby is wearing a black pinstripe suit. She's flanked in the witness box by two female prison officers who sit at either side. She's looking straight ahead of her, towards the jury, and not at Nick Johnson who's asking her questions. She's speaking softly.

Judith Moritz

@JudithMoritz
·
46m

It's alleged that Lucy Letby poisoned one twin (baby L) with insulin and injected air into the other twin (baby M).

Judith Moritz

@JudithMoritz
·
22m

Nick Johnson KC suggests that Lucy Letby sabotaged baby M whilst another nurse was busy getting ready to perform a sterile procedure. She denies it.

Judith Moritz

@JudithMoritz
·
20m

Nick Johnson KC says that the twins' parents had just left the neonatal unit when baby M collapsed. He says to Lucy Letby "this was your opportunity to sabotage him, wasn't it?". She replies "No, I was with Mary (another nurse)".

Judith Moritz

@JudithMoritz
·
16m

Nick Johnson KC suggests that nurse Letby "hung around to get her hands on" medical notes relating to baby M, after her shift ended, and also that she "rooted around in the bin" to pull out other records. She denies this.

Judith Moritz

@JudithMoritz
·
15m

Nick Johnson KC: "You sabotaged baby M by injecting him with air didn't you?"
Lucy Letby: "No, I did not"
 
Defence Case Wednesday 7th June 2023 - LUCY LETBY'S CROSS-EXAMINATION

CHILD N - first allegation 3rd June 2016

Chester Standard Updates -https://www.chesterstandard.co.uk/news/23572442.live-lucy-letby-trial-june-7---cross-examination-continues/


11:25am

Mr Johnson is now turning to the case of Child N, born on June 2, 2016.
Letby, in her defence statement, says she had never encountered a baby with haemophilia before, and no-one on the unit seemed specifically to know how to care for such a baby.
She says she does not believe Child N 'collapsed', and it was not accurate to say he had screamed for 30 minutes. She denied causing any harm to him.

11:30am

Letby tells the court she does not believe this event, for Child N, was a collapse which required resuscitation.
The court is shown the nursing rota for the night shift of June 2-3. Letby was designated nurse for two babies in room 4. Child N was in room 1 with one other baby - the designated nurse for both babies was Christopher Booth.
Letby rules out staffing levels or incompetence as factors in Child N's collapse.
Letby agrees Child N collapsed just after Christopher Booth went on his break.
Letby denies she was 'bored' or had 'time on her hands' working in nursery 4 that shift.
She agrees Child N 'was in good shape' at the start of the shift.

11:54am

The neonatal schedule for June 2-3 is shown, with Letby's duties for her two designated babies from 8.30pm-8.38pm.
One of the designated babies received a 50ml NGT feed at 8.30pm as they were asleep. Letby says that feed can take '10-15 minutes or so'. She says she can't put a 'definitive number' on it.
Mr Johnson says other estimates for this kinds of feed have been 20 minutes.
Letby: "I really can't say."
Mr Johnson says Letby was texting her friends 'right through this shift'.
A sequence of messages is shown to the court. The first sent by Letby is at 7.33pm, followed by 7.35pm, 7.58pm, 7.59pm, 8pm ['We have got a baby with haemophilia'], 8pm, 8.01pm, 8.02pm, 8.03pm, 8.04pm [Ah ok I'll have to Google it later lol don't know much about it [haemophilia]], 8.06pm, 8.11pm [Complex condition, yeah 50;50 chance antenatally].
NJ: "That is where you got the answer from, Dr Google?"
LL: "No, '50:50' is something staff would know"
Messages are sent by Letby at 8.26pm [Ffs Mel asking me how to make up 12.5%],
Letby said she was "shocked" that a band 6 colleague was asking her how to make up such a solution, when she could have looked for herself.
8.29pm: 'No I've passed her folder but now asking if can run via cannula- she needs to look herself!'
Letby says she was "not happy" with Mel.
Another message is sent from Letby at 8.29pm, and at 8.31pm, and 8.31pm, at 8.32pm, 8.34pm.
Letby is asked how she can feed a baby at 8.30pm when she was also texting.
LL: "You can't."
Letby denies feeding the baby "very quickly" by putting the plunger on the end.
Another message is sent from Letby at 8.38pm [Had strange message from [doctor colleague] earlier...']
Mr Johnson asks if Letby's nursing colleague was implying Letby and the doctor were in a relationship. Letby says she does not know.
Letby's colleague sent two messages: "Did u? Saying what?
"Go commando? [cry laugh emoji]"
Letby is asked by Mr Johnson if she knows what the implication of 'go commando' means.
LL: "I don't know what was meant, I can't say right now."
NJ: "Do you think this was an army reference, being from Hereford?"
LL: "I don't know."
The messages are sent by Letby at 8.39pm, 8.40pm, 8.41pm, 8.43pm [Do you think he's being odd?], 8.44pm [Shut up!], 8.44pm [I don't flirt with him!].

12:03pm

The text message conversation was:
Letby: 'Had strange message from [colleague] earlier....'
Reply: 'Did u? Saying what?'
Letby had replied at 8.39pm: [four cry laugh emojis]'
LL: 'Asking when I was working next week as wants to talk to me about something, has a favour to ask..?'
Reply: 'Think he likes u too'
Reply: 'Hmm did u not ask what it was?'
LL: 'No just said when I was working and he said wants my opinion on something'
LL: 'Hmm...[puzzled emoji]'
Reply: 'Hmm'
LL: 'Do you think he's being odd?'
Reply: 'Thought as flirty as u'
LL: 'Shut up!'
Reply: 'What?!'
LL: 'I don't flirt with him!'
Reply: 'Ok'
LL: 'Certainly don't fancy him haha just nice guy'
Reply: 'Ok'

12:11pm

Mr Johnson says Letby was 'texting non-stop' on the nursery room.
Letby says the feed "must have happened at a different time". She says she cannot answer when. She denies 'pushing it through' the feed.
Mr Johnson says Child N collapsed at 1am. Christopher Booth 'one episode whilst I was on my break, whereby infant was crying++ and not settling. He became dusky in colour, desaturating to 40s. Responded to facial oxygen within 1-2 minutes. Crying subsided within approximately 30 minutes and colour returned to normal...'
Letby tells the court this was not a 'collapse' as facial oxygen was all that was required, not resuscitation.

12:14pm

Mr Johnson says Dr Jennifer Loughnane had a 'look of surprise' in court when she had read her note she had written Child N was 'screaming', as that was unusual. Letby says she does recall that.
She denies sabotaging Child N.


Sky News Updates - https://news.sky.com/story/lucy-letby-murder-trial-latest-former-nurse-tells-court-why-she-repeatedly-searched-for-dead-babys-mother-on-facebook-12868375

11:31

Recap: Who is Child N?​

Nick Johnson KC, for the prosecution, moves on to the case of Child N.
Letby allegedly attempted to kill the baby boy three times and faces three counts for this:
  • Count 17: Attempted murder on 3 June 2016
  • Count 18: Attempted murder on 15 June at 7.15-7.30am
  • Count 19: Attempted murder on 15 June at 3pm
The prosecution claims Letby "used his haemophilia as a cover to attack him". His throat was found covered in blood - doctors could not even put a feeding tube down.
He screamed for 30 minutes, which one expert said "he had never seen before in a neonate".

11:37

Child N collapsed just after Letby's colleague went on break​

On 3 June 2016, Lucy Letby was caring for two children in nursery four - these are not children she is accused of harming.
Child N was in nursery one, with a different nurse.
"Do you agree Child N collapsed just after [a colleague] went on [a] break?" Nick Johnson KC, for the prosecution, asks.
"Yes."
"Do you agree you had two, what have been described as, feeders and growers in nursery four?"
"Yes."
"Did you find that boring?"
"No."
"Did you find that you had time on your hands?"
"No."
"Do you agree Child N was in good shape at the beginning of this shift?" Mr Johnson asks.
"I think so, yes" Letby says.

11:49

Letby's WhatsApps appear to contradict medical records​

Medical records record Lucy Letby as feeding one of the infants in her care at 8.30pm on 3 June 2016, but WhatsApp messages shown to the court dispute this.
Letby tells the court she "really can't say" how long it would have taken her to feed the babies in her care.
"You were texting your friends right through this time you were supposedly feeding this child," Mr Johnson asks.
"I don't know," Letby says quietly.
"You don't know? You didn't notice?" he says.
The court is shown a series of rapid text conversations between Letby and one of her colleagues - started by Letby three minutes after she started her shift.
Letby (7.33pm): Are you home?
The pair then begin a back-and-forth text conversation.
Her colleague then asks if Letby is in the handover. The handover would have taken place from 7.30pm.
Letby (7:58pm): [Colleague] had gone home so I had a paper handover lol
Letby (8pm): We've got a baby with haemophilia

Letby sent texts complaining about another one of her colleagues at 8.26pm and 8.29pm.
She also sent a message at 8.31pm saying one of the babies was "Slow with feed but getting there".
She sent further texts at 8.34pm and 8.38pm - despite allegedly feeding the baby at 8.30pm.
"How do you text when you do the two-handed job of feeding a child?" Mr Johnson asks.
"You can't," says Letby.
He says the only way it could have been done is if Letby fed the baby in her care very quickly.
"You think I pushed it in," says Letby.
"I do," replies Nick Johnson.
"No, I did not," says Letby.

12:02

Letby denies knowing what 'go commando' means​

Just after 8.38pm, Letby and a colleague exchanged a series of messages about another colleague Letby was allegedly "sweet on".
In one message, Letby's colleague encouraged her to 'go commando'.
Letby denies knowing what this means.
"What does that mean, is it a reference to the royal marines?" Mr Johnson asks.
"I don't know," Letby says.
"Go commando, you don't know what that means?" Mr Johnson says.
The court is shown Letby replied with a series of laughing emojis.
"Did you think this was an army reference, you being from Hereford?"
"I don't know," Letby says.
Further text messages are shown to the court, in which Letby denies to her colleague that she was being flirty with the other colleague.

12:29

Letby was texting 'non-stop' while feeding a baby​

Questioning continues about how Letby could have been texting her colleague "non-stop" while she was allegedly feeding a baby.
"I couldn't feed a baby while texting so it must have happened at a different time," Letby replies.
"What must have happened?" Mr Johnson asks.
"The feed."
Mr Johnson then says: "Or the alternative is, to use your phrase, you pushed it through."
"No," says Letby.
Child N collapsed at 1am on Friday 3 June. Notes written hours later said his oxygen levels dipped right down to 40%. He is also recorded as "screaming".
"Screaming is very unusual of a child of this age," Mr Johnson says.
"Yes," says Letby.
Mr Johnson then says: "This was your doing."
"No, it was not," says Letby.


Judith Moritz Tweets - https://twitter.com/JudithMoritz

Judith Moritz
@JudithMoritz
·
42m

Nick Johnson KC now moves on to asking Lucy Letby about baby N, a boy, who the nurse is accused of attempting to murder on three occasions in June 2016.

Judith Moritz
@JudithMoritz
·
23m

Nick Johnson KC shows the court multiple text messages which Lucy Letby exchanged with another nurse whilst she was on shift, some whilst she's recorded as feeding another baby.

Judith Moritz
@JudithMoritz
·
21m

NJKC - "How do you do that?" (text whilst feeding a baby via tube)
LL - "You can’t"
NJKC - "There is a way of doing it. Feeding a child very quickly."
LL - "You think I pushed it in?"
NJKC - "I do. You tell the jury"
LL - "No, I did not"

Judith Moritz
@JudithMoritz
·
18m

Nick Johnson KC shows text messages which Lucy Letby and another nurse exchange about one of the doctors in which they laugh about the idea that he might "go commando". Nick Johnson asks her what the phrase means. She says she doesn't know.

Judith Moritz
@JudithMoritz
·
4m

Nick Johnson KC turns to the first occasion when baby N collapsed. He shows clinical notes which record the baby as having been screaming. Lucy Letby agrees it's very unusual for a neonatal baby to scream. Also agrees there are two other babies in the case who did this.

Judith Moritz
@JudithMoritz
·
3m

Nick Johnson KC says that baby N's designated nurse had gone on his break when the infant collapsed.
NJKC: "You took that opportunity to sabotage baby N didn’t you..."
LL: "No"
NJKC: "This was your doing"
LL: "No, it was not"
 
Last edited:
Defence Case Wednesday 7th June 2023 - LUCY LETBY'S CROSS-EXAMINATION

CHILD N - second & third allegations 15th June 2016

Chester Standard Updates -https://www.chesterstandard.co.uk/news/23572442.live-lucy-letby-trial-june-7---cross-examination-continues/


12:23pm

Mr Johnson turns to the second set of events for Child N on June 15, when the plan was for Child N to go home that week. Letby agrees he only needed phototherapy at this stage.
A feeding chart is shown for Child N, who was being fed mostly expressed breast milk.
Child N's mother had visited on the morning of June 14, and in the evening, at 5.15pm. Child N had taken a 60ml bottle feed. Letby agrees with Mr Johnson this was "a very good sign".
Mr Johnson suggests Letby did something to destabilise Child N before the end of her day shift.
LL: "No I did not."
Letby says it was a "coincidence" Child N was, according to nursing notes that night "very unsettled early part of night", with observations of mottling.

12:26pm

Letby is asked about a message sent by a nursing colleague at 5.26am which said 'Baby [N] screened, looks like [s***]'
Letby responded: 'Oh no'
Letby denies she saw this as an opportunity to sabotage Child N during the day shift.
LL: "No, that's not what happened."

12:29pm

Letby messaged a doctor colleague at 6.04am on June 15: 'Wonder if I'll find my way back into 1 today then....',
This is in response to his message at 5.53am, which begins: 'What a chaotic 7 hours!
'Sorry - I may have filled NICU [...]
'Have a good breakfast [winking emoji] I think your day may be busy.'

12:41pm

Swipe data shows that Letby is on the neonatal unit at 7.12am. Child N desaturated three minutes later and was 'crying'.
Letby says she does not recall Child N crying. She says, at the time, she was in the doorway, talking to Jennifer Jones-Key - her friend, when the alarm for Child N went off.
Letby says it "was very busy" and "a lot of intervention was needed" for Child N after he collapsed. She does not cite staffing levels as a contributing factor for the collapse, or a mistake by medical staff.
Letby says she "does not know" if issues with intubating Child N were a factor, and does not know what caused Child N to collapse.
She denies "setting up" Child N to collapse overnight.

12:45pm

Letby, in her defence statement, said she had gone to nursery room 3 not to see Child N specifically, but to speak to Jennifer Jones-Key, her friend.
She said Child N was 'blue' and 'not breathing'. She shouted for a doctor colleague to assist and Neopuff breathing assistance was applied.
Letby is asked about the 'Jennifer and I were talking at the doorway'. Letby says she meant only she was at the doorway, and Jennifer Jones-Key was in the nursery room.

12:48pm

Letby, in a Facebook message to a colleague: 'No repeat today. I've escaped being in 1, back in 3' at 7.12pm[am].
Mr Johnson says Letby had gone in to room 3 as she knew by that point she was designated babies for that room. Letby says she had gone to see her friend.
Letby denies sabotaging Child N.
Letby agrees it was a "serious event" which happened "within a minute or two" of her entering the room. Mr Johnson says it was "bad luck?" Letby replies: "Yes."

12:59pm

Mr Johnson asks Letby when blood was seen orally on Child N.
Letby replies "the only time definitively" she recalled that was at 3pm. she says that is on her memory "sitting here now".
Mr Johnson says if she had recorded blood observations at the time, would she accept that now? Letby says she would, although it may have been based on what people had informed her at the time.
Mr Johnson says the one who would have informed her would have been the doctor colleague she "loved as a friend".
Letby's nursing note: '...infant transferred to nursery 1 on handover. Mottled, desaturating requiring Neopuff and oxygen.'
Letby says "both" she and Jennifer Jones-Key had gone over to Child N at the time of desaturation.
Mr Johnson says Letby was "hoping to create the impression" on the nursing notes that the problems for Child N happened before the handover.
LL: "No, I disagree."
Letby tells the court she had taken over Child N's care from 7.30am.

1:01pm

Letby's note, written at 1.53pm-2.10pm adds: 'unable to intubate - fresh blood noted in mouth and yielded via suction ++'.
Letby says the 3pm blood observation was the first one she could "definitively remember".
Mr Johnson says this note is a 'good hour' before that observation.
Letby denies Child N was bleeding from when she first got involved that day.




Sky News Updates - https://news.sky.com/story/lucy-letby-murder-trial-latest-former-nurse-tells-court-why-she-repeatedly-searched-for-dead-babys-mother-on-facebook-12868375

12:34

Letby 'destabilised' baby as she went off shift​

Nick Johnson, the prosecution barrister, then moves on to 14 June.
Child N was doing well and was expecting to go home that week. But Letby is accused of manufacturing an incident as she went off shift on 14 June to divert attention away from herself.
"Just before you handed him over that evening, you did something to destabilise [Child N]," Mr Johnson says.
"No," says Letby.
Medical notes show the infant was "unsettled" for the first half of the night shift - when Letby was not working.
In a Facebook message sent to Letby, a doctor on the unit later told her: 'Unsure why became unwell... They're optimistic he'll be okay.'
On 15 June she began a text message conversation with her colleague at 5.10am. At 5.26am her colleague said: 'Child N screened, looks like s***.'
"You saw this as an opportunity to sabotage him on the day shift," Mr Johnson says
"No," says Letby.
"The reason you had done something before you went off the previous day shift was to give the impression there was a decline you could take advantage of on the 15 June," he adds.
"No," says Letby.
Letby is accused of trying to murder the child twice on 15 June - once at 7.15am and again at 3pm.

12:46

Child's oxygen levels dropped three minutes after Letby arrived on the unit​

At 7am on 15 June, Child N was recorded as receiving fluids, his notes show.
There was nothing "suggested as being a problem" in his charts, Nick Johnson the prosecution barrister asks Letby.
"Yes, I agree, at this point his observations were normal," says Letby.
Swipe data shows Letby entered the neonatal unit (via the labour ward) at 7.12am. She says this is "common practice" as the labour ward is where the scrubs and toilets are.
Within three minutes of Letby arriving on the unit, Child N's oxygen levels had dropped and the infant was crying.
Letby says she was speaking to a colleague at the time Child N's alarm sounded. But that colleague has previously said she was feeding a child at the time.
"I don't know what happened to [Child N] but I know there was a lot of intervention needed from doctors and nurses," says Letby.

12:53

'Just bad luck' that baby collapsed minutes after Letby arrived​

Lucy Letby is questioned about why she arrived early to her day shift on 15 June 2016, swiping in just under 20 minutes before the handover began.
She is accused of attempting to murder Child N twice that day.
"You sabotaged him on the night shift, in effect by going in early," Nick Johnson KC, the prosecution barrister, says.
"No," says Letby.
The prosecution claims Letby set Child N "up to fail at the end of the previous day shift" and then came in early "to make it look like he came from the night shift with a problem".
Mr Johnson accuses her of "making a beeline" for Child N, in nursery three.
Letby tells the court she went into the room to speak to her friend, and at this point "handover hadn't been allocated".
But a Facebook message to a colleague timestamped at 7.12am (when she arrived on the unit) disputes this.
It says: "I've escaped being back in 1, back in 3."
At 7.15am, the child was "blue" and "wasn't breathing", according to medical notes.
Mr Johnson says this happened "within a minute or two of you arriving in that room".
"Yes," says Letby.
"Just bad luck, is it?" says Mr Johnson.
"Yes," says Letby.

13:03

Letby wanted to 'create impression' collapse happened before she arrived​

On 15 June 2016, blood was found in Child N's throat - the first time any had allegedly been seen orally in this case.
"Sitting here now I cannot say with any 100% accuracy when I saw something," Letby now tells the court.
The doctor who responded to this initial incident is someone Letby says she "loved as a friend" - she admits this colleague would not have had it in for her. (Letby has previously accused a "band of four" colleagues of conspiring against her.)
"Do you accept what [the doctor] says about this initial desaturation... about it being concerning?" Nick Johnson KC, for the prosecution, asks.
"Yes," says Letby.
Letby did not write up the nursing notes on the collapse at 7.15am of Child N - claiming she took over his care from 7.30am.
"Who discovered him [at 7.15am]?," Mr Johnson asks.
"We were both there," Letby says.
"Who discovered him?" Mr Johnson presses.
"We both heard his monitor, I went over to him," Letby says.
Mr Johnson says Letby was "hoping to create the impression on the paperwork that these were all events that happened before you arrived".
"No, I disagree."

13:03

Court has broken for lunch​

It will resume at 2.15pm.


Judith Moritz Tweets - https://twitter.com/JudithMoritz
Judith Moritz

@JudithMoritz
·
7m

Nick Johnson KC turns to the next two occasions when baby N collapsed - 11 days after his first collapse in June 2016. Says that at this stage the baby's parents had been preparing to take him home.

Judith Moritz

@JudithMoritz
·
5m

Nick Johnson KC says that on the second occasion, baby N collapsed three minutes after Lucy Letby arrived to begin her day shift on the neonatal unit.

Judith Moritz

@JudithMoritz
·
2m

Court shown early morning text messages which Lucy Letby exchanged with another nurse who had been on shift with baby N overnight. Lucy Letby was about to start her day shift. The other nurse told Lucy Letby that baby N "looked like s..t" overnight.

Judith Moritz

@JudithMoritz
·
1m

Nick Johnson KC: "You saw that as an opportunity to sabotage baby N..."
Lucy Letby: "No"
NJKC: "And to make it look as though you’d inherited a problem from the night shift"
LL: "No"

Judith Moritz

@JudithMoritz
·
2m

Nick Johnson KC: "This was a serious event wasn’t it? It happened within a minute or two of you arriving in that room" Lucy Letby: "Yes"
NJKC: "Just bad luck was it?"
LL: "Yes"

Judith Moritz

@JudithMoritz
·
13m

Nick Johnson KC mentions the doctor (name protected by court order) who Lucy Letby exchanged multiple Facebook messages with. He says "He was a friend of yours, who you say you loved as a friend.." Lucy Letby replies "Yes, as time went on. Yes".

Judith Moritz

@JudithMoritz
·
6m

Lucy Letby is asked why she didn't write anything in the nursing notes about baby N's first collapse at 0715 when she came onto the unit. She says that she only took over care for him when her shift started at 0730.
 
Defence Case Wednesday 7th June 2023 - LUCY LETBY'S CROSS-EXAMINATION

CHILD N - second & third allegations 15th June 2016 - continued after lunch

Chester Standard Updates -https://www.chesterstandard.co.uk/news/23572442.live-lucy-letby-trial-june-7---cross-examination-continues/


2:13pm

The trial is now resuming after its lunch break.

2:22pm

Letby says she knows there was blood recorded prior to 3pm.
Mr Johnson says the doctor colleague recalled, in evidence, seeing blood before the intubation process at 8am.
Benjamin Myers KC, for the defence, rises to say that in cross-examination, the doctor colleague did not rule out the possibility the blood was present after the attempt to intubate.
Mr Johnson says there was an attempt to intubate at 8am. Letby agrees. Letby also agrees with the observation there was swelling at the back of Child M's [N's] throat. She says she "cannot comment" further on what the doctor colleague saw.

2:24pm

Letby recorded in her notes, written at 1.53pm retrospectively: '...unable to intubate - fresh blood noted in mouth and yielded via suction ++'
Mr Johnson says the doctors could not see, for the blood. Letby says she cannot say what doctors observed.
Letby agrees that evidence from Professor Sally Kinsey ruled out 'spontaneous haemhorrhage' for Child M [N] at this time.

2:35pm

Letby is asked about family communication with Child N's parents. A note by Letby at the time: 'Parents were contacted by S/N Butterworth during intubation. Both mobile phones switched off and no answer on landline. Message left. Call returned shortly after and parents were asked to attend. Have been present since.
'Both understandably upset...'
Agreed evidence said Child N's mother had said Lucy Letby had been in contact with them.
Letby says "it's a difference in recollection".
Mr Johnson says this is agreed evidence, it's the truth.
He says Letby's note "is a lie".
Letby: "no, it's not."
The mother recalled Child N 'had a bleed and was unwell', and said Letby had informed the parents of this.
Letby: "No, I disagree."
NJ: "But it's agreed evidence."
LL: "Well, I disagree with it now."
Mr Johnson says this is another account from a parent which Letby says is untrue.
Mr Johnson says Letby has been 'firing out post-it notes from the dock' during the trial, but had not raised this issue at the time.
LL: "I'm not sure."
NJ: "Is the answer no?"
LL: "It's not something I raised with my legal team."
Letby: "I don't want to comment on whats, ifs and buts."
Mr Johnson says Letby interrupted when the mother of Child E and F gave evidence, to say she couldn't hear, and wanted to leave the courtroom when a doctor colleague began to give evidence.
LL: "Yes, because I felt unwell."
Mr Johnson says: "No, no..." adding that it was because it was her boyfriend who was giving evidence.
Letby: "That's not fair."
Mr Myers rises to say the line of questioning is inappropriate, and asks for the opportunity to consider the issue raised [of a dispute in agreed evidence].

2:39pm

Letby adds she did not make the phone call to Child N's parents, and denies making false entries in the paperwork.
An intensive care chart is shown for Child N on June 15, saying at 10am '1ml fresh blood'. Letby says she "cannot say" if it was a vomit or aspirate. The note is in Letby's handwriting.
Letby is asked what she did about it.
Letby: "I cannot say right now."

2:42pm

Mr Johnson asks what would Letby do if fresh blood was observed in Child N's mouth?
LL: "I don't know if it was in the mouth." Letby adds such an observation would have been escalated, but she does not know who to. Mr Johnson says there is no record of it being escalated.
Letby agrees there is no "written record", but it may have been verbally escalated. She says 1ml fresh blood is not normal but not a life-threatening event.
Mr Johnson says for a baby with haemophilia, it was serious.
Letby says it would be a concern, and would be escalated.

2:46pm

A doctor in the ward does not record the bleed during the ward round, the court is told.
Mr Johnson says Letby has "invented" the blood reading for 10am. Letby: "I disagree."
Mr Johnson suggests it was all designed to give an ongoing impression for a child with haemophilia. Letby disagrees.

2:48pm

Letby says it's true that an NG Tube can cause "a small amount" of bleeding in the mouth.
Letby says she cannot say if she didn't escalate it [the bleed in Child N] verbally.

2:51pm

A Facebook message from Letby is sent to a doctor colleague at 11.29am on June 15.
'Small amounts of blood from mouth & 1ml from ng. Looks like pulmonary bleed on Xray. Given factor 8 - wait and see. Apnoeas have improved & gases good, colour & perfusion still not Great. If deteriorates will try to intubate.'
The x-ray report ruled out a pulmonary bleed. Letby says this report came some time later.
Mr Johnson suggests either there wasn't a problem at all, that Letby was making evidence up, or Letby was causing the problem. Letby disagrees.

2:54pm

Mr Johnson says a statement from the parent of Child N said the collapse was so serious a priest was offered. Mr Johnson says this collapse must have been the one at 2.50pm.
Letby noted: 'approx 1450 infant became apnoeic, with desaturation to 44%...fresh blood noted from mouth and 3mls blood aspirated from NG tube...drs crash called...'
NJ: "What had you done to cause this in [Child N]?"
LL: "I hadn't done anything."

2:59pm

Letby denies "shoving a foreign object" down Child N's throat. Letby: "Absolutely not."
NJ: "It's all your work, isn't it?"
LL: "No it's not at all."
Letby agrees she was 'agitated' by the need for assistance from Alder Hey, as she had not known a case before of people from another hospital coming in to assist.
NJ: "Do you remember saying 'who are these people?' 'who are these people?'"
"Yes, because I had never experienced who these people were [coming in from a different hospital.] ...It was a completely new experience."
Child N later collapsed once more.
She denies using the doctors being in a 'huddle' as an 'opportunity' to try and kill Child N again.



Sky News Updates - https://news.sky.com/story/lucy-letby-murder-trial-latest-former-nurse-tells-court-why-she-repeatedly-searched-for-dead-babys-mother-on-facebook-12868375

14:14

Court has resumed​

This afternoon's session has begun, overseen by Mr Justice Goss.
Nick Johnson KC will continue his questioning of Lucy Letby.
It will be a shorter session, ending at 3pm today.

14:33

Letby denies calling Child N's parents as he was intubated​

The court is being told about a nursing note Lucy Letby made just before 2pm on 15 June 2016 - the day she is accused of the attempted murder of Child N.
Letby claims she first saw blood on the boy "immediately before" a tube was inserted.
"Fresh blood noted in mouth," her nursing note says.
A doctor said he saw blood in Child N's throat before he started the intubation process.
Letby's lawyer points out, in cross-examination, that this doctor said he could not be sure if blood was present before or during the procedure.
The doctor said he saw swelling at the back of the infant's throat and said it "must have been unusual for me to remember it".
A medical expert "eliminated" the prospect of a spontaneous haemorrhage.
The court is then read an extract from the evidence of Child N's father. He previously told the court:
I was at work. I then received a phone call from Child N's nurse, Lucy. [Letby] said he had been a bit unwell in the night but said he is okay now. I told Lucy that [Child N's] mum would be in in a bit to see him as usual and that was that... I did not get the impression that he was still unwell and needed to be concerned... About ten minutes later [Child N's mother] rang me and said we had to go to the hospital.
Letby disputes she made this phone call.
"I don't recall speaking to the parents myself," she tells the court.
Her nursing note says a different colleague attempted to call the family during the intubation, but neither of them answered and a message was left on their landline.
Letby's nursing note reads: "Call returned shortly after and parents were asked to attend. Have been present since. Both understandably upset."

14:36

'You didn't like hearing your boyfriend giving evidence, did you?'​

Lucy Letby tells the court that she is disputing the agreed evidence put before the court by Child N's parents.
"Yes, I have no recollection of speaking to the family on the phone and I would not have put [colleague]'s name on the note if that were not the case," she tells the court.
Agreed evidence means it has been submitted to the court as an agreed "truth".
"With respect, there has been a lot of evidence gone over and I have relied on the legal team," she says.
Nick Johnson KC, for the prosecution, then says: "We have seen you firing out Post-it notes from the dock."
"Which I think I am entitled to do," Letby says.
"Absolutely you are," Mr Johnson says. "Have you raised an issue with these agreed statements being read?"
"I can't say now," Letby says.
Mr Johnson then adds: "If you had raised an issue and they didn't raise it with the court what would you do?"
Letby says she does not want to comment on "ifs and buts".
Mr Johnson then asks why Letby tried to leave the dock when her colleague - whom she allegedly had a crush on - gave evidence.
Letby says this was because she was unwell.
"You didn't like hearing your boyfriend giving evidence, did you?" Mr Johnson asks.
"That's not fair," says Letby.

14:48

Letby denies she 'invented' bleeding problems​

Lucy Letby continues to deny she called the parents of Child N.
"You carried on making false entries, didn't you, in the paperwork," Nick Johnson KC, for the prosecution, asks.
"No," says Letby.
On the morning of 15 June 2016 (the day she is accused of attempting to murder Child N), Letby recorded 1ml of blood in his mouth but there is no record of Letby escalating the bleeding with anyone.
"This is potentially very serious, wasn't it," Mr Johnson says.
"1ml of fresh blood is not normal but it is not a life-threatening event," Letby replies.
Mr Johnson says for a child with haemophilia, who had collapsed hours earlier, it could be life-threatening.
Letby is accused of "inventing" the bleed at 10am in her nursing notes.
"This is all designed to give an ongoing problem in a child who had haemophilia," Mr Johnson says.
"No," Letby replies.

15:05

Letby 'shoved foreign object' down baby's throat​

One of the babies Lucy Letby is accused of trying to hurt collapsed so dramatically that his parents were offered a priest, the court is told.
Child N collapsed at 3pm on 15 June 2016.
"Do you remember [Child N's] parents arriving," Nick Johnson KC, for the prosecution, says.
"Not in entirety, no," Letby says.
WhatsApp messages between Letby and a colleague are now shown to the court.
Colleague (1.52pm): [Baby N's] parents been in?
Letby (1.54pm) Yeah came not long after you left and both stayed since

Child N collapsed again when his parents went to get something to eat.
"Such was the dramatic nature of the collapse they were offered a priest," Mr Johnson says.
He then asks: "What had you done to [Child N] to make him bleed?"
"I hadn't done anything to him," Letby replies.
"This is very similar to what happened to [Child E] isn't it," Mr Johnson says.
"[Child E] had significantly more blood, but he did have fresh blood, yes," says Letby.
A doctor's note from the time of the collapse said the bleeding was unlike anything he had ever seen before.
"You had shoved some foreign object down [Child N's] throat," Mr Johnson says,
"Absolutely not, no," Letby says.
Doctors were brought in from another hospital to help with Child N. Letby was heard asking her colleagues: "Who are these people?"
She now tells the court: "I had never known staff come from different hospitals... it was a completely new experience."
The prosecution accuses Letby of waiting until her colleagues were distracted to "try and kill Child N".
"No," she says.

15:05

Court has ended for the day​

Letby's cross-examination will resume tomorrow at 10.30am.


Judith Moritz Tweets - https://twitter.com/JudithMoritz

Judith Moritz

@JudithMoritz
·
15m

Court has finished for today. A summary of some of the evidence we heard this afternoon. Nick Johnson KC continued to ask Lucy Letby about baby N.

Judith Moritz

@JudithMoritz
·
12m

Earlier in the trial baby N's father said that (on the day his son collapsed twice) he was at work when he was phoned by Lucy Letby who told him that the baby had been "a bit unwell" but was now ok, and he wasn't given the impression there was anything to be concerned about.

Judith Moritz

@JudithMoritz
·
11m

Lucy Letby now says she didn't make this phone call. Nick Johnson KC asks her why her defence team has allowed it to be 'agreed evidence' in the case. She replies "well I disagree with it now"

Judith Moritz

@JudithMoritz
·
10m

Nick Johnson KC: "It’s yet another account from a parent that has been agreed and you are now saying it’s untrue. Is that right?"
Lucy Letby: "Yes. I have no recollection of speaking to the parents on the phone"

Judith Moritz

@JudithMoritz
·
8m

NJKC: "Were you sitting in court when this agreed evidence was read to the court?"
LL: "Yes"
NJKC: "What did you do about it?"
LL: "Well with respect there’s been a lot of evidence and I’ve relied on my legal team"

Judith Moritz

@JudithMoritz
·
8m

NJKC: "Well we’ve seen you firing out post it notes from the dock"
LL: "Which I’m entitled to do"
NJKC: "Absolutely you are, that’s the point of you being here. Have you raised it as an issue?
LL: "I can’t say now whether it's something I’ve raised with my legal team


Judith Moritz

@JudithMoritz
·
5m

Nick Johnson KC asked Lucy Letby about the 3rd occasion when baby N collapsed, and when doctors found blood in his throat.
NJKC: "You had shoved some foreign object down baby N's throat hadn’t you?"
LL: "Absolutely not"

Judith Moritz

@JudithMoritz
·
4m

NJKC: "What had you done to baby N Lucy?"
LL: "I hadn’t done anything to him"
NJKC: "This is very similar to what happened to baby E isn’t it? Do you agree?"
LL: Baby E had significantly more blood, but yes he did have fresh blood".
 
Defence Case Thursday 8th June 2023 - LUCY LETBY'S CROSS-EXAMINATION

CHILD O

Chester Standard Updates - https://www.chesterstandard.co.uk/news/23575178.live-lucy-letby-trial-june-8---cross-examination-continues/


10:41am

Nicholas Johnson KC, for the prosecution, moves to the case of Child O.
Letby, in her defence statement, said she did "nothing to hurt [Child O]."
She noted a "change in [Child O's] appearance", but it was "not dramatic".
He had a deterioration and Letby noted Child O's abdomen was "red and distended".
She says she didn't notice a rash on Child O, and no-one mentioned it.
She said the abdomen was "very swollen", and there was a struggle to get lines in. Letby tells the court one of the lines had tissued.
She said one of the doctors had gone out to smoke a cigarette during the time of Child O's resuscitation, and when that doctor returned, they did not wash their hands.

10:43am

Letby is asked if there is anything she wishes to change in her account of evidence so far. This is a question Mr Johnson asks at the start of most sessions during the cross-examination. Letby says there is nothing.

10:45am

Letby agrees with Mr Johnson it was "big news" to see naturally conceived triplets on the unit, as it was a rare occurrence. Child O and Child P were two of the three triplets.
Messages are shown to the court between Letby and Jennifer Jones-Key from June 22.
Letby confirms when she is back in, adding: "Yep probably be back in with a bang lol"
M Johnson says within 72 hours of that, two of the triplets were dead and Child Q had collapsed.

10:48am

Letby is asked why she was "so interested" in the triplets. Letby tells the court it was "general conversation" between staff colleagues as it was "something unusual on the unit".
She accepts that all went well with the birth, and accepts that the triplets had been doing well, with Child O being "fine".
Letby accepts that Child O was doing well on the night shift for June 22-23, and had been moved off CPAP on to Optiflow breathing support.
Letby accepts Sophie Ellis's description there was 'nothing concerning' about Child O's presentation.

10:56am

Letby is asked to look at an observation chart for Child O for June 22-23. There is a reading which, the court is told, appears to have been changed from '1430' to '1330'.
Letby says Child O's temperature is a little unstable in the hours prior to 1.30pm on June 23, but accepts he was otherwise "stable".
The court is shown a lab result, that there was no bacterial infection found in a blood sample taken on June 23 for Child O.
A feeding chart showed Child O was "tolerating his feeds very well", Mr Johnson says. Letby agrees.

11:05am

Mr Johnson asks Letby where the 'problem' is for Child O's abdomen that she had said was not dealt with, as there is no data to show it.
Letby says, after looking at the data, she does not know what the problem was.
Mr Johnson says there is no problem shown in the paperwork.
Letby says there was "no formal note" made.
The court is shown Sophie Ellis's note at 7.32am: Abdo looks full slightly loopy. Appeared uncomfortable after feed....reg Mayberry reviewed. Abdo soft, does not appear in any discomfort on examination. Has had bo. To continue to feed but to monitor.'
Letby says the doctor did not formally record it.
Letby accepts a review was carried out at 9am and Child O's liver was reviewed, finding no injury. Letby accepts the liver injury happened 'on her watch'. She says she accepts it happened on her shift, but does not know how it happened.
She denies it happened on her hand.

11:07am

A shift rota for June 23 is shown. Letby was designated nurse for two of the three triplets in room 2 - Child O and Child P - plus one other baby. The third triplet was in room 1, with Child Q and two other babies.
Letby rules out staffing levels as a contributory factor in Child O's collapse or death, or staffing mistakes.

11:17am

Letby says Rebecca Morgan was a student nurse on the unit. She accepts that the student nurse would not always be in room 2, and would sometimes be chatting to parents.
Letby says the two triplets she was designated nurse for were in the high-dependency room, and if she left the room for a period of time, she would ask someone to 'keep an eye' on them.
A note by Dr Katarzyna Cooke at 9.30am is shown to the court, which included: 'No nursing concerns, observations normal'.
Letby says she left the unit at one point to get donor milk for the babies.
Letby is shown a series of text messages between herself and a doctor prior to 9.30am. Letby expresses disappointment in the message the doctor will not be on the unit ['Boo']. Letby says she got on well with the doctor.
Letby asks if the doctor would be on the unit in the afternoon in the message. She adds: 'My student is glued to me.....'
She adds: 'Bit rubbish that you couldn't stay on nnu'. Mr Johnson asks if Letby was 'missing' him. Letby replies this was the first day back from her Ibiza holiday.
Letby sent a message at 9.55am: 'I lost my handover sheet - found it in the donor milk freezer!! (clearly I should still be in Ibiza)'
Letby is asked if it was a 'busy' morning for her. She says "reasonably, not exceptionally".
Letby is asked how she finds the time to text when at work. She says she would not use her phone at the cotside or a clinical area, but would use her phone elsewhere in the unit.

11:24am

A feeding chart for Child O is shown to the court. Letby is recorded as signing for feeds at 10.30am and 12.30pm. She says the writing above is not by her, but by Rebecca Morgan. She says if she has signed, then Rebecca Morgan does not need to sign.
Letby denies feeding Child O. She denies overfeeding Child O.
Nurse Melanie Taylor, at about 1pm, entered room 2 and said 'he doesn’t look as well now as he did earlier. Do you think we should move him back to [room] 1 to be safe?'
Letby declined. She said she doesn't remember being very dismissive.
Letby says "That's Mel's opinion" to the evidence that Melanie Taylor had told the jury she felt Letby was 'undermining her authority'.
She adds that Melanie Taylor had the right to override that and 'take Child O off her'.
Letby denies she had sabotaged Child O, or that this would have meant Child O would have 'escaped her influence'.

11:29am

Letby denies she 'lied' to the doctor colleague about a 'trace aspirate' for Child O at 12.30pm.
Mr Johnson says he is mistaken, as a doctor's note records '0 bile' for the 'trace aspirate'.
Letby says the 160-170 heart rate for Child O, as recorded by the doctor, is higher than normal, and higher than ideal. Mr Johnson says the abnormal readings start, on the observation chart, 180bpm.
Letby had recorded 'tachycardiac' for Child O. Letby tells the court when she reviewed Child O, there was a spike in the heart rate, and in her opinion, Child O was tachycardiac.

11:33am

Mr Johnson says Letby made a 'false, lying entry' in a different chart. A blood gas chart is shown to the court for Child O.
Mr Johnson asks where the lying entry is on the chart.
LL: "I don't know."
Mr Johnson points to the 'CPAP' note on a column. Letby says Child O had some CPAP pressure. Mr Johnson says Child O had not been on CPAP breathing support for "hours and hours".
NJ: "You were covering for air you had given him, weren't you?"
LL: "No."
An x-ray report for Child O is shown, including: 'Moderate gaseous distention of bowel loops throughout the abdomen.'
Letby is asked why she wrote CPAP in her notes.
LL: "I can't answer that now, I don't know."
Letby says she does not know if Child O might have been on some CPAP pressure via Optiflow.
Letby denies 'forgetting to make a false entry on the observation chart'.

11:41am

Letby is asked about messages exchanged between her and a doctor when, at 2.30pm, she was recorded as taking observations for Child O.
The messages were sent at 2.20pm and 2.23pm.
Child O collapsed shortly after 2.40pm. In her defence statement, she said the doctor colleague was on the unit at the time.
Swipe data shows Letby has arrived on the neonatal unit from the labour ward at 2.39pm.
Letby says she cannot say, definitively, where she was at that time. She denies 'nipping out' of the neonatal unit to make it look like she was elsewhere at the time Child O collapsed.

11:44am

The doctor's note is shown to the court: 'Called to see [Child O] at ~1440 desaturation, bradycardia and mottled...'
Letby says she believes she called the doctor to the nursery room. She denies it was to get personal attention; Letby says it was because he was there to assist Child O.

12:09pm

The trial is resuming after a short break.
Letby says a 20ml saline bolus was given to Child O in response to a poor blood gas record. She says there was a delay as there was an issue with getting the line for Child O. She says she believes the bolus, which has 'time started: 1440', was in response to Child O's collapse.
A doctor's note recorded for the '~1440' collapse: '10ml/kg 0.9% sodium chloride bolus already given.'
Letby agrees the two desaturations for Child O that day were "profound" ones.
Letby's note: 'Approx 1440 [Child O] had a profound desaturation to 30s followed by bradycardia. Mottled++ and abdomen red and distended. Transferred to nursery 1 and Neopuff ventilation commenced. Perfusion poor'
Letby, when questioned, says babies would "frequently desaturate", to this level, and this happened prior to June 2015, and "often".

12:14pm

Letby says the redness to the abdomen on Child O was abnormal, and the description of mottling was normal.
Mr Johnson says during the intubation, Dr Stephen Brearey, in evidence on March 15, said Child O had a rash on his chest, on the right side, about 1-2cm in size. He said it was an "unusual" rash that was initially pupuric, and it later disappeared.
Letby says: "I don't believe that's what I saw. I saw mottling. If that's what Dr Brearey saw, then if that's what you could take as being true, then yes."

12:20pm

Mr Johnson says when the doctor went to see Child O's parents, and during that time, Child O desaturated again, for the final time.
Letby says she does not remember this declining moment, but said she put out a crash call.
LL: "I remember the death, but not this precise moment where he declined and I put out a crash call."
Child O was intubated and efforts were made to resuscitate him. Letby says she did not recall seeing the rash disappear. She says she did not see what Dr Brearey and Dr Ravi Jayaram had seen.
Letby says she did not pull an NG Tube out of Child O's stomach.
An x-ray report for Child O is made at 4.46pm. It record: 'NG Tube in situ with its tip close to the cardia, this should be advanced by 10-15mm.'
An earlier x-ray report said the NG Tube was 'in a good position'.
Letby says a dislodged tube would still drain, as it would still be in the stomach.
Letby says the tube could be moved during the intubation process at 2.40pm.

12:24pm

Mr Johnson says Child O's mother, in agreed evidence, said her baby was 'changing colour' with 'prominent veins.' She says she later saw that in Child P.
Letby says she didn't see that herself.
The father of Child O said 'you could see his different veins - it looked like he had prickly heat, like something oozing through his veins'.
Letby says she did not see anything like that.
She accepts she saw a red-purply blotchy rash and a red abdomen.

12:28pm

In police interview, Letby said she believed she had done chest compressions and drew up some drugs. Letby says after looking at records, she now believes she was just involved in medications.
Mr Johnson suggests Letby is distancing herself from the CPR so it could not be said she caused the liver injury to Child O. Letby denies this.
Letby says she "does not know" how Child O got the liver injury.
Letby denies injecting air into Child O to cause an air embolous, or inflicting a liver injury on him.
NJ: "These things all happened on your watch, didn't they?"
LL: "Yes."
Letby says she disputes an account that Dr Brearey told her not to come in after that shift.
NJ: "Were you bothered by what you witnessed?"
LL: "Of course I was bothered."

12:35pm

Messages are shown between Letby and the doctor from 9.14pm on June 23:
Doctor: 'Your notes must have taken a long time - Had you documented anything from this morning?'
LL: 'Only a little. Had the other 2 to write on as well and sorting out the ffp etc. Left signing for drugs until tomorrow'
A nurse also messaged Letby: '*advertiser censored**in hell, what happened?'
LL: 'Can't Think straight so took a while'
LL: 'Blew up abdomen think it's sepsis'
Letby says it's not a term she uses often, but she had seen it before.
LL: 'Had big tummy overnight but just ballooned after lunch and went from there'
Letby tells the court that is what she said, having been reviewed by a doctor and Child O had a loopy bowel. She says she is referring to distention found prior to 8am.
LL, at 9.33pm: 'Worry as identical'
Mr Johnson: "Were you setting up a false narrative here?"
Letby: "No, that's not what I'm suggesting at all."
NJ: "You had already set your plan in motion by pumping air into [Child P] before you left."
LL: "No."





Sky News Updates - https://news.sky.com/story/lucy-letby-murder-trial-latest-former-nurse-tells-court-why-she-repeatedly-searched-for-dead-babys-mother-on-facebook-12868375

10:55

'Back in with a bang': Letby's text before two triplets died​

Child O was born at the end of June 2016. He died within the first week of his life.
At the time of his birth, Letby was abroad in Ibiza on holiday with friends - including one of her colleagues.
She returned the day before Child O died.
Text messages she sent a colleague include one on 22 June in which she wrote, responding to a question about when she was returning to work: "Yep probably be back in with a bang lol".
Within 72 hours of that text, Children O and P had died, and Child Q had collapsed.
Letby agrees this was the case.
She texted a male colleague - one she allegedly had a crush on - and asked about the triplets.
"Did you want to get involved with them?" Mr Johnson asks.
"I was just making inquiries," Letby tells the court.
The triplets were born with few complications - and one had been moved to a lower grade nursery.

11:10

Letby agrees child sustained liver damage 'on her watch'​

Medical notes shown to the court indicate Child O was "stable overnight" before Lucy Letby arrived at the unit in June 2016.
"He had some temperature issues, but yes," Letby says.
In a police statement, Letby claimed a nurse had raised concerns about Child O's abdomen and said: "I do not accept this was dealt with adequately."
Nick Johnson KC, for the prosecution, now asks her: "You are suggesting there was a problem but you are not in a position to tell us the problem?"
"Yes."
Mr Johnson points out there is no evidence of this in the charts.
Letby's colleague made the following note about Child O on 23 June at 7.02am: "Abdomen looks full, lightly loopy. Appeared uncomfortable after feed. Registrar reviewed, abdomen soft does not appear in any discomfort on examination. Bowels open. To continue to feed but to monitor."
Letby tells the court: "People have stated that if something is not written down, or if somebody writes something it might not be correct."
Child O was found with liver damage.
At 9.30am, another doctor examined Child O and "excluded there being an injury at that point".
"Yes," says Letby.
"Does it follow that the liver injury Child O did sustain happened, in effect, on your watch?" Mr Johnson asks.
"Yes."
"Do you accept that somebody must have inflicted that liver injury on CO during that day shift?"
"I agree it happened during that shift, I don't know how it happened," Letby says.

11:29

Letby accused of sabotaging baby to get crush's attention​

Lucy Letby is asked if staffing levels or a doctor's mistake contributed to the death of Child O on 23 June 2016.
She says "no" to both.
The court is shown a series of texts Letby sent that day to her colleague - whom she allegedly had a crush on. She has previously denied this and said she "loved him as a friend".
At 9.32am, Letby texted him "Boo" after he said he was not on the neonatal unit.
"Were you disappointed he wasn't there, on the unit?" Mr Johnson asks.
"Yes, I enjoyed working with [colleague]," Letby says.
"Did you want to get his attention?" Mr Johnson says.
"No."
"Is that the reason you sabotaged Child O?"
"No."
More texts are shown to the court.
Colleague (9.33am): I thought something similar
Letby (9.36am): Are you here this aft
Colleague (9.37am): Yes back after the clinic
Letby (9.39am): Have fun
Letby (9.40am): My student is glued to me
Colleague (9.41am): Awww. Could be a challenge

Further texts are shown to the court.
Letby (9.45am): Bit rubbish that you couldn't stay on NNU
"Were you missing him?" Mr Johnson asks.
Letby denies this and says it was her first day back.
Letby (9.55am): I lost my handover sheet - found it in the donor milk freezer!! (clearly I could still be in Ibiza)
Letby is asked how she found the time to send so many text messages when on shift. Letby says staff would often use their phones on the unit - but not when they were at the cot side.

11:33

Letby 'insistent' Baby O should not be moved from her care​

Lucy Letby is accused of "deliberately overfeeding" Child O.
A senior colleague said to her: "Child O didn't look well."
The senior colleague previously told the court that Letby "undermined" her. Previous messages shown to the court indicate Letby and this person - who cannot be named for legal reasons - were no longer getting on, though Letby says she got on with everyone in a "professional" context.
"What else did she suggest?" Nick Johnson KC, for the prosecution, asks.
"From her recollection that we should move him to nursery one," Letby says.
"And you refused, insistently," Mr Johnson replies.
"I don't recall the details of the conversation," Letby says.
She adds: "I don't recall that but [senior colleague] would have been perfectly within her rights to override me and take the baby off me."
"You had sabotaged Child O, hadn't you?" Mr Johnson asks.
"No."
"Which is why you didn't want him moving outside your control into nursery one," Mr Johnson says.
"No."

11:49

Letby 'falsified medical notes'​

Letby is accused of falsifying a medical note, saying Child O was on CPAP (continuous positive airway pressure therapy) when he was not.
"The level of gas in the bowel is more than would have been expected in a normal baby," one doctor's note said.
"Why did you write CPAP in the gas chart?" Mr Johnson asks.
"I can't answer that now," Letby says.
"Do you accept he wasn't on CPAP?"
"He wasn't on the full CPAP machine," Letby says, but adds that he could have been receiving CPAP via neopuff.
Mr Johnson continues to take the court through what happened on the afternoon of 23 June 2016, the day Child O died.
The colleague whom Letby allegedly had a crush on came to intubate Child O.
The pair exchanged a series of Facebook messages between 2.08pm and 2.37pm, discussing the procedure - and the male colleague's lunch.
Letby disputes she was on the unit at this time, hence why the two were texting.
Medical notes show Letby was allegedly attending to Child O at 2.30pm.

11:50

'Did you want his attention?' - Letby asked about crush​

Swipe data shows Letby re-entered the neonatal unit at 2.39pm on 23 June 2016, the day Child O died.
"Where were you at around this time?" Nick Johnson KC, for the prosecution, asks.
"I can't say definitively, but I have come through the labour ward," Letby says.
"Had you just nipped out to make it look like you weren't around when Child O collapsed?"
"No."
Letby is now asked why she called a colleague she allegedly had a crush on to attend Child O.
"Were you trying to get his attention?" Mr Johnson asks.
"Yes, I wanted him to review [Child O]," Letby replies.
"But his personal attention?"
"No."

Judith Moritz Tweets - https://twitter.com/JudithMoritz

Judith Moritz
@JudithMoritz
·
56m

Lucy Letby agrees that it was "big news" on the neonatal unit when the triplets were born. The first time she'd ever come across naturally conceived triplets in her career.

Judith Moritz
@JudithMoritz
·
53m

Lucy Letby was on holiday in Ibiza when the triplets were born. She texted another nurse about her return to work after the holiday saying she'd “probably be back in with a bang”. Nick Johnson KC says "within 72 hours of that text, babies O and P both died and baby Q collapsed".

Judith Moritz
@JudithMoritz
·
52m

Lucy Letby accepts that all went well for the triplets when they were born, and there were no concerns for their health after their birth.

Judith Moritz
@JudithMoritz
·
40m

In her legal defence statement Lucy Letby said she didn't believe that a problem with baby O's abdomen was dealt with adequately. Nick Johnson KC now asks her what the inadequacy was. Nurse Letby says she doesn't know.

Judith Moritz
@JudithMoritz
·
35m

Lucy Letby accepts that an injury to baby O's liver happened "on her watch"
Nick Johnson KC: "Would you accept therefore that somebody must have inflicted that injury on baby O on that shift?"
LL: "I agree that its happened on the shift, but I don’t know how it’s happened"

Judith Moritz
@JudithMoritz
·
33m

On the day of baby O's death, Lucy Letby was the designated nurse caring for both him and his brother baby P. The third triplet was in another part of the unit with another nurse.

Judith Moritz
@JudithMoritz
·
32m

Nick Johnson KC: "Are you suggesting that staffing levels caused or contributed to baby O's death?"
Lucy Letby: "No"
NJKC: "Are you suggesting any nursing mistake contributed to his collapse?"
LL: "No"

Judith Moritz
@JudithMoritz
·
28m

Court shown a text which Lucy Letby sent to a doctor (we can't name). It said "Boo"
Nick Johnson KC: "Were you trying to get his attention?
Lucy Letby: "It was my response to him not being on the unit that day" (1/2)

Judith Moritz
@JudithMoritz
·
27m

(2/2) NJKC: "Were you disappointed he wasn’t there?"
LL: "Yes, I enjoyed working with him. Yes"
NJKC: "Did you want to get his attention?"
LL: "No"
NJKC: "Is that the reason you sabotaged baby O?"
LL: "No"

Judith Moritz
@JudithMoritz
·
22m

Nick Johnson KC: "You overfed baby O, didn't you"
Lucy Letby: "No I did not overfeed him"

Judith Moritz
@JudithMoritz
·
17m

Court has previously heard from another nurse who says she saw baby O looking unwell, and that she told Lucy Letby that he should be moved out of the nursery room he was in with her, and into Intensive Care. She said that nurse Letby had resisted this.

Judith Moritz
@JudithMoritz
·
17m

NJKC: "You’d sabotaged baby O hadn’t you and that’s why you didn’t want him moving out of your control to nursery 1?" LL: "No"
NJKC: "This would have meant baby O escaping your influence wouldn’t it?"
LL: "I disagree"

Judith Moritz
@JudithMoritz
·
11m

Nick Johnson KC suggests that Lucy Letby made false entries on a nursing chart to show that baby O was given some ventilation known as CPAP. He says the baby didn't receive this.
NJKC: "You were covering for air you’d given him weren’t you?"
Lucy Letby: "No"
 
Defence Case Thursday 8th June 2023 - LUCY LETBY'S CROSS-EXAMINATION

CHILD O continued

Chester Standard Updates - LIVE: Lucy Letby trial, June 8 - cross-examination continues


12:48pm

Letby is asked to look at a Datix form she had written [a form used by staff when issues have been highlighted, such as clinical incidents], on the documentation ['Employees involved' has Letby's name].
The form said 'Infant had a sudden acute collapse requiring resusctiation. Peripheral access lost.'
Dr Brearey said the information in the form was 'untrue', and he said he didn't believe at any point IV access was lost.
Asked about this, Letby says: "Well, that's Dr Brearey's opinion."
The form adds: 'SB [Brearey] wishes amendment to incident form - Patient did not lose peripheral access, intraosseuous access required for blood samples only.'
Letby says she does not believe her Datix report was untrue at the time.
NJ: "You were very worried that they were on to you, weren't you?"
LL: "No."



Sky News Updates - https://news.sky.com/story/lucy-letby-murder-trial-latest-former-nurse-tells-court-why-she-repeatedly-searched-for-dead-babys-mother-on-facebook-12868375

11:50

Court takes a short break​

It will resume in approximately 15 minutes.

12:02

Court has resumed​

The jury are back in the room and cross-examination will continue.

33m ago12:20

Letby: 'I cannot remember what every witness has said about every baby'​

Nick Johnson KC, for the prosecution, continues taking the jury through events on 23 June 2016, the day Child O died.
Lucy Letby is asked why she took a break at the time Child O desaturated so significantly that the on-call doctor was required to attend.
"Breaks were allocated by the shift leader and I had to be guided by them," she says.
She returned to the unit at 2.39pm. Shortly after the on-call doctor left Child O, he collapsed.
At 8.35pm in a retrospective nursing note for 2.40pm, Letby described Child O as "mottled" and his "abdomen was red and distended".
At 3.03pm that day, Child O had to be intubated. Letby is asked if she remembered this.
"Yes."
Letby is asked if she can recall what her colleague said to the court about this incident.
"I cannot remember what every witness has said about every baby," Letby says.
The colleague described the infant as having an "unusual" and "concerning" rash that was "clearly noticeable".

12:27

Child O's 'dramatic death'​

At 3.53pm on 23 June 2016, a senior doctor swiped back on to the unit to try and save Child O.
"This was Child O's final decline, wasn't it," Mr Johnson says.
"Yes," Letby says.
"Do you remember it happening?"
"This specific moment? I put the crash call out."
"Do you remember it?"
"No."
"It was a very dramatic death, wasn't it?"
"I remember his death, I don't remember the exact moment when he declined."
Letby is then asked when she pulled Child O's nasogastric tube out of his stomach.
"I don't recall pulling the tube out of his stomach," she says.

12:43

Letby 'didn't want connection' between her and Child O liver injury​

Lucy Letby is accused of distancing herself from Child O's resuscitation because of the liver injury he sustained at some point during her shift.
"You don't want to have any connection between you and the liver injury because you are now running the case it was the CPR that caused the liver injury," Mr Johnson asks.
"No," says Letby.
Mr Johnson then asks: "How did Child O get that liver injury?"
"I don't know."

12:45

Letby 'pumped air into Child P' before leaving work​

Text messages Lucy Letby sent in the aftermath of Child O's death are shown to the court.
Colleague (9.13pm): Your notes must have taken a long time - Had you documented anything from this morning?
Letby (9.14pm): Only a little. Had the other 2 to write on as well and sorting out the ffp
[a type of blood transfusion] etc. Left signing for drugs until tomorrow.
Letby (9.15pm): Can't think straight so took a while

The court is then shown another conversation Letby was having with another colleague at the same time.
Colleague 2 (9.14pm): *advertiser censored**** hell what happened
Letby (9.15pm): Blew up abdomen think it's sepsis

"I am also going to suggest you are telling your friend [...] lies in these texts," Mr Johnson says, before showing another text.
Letby to Colleague 2 (9.16pm) Had big tummy overnight but just ballooned after lunch and went from there
Mr Johnson suggests this was a "not accurate" reflection of what had happened on the night shift.
"I believe he had had an enlarged abdomen overnight," Letby says.
Letby then expressed concern in a text to Colleague 2 about Child O's triplet.
Mr Johnson accuses Letby of "trying to create in the minds of other people" that there would be a similar problem with Child P.
"No, that is not what I am suggesting," Letby says.
"Because that is what you were planning," Mr Johnson says.
"No, it is not."
"Because you had already put your plan into motion by pumping air into Child P before you left."
"No."

12:52

Child O died in his parents' arms after being baptised​

Child O was baptised and then died in his parents' arms at 5.47pm on 23 June 2016.
In her nursing notes the following day, Lucy Letby wrote "peripheral access lost" in relation to why the infant required an IV.
A doctor has previously told the court this was not true.
"That is [colleague]'s opinion," Letby tells the court.
Letby is accused of injecting air into Child O.
"Why were you making an untrue statement in the form?" Mr Johnson asks.
"I don't believe it was untrue at the time."
"Is it just a coincidence you were making this report pretty much at the time you had been removed from the unit?" Mr Johnson asks.
"I hadn't been removed from the unit at this point."
Letby says she was removed from the neonatal unit in July.
"You were very worried they were on to you, weren't they?"
"No."



Judith Moritz Tweets - https://twitter.com/JudithMoritz

Judith Moritz

@JudithMoritz
·
42m

Court earlier heard evidence from a consultant who said he saw an unusual rash on baby O after the baby's collapse. Lucy Letby says "I don’t believe that’s what I saw. I saw mottling. But if that’s what he saw… and that’s what people take as being true, then yes…"

Judith Moritz

@JudithMoritz
·
40m

Court hears that a registrar who had been treating baby O left the room to speak to the baby's parents, and that after he left the baby deteriorated again.
Nick Johnson KC: "That was baby O’s final decline wasn’t it.. do you remember it?"
Lucy Letby: "No"

Judith Moritz

@JudithMoritz
·
35m

Court has heard past evidence from baby O's parents, and from a consultant, all of whom described the baby changing colour and having prominent veins.
Nick Johnson KC: "That’s the truth isn’t it?"
Lucy Letby: "I can’t comment on their truth. I didn’t see anything like that"

Judith Moritz

@JudithMoritz
·
31m

NJKC: "You injected air into baby O's stomach"
LL: "No"
NJKC: "You injected air into his circulation causing air embolus"
LL: "No"
NJKC: "Through violent mechanism you inflicted liver injury"
LL: "No"
NJKC: "These things all happened on your watch"
LL: "Yes"

Judith Moritz

@JudithMoritz
·
29m

After the triplets died in June 2016, Lucy Letby was offered time off to help cope. She refused it, and said she wanted to carry on working.
Nick Johnson KC: "Were you not bothered by what you’d witnessed?"
Lucy Letby: "Of course I was bothered".

Judith Moritz

@JudithMoritz
·
26m

After baby O died Lucy Letby texted another nurse to say that the baby "had a big tummy overnight but just ballooned after lunch". Nick Johnson KC suggests she was lying in her texts, and also that she was "setting up a false narrative" about the next triplet. She denies this.

Judith Moritz

@JudithMoritz
·
11m

Nick Johnson KC suggests that Lucy Letby submitted a hospital complaint form about lack of certain equipment at around the time she was being moved off the unit.
Says to her, "You were very worried that they were onto you weren’t you?".
The nurse replies "no".
 
Defence Case Thursday 8th June 2023 - LUCY LETBY'S CROSS-EXAMINATION

CHILD P

Chester Standard Updates - https://www.chesterstandard.co.uk/news/23575178.live-lucy-letby-trial-june-8---cross-examination-continues/


12:53pm

Mr Johnson turns to the case of Child P, triplet brother of Child O.
Letby, in her defence statement, denies hurting Child P. She said she did not recall having an argument with nursing colleague Kathryn Percival-Ward about working in room 1.
She said she was in conversation with student nurse Rebecca Morgan when Child P collapsed.
She said it was "chaotic" with all the staff arriving to resuscitate, and Child P was too poorly to be transferred to room 1, so was kept in room 2.
Child P's stomach was 'red'.
She says at some stage she pricked herself with a cannula needle and needed to go to A&E for treatment.
While there, she said she fainted, she believed due to stress at the time of the past few days, and had not eaten.
She said she had 'forgotten' she had taken a handover sheet home with her.

12:59pm

An examination of Child P at 10am on June 23, 2016 was "unremarkable", the court hears. Letby accepts that. She adds there was nothing of note during the day.
Mr Johnson suggests Child P worsened after Child O passed away. Letby agrees.
A 6pm feed for Child P is signed by Letby, and she says the writing above is not by her.
Dr John Gibbs had reported in his 6pm review for Child P that the baby boy was doing well. A blood sample taken at 6.35pm taken to a lab showed no signs of infection.
Letby denies overfeeding Child P 'at some point' between 5pm-8pm on June 23.

2:16pm

The trial is now resuming after its lunch break.

2:22pm

The cross-examination continues in the case of Child P.
Letby agrees there were 'no problems' at the time of the handover for Child P on the night of June 23. She recalls the x-ray taken shortly after that handover.
The x-ray report said: 'NG tube in satisfactory position...gas-filled bowel loops throughout the abdomen, through to the lower rectum, with no evidence of obstruction and no plain film signs of perforation'
Letby denies pumping Child P with air.
She agrees this was a deterioration for Child P.
Medical expert witness Dr Owen Arthurs had previously told the court this image was "quite unusual" for a baby of that gestation.
Letby says she cannot comment how the gas got there, only that she did not put it there.

2:24pm

A 14ml aspirate is recorded for Child P at the time of handover at 8pm.
NJ: "That was your doing, wasn't it?"
LL: "No."
NJ: "On your way home, you were sowing the seeds with your colleagues?" Mr Johnson refers to the 'Worry as identical' text message Letby had sent. "You were feeding a false narrative, trying to divert attention away from your homicidal activites?"
LL: "No."

2:32pm

5ml of air and 2ml of milk is aspirated from Child P at 7am.
"How much milk had [Child P] been fed overnight?"
Letby said Child P had been fed prior to midnight. She says if the NG Tube is in the stomach, air would come out.
Letby disagrees that Child P was well at the morning handover time, as Child P was 'nil by mouth'.
A police interview had earlier said Letby saying Child P was stable and well.
Mr Johnson suggests Letby is deliberately making the appearance of Child P worse now than at the time she gave her police interview.
LL: "No."

2:34pm

The day shift for June 24 is shown to the court. Student nurse Rebecca Morgan is on the rota. Lucy Letby is the designated nurse for Child P in room 2. The other surviving triplet is also in room 2, with designated nurse Christopher Booth. Child Q is in room 1 with two other babies. Three babies are in room 3, and three babies are in room 4.

2:36pm

Letby rules out staffing levels as a contributory factor in Child P's collapse and death.
She also rules out staffing mistakes.
She says there were "some issues with the chest drain", but "cannot say" how much of an effect that had on Child P.

2:40pm

By 0639, Sophie Ellis’ nursing note recorded that “abdo has been soft and non distended. 25ml of air aspirated by SNP Kate Ward. NGT placed on free drainage”.
Mr Johnson says Letby created a false nursing note at 8am to say: "...abdomen full - loops visible, soft to touch." He says that is not the picture from 6.39am.
Letby agrees that is not the same as Sophie Ellis' note.
Sophie Ellis's note for June 23 for Child O: 'Abdo looks full slightly loopy...abdo soft.'
Letby says her observation for Child P that morning was what she saw. She informed a doctor an hour later about the abdomen observation. She denies a suggestion by Mr Johnson that she is lying.

2:48pm

Letby says she escalated the observation to the shift leader.
Mr Johnson asks if Letby knew what she was telling her friend, the doctor, at this point. Letby does not recall.
The message shown to the court, sent at 8.04am: 'I've got [child] and [Child P], [Child P] has stopped feeds as large asps.'
Mr Johnson asks why Letby is lying about having the first child, whose designated nurse was Christopher Booth. Letby says she would have to check the paperwork, as she may have been assisting.
Letby's follow-up message, at 8.19am: '...I'm ok, just don't want to be here really. Hoping I may get the new admissions...'
Mr Johnson asks why Letby didn't raise it with the doctor colleague who was coming into work.
Letby says the doctor was not present in the neonatal unit that day. He went to the children's ward.
Letby denies the observation was a 'fabrication' as Dr Anthony Ukoh saw loops as well.
She said the context of 'don't want to be here really' was what she had seen earlier with Child O.
Mr Johnson refers to Dr Ukoh's note of observation at 9.35am: 'Abdomen moderately distended/bloated; soft'. Mr Johnson says there is no mention of loopy bowels. Letby: "No."
Letby says Dr Ukoh might not have recorded it.
NJ: "Or you have misrecorded it."
LL: "No."

2:54pm

Within a few minutes of Dr Ukoh reviewing Child P, Child P collapsed.
NJ: "That has to be your doing, doesn't it?"
LL: "No."
Mr Johnson says Rebecca Morgan's evidence was Letby had left the room at the time of collapse.
Letby says from her recollection, she was in the room, and is "quite clear" on that.
Letby's note for the desaturation: '...[Child P] had an apnoea, brady, desat with mottled appearance requiring facial oxygen and Neopuff for approx 1min. Abdomen becoming distended.'
Mr Johnson says the note is deliberately written to make it look like the Neopuffing made the abdomen become more distended.
Letby agrees.

2:57pm

Dr Ukoh, the court is told, gave evidence to say Child P was in a very different condition between 9.35am and 9.40am.
He also said Letby was "very keen" for the doctor colleague to be called. Letby says this was because he had been present for Child O's deterioration. She adds it was one of the other doctors who suggested getting that doctor.
NJ: "Were you trying to attract [the doctor's] attention?"
LL: "No."
NJ: "Did you enjoy being in these crisis situations with [the doctor]?"
LL: "No....[doctor colleague] and I were friends.
NJ: "Something to share?"
LL: "No."

3:02pm

Child P desaturated again at 11.30am. He was given adrenaline and he was paralysed with a drug to aid ventilation as he had been 'fighting the ventilator' with his breathing.
A note in Letby's handwriting is shown to the court. It details the efforts to resuscitate Child P. It was found at her home. Letby accepts she had put it there.
LL: "I collect paper and that's where it ended up...I have difficulty with throwing anything away, particularly paper.
NJ: "Is there anything comforting in keeping the paper?"
LL: "I keep paper yes, from a variety of different sources." Letby clarifies she does not include bank statements in that.
Letby was recorded by a nursing colleague as saying for Child P: "He's not leaving here alive is he?"
Letby disputes that. "I don't recall the conversation."

3:15pm

Child P's final collapse happened at 3.14pm, just after doctors had reviewed him. Letby says she cannot recall shouting for help, and cannot recall Child P's breathing tube being dislodged.
NJ: "The problem happened just after everybody left, just after you had said 'He's not leaving here alive is he?'"
LL: "I don't agree I said that.
NJ: "Is this another case of bad luck, that is happened just after everybody left?"
LL: "Yes."
NJ: "Did you enjoy making predictions when you knew what was going to happen?"
LL: "No."
NJ: "You were very excited in the aftermath of [Child P's] death?"
LL: "No, I was not."
Mr Johnson says a female doctor colleague had said she acted 'in a totally inappropriate way'
LL: "No I didn't." She adds that was what the female doctor colleague had said.
Letby says she told colleague Sophie Ellis "out of respect" what had happened.
Mr Johnson said Sophie Ellis had been to the races - "why not leave her alone?". Letby said Sophie Ellis had texted her first.
Mr Johnson: "Did you enjoy the drama?"
LL: "No."
Letby's response to Sophie Ellis: 'Just blew tummy up and had apnoeas, downward spiral. Similar to [Child O] x'
Mr Johnson said the message were identical to the one for Child O.
Letby said that was what happened, his tummy blew up and he had apnoeas.
NJ: "Your portent of doom had fulfilled itself, hadn't it?"
LL: "No."
NJ: "At your hand."
LL: "No."

3:30pm

The trial is resuming after a short break.
Mr Johnson clarifies from a text message sent to a doctor colleague, Letby did have two designated babies at the start of that shift, one of whom was Child P.


Sky News Updates - https://news.sky.com/story/lucy-letby-murder-trial-latest-former-nurse-tells-court-why-she-repeatedly-searched-for-dead-babys-mother-on-facebook-12868375

13:01

Child P 'took a turn' after his brother died​

The prosecution is now moving on to the case of Child P - Child O's triplet brother.
Child P died on 24 June 2016 - a day after his brother - as he was being prepared for transfer to another hospital.
"Do you accept Child P was born in good condition?" Nick Johnson KC, the prosecution barrister, asks.
"Yes," Lucy Letby says.
An examination on 23 June noted Child P's condition as "unremarkable".
But, Mr Johnson claims, events "took a turn" after Child O's death that evening.
"Do you agree?" he asks.
"Yes."
A doctor previously noted that Child P had been doing "Remarkably well for a triplet baby and very well grown."
Blood tests also came back as "entirely normal".

13:04

Court breaks after Letby denies overfeeding Child P​

Letby denies overfeeding Child P after his brother died.
"You overfed Child P sometime between 6pm and handing him over at 8pm, didn't you?" Nick Johnson KC, for the prosecution, asks.
"No, I did not."
The court has adjourned for lunch.
Proceedings will resume at 2.10pm.

14:27

Letby: 'I can't say how the gas got into' Child P​

Child P was handed over to one of Lucy Letby's colleagues at the end of the day shift on 23 June 2016, the day his brother, Child O, died.
At this point, Letby agrees, Child P had no problems.
Child P had last been given CPAP (continuous positive airway pressure therapy) 36 hours earlier.
Nick Johnson KC, the prosecution barrister, alleges that Letby pumped Child P with air just before handing him over.
"No," says Letby.
Mr Johnson then asks: "Do you agree the gas was there because someone put it there?"
"I can't comment on how the gas got there," Letby says. "I just know it wasn't me that put it there."
Mr Johnson then says that as Letby walked home, she was "sewing the seeds with your colleagues".
He is referencing texts Letby sent to her colleagues (see 12.45pm post).
Mr Johnson says to Letby she was "trying to divert attention away from your homicidal activities".
"No."

14:35

Child P 'not a well baby' when he was handed back into my care, Letby says​

By the end of the night shift of 23/24 June 2016, the prosecution claims, Child P was "comfortable, settled and seemed like a well baby".
Lucy Letby is asked if she agrees with this.
"At 8 o'clock in the morning?" she asks.
"Yes," says Mr Johnson, the prosecution barrister.
"I am not sure. He had just been reviewed by the registrar."
Mr Johnson alleges that "whatever had been the problem had resolved itself" by the time Child P was handed back into her care on the morning of 24 June.
"No, because he had been placed nil by mouth," Letby says.
"Yes, but he was a well baby by the time he was handed over to you."
"I disagree, a baby nil by mouth is not a well baby," says Letby.
Letby is accused of making Child P sound worse to explain what happened to him during her shift on 24 June.

14:54

Letby 'copied' nursing notes of Child O for his brother​

Lucy Letby was assigned the care of Child P in nursery two at the Countess of Chester Hospital on 24 June 2016.
Nick Johnson KC, the prosecution barrister, asks her again if staffing levels, mistakes or anything else contributed to his collapse and death.
Letby denies staffing or mistakes played a part.
But she adds: "I think from the evidence there were potentially some issues with the chest drain. But I can't say what effect that had on [Child P]."
At 6.39am - before Letby arrived for her shift an hour later - the nurse looking after Child P and the shift leader said there were no concerns about him.
In their nursing notes, his abdomen is described as "soft and non-distended".
But in Letby's notes, written retrospectively that evening, Child P's abdomen was described as "loopy" - meaning she could see visible loops of bowel. This is similar to how a different nurse described his brother, Child O, a day earlier.
Mr Johnson accuses Letby of writing a "carbon copy" of the note.

14:56

Letby's texts: 'I'll be watching them both like a hawk'​

Lucy Letby is accused of falsifying a note that said Child P had "loopy" bowels - the same symptom his brother had a day earlier - to avoid suspicion.
"If this was true you would have escalated it urgently," Mr Johnson says.
"I did, I spoke to the shift leader," Letby replies.
The court is then shown a Facebook message Letby sent her male colleague (the one she was allegedly "sweet on").
Letby (8.04am): I've got [Child P and his triplet brother]
But data from the unit shows she was only looking after one baby - Child P.
Twenty minutes after Letby allegedly saw the "loopy bowels" she also sent the following text to her colleague.
Letby (8.19am): I'll be watching them both like a hawk. I'm ok, just don't want to be here really. Hoping I may get the new admissions.

14:57

Nurse denies leaving Child P alone to distance herself​

Child P's collapse "had to be" Lucy Letby's doing, the prosecution claims.
"No," she says.
A student nurse says Letby left the nursery around this time, Mr Johnson says.
He claims she did so to distance herself from his collapse.
"Were you worried that Child P was high risk?" Mr Johnson asks.
"When I took over his care that day? Yes."
"But you left him."
"I don't agree, I've not said that I left him."

15:02

Letby denies 'enjoying being in crisis situation' with male colleague​

Five minutes after the doctor completed a ward round on the unit, Child P collapsed.
"The baby at 9.45 was in a very different condition to the baby he saw at 9.40," the prosecution says.
Nick Johnson KC then says Letby was "very keen" for the male colleague she had been texting to be called.
Letby disputes this and says: "[Another doctor] requested me to call him".
"Were you trying to attract [his] attention?" Nick Johnson says.
"No."
He then asks: "Did you enjoy being in this crisis situation with [male colleague]?"
"No," says Letby.
"Did it give you something to talk about, to message about?"
"No, [he] and I were friends."

15:06

'Why do you collect paper?': More notes found under Letby's bed​

Letby told the court yesterday that medical notes were found under her bed because she "collects paper".
The court is shown further medical notes, this time for Child P, also found in her possession.
"Why do you collect paper?" Nick Johnson, the prosecution barrister, asks.
"I have a difficulty with throwing anything away, particularly paper," Letby says.
"Is there something comforting about paper?"
"I keep paper, yes, from a variety of different sources."
"But not bank statements?"
"Yes."

15:16

'Bad luck' that baby collapsed when colleagues went for break​

The prosecution continues to take the jury through the events of 24 June 2016, the day Child P died.
Lucy Letby allegedly told her colleagues, when Child P desaturated: "He's not leaving here alive, is he?"
Staff on the unit have previously said this is not something that would have normally been said in a professional context.
At 12.28pm, Child P's oxygen levels dropped for a third time.
This was when the two on-call doctors (including the one Letby was allegedly "sweet on") had gone to the tearoom for a quick break.
Then they heard Letby calling for help.
When they returned, Letby was standing over Child P.
"I can't recall that now, but that's what they say," Letby tells the court.
"There was a problem with his breathing tube, do you remember that?" Nick Johnson KC asks.
"I don't remember that from my memory now."
The baby had been unable to move, so could not have dislodged it himself, the prosecution claims.
Letby denies she said "He's not leaving here alive, is he?"
"Whether or not you said that, this is just yet another bit of bad luck that it happened just after everyone else left?" Mr Johnson asks.
"Yes."

15:18

Letby 'very excited' after Child P died​

The prosecution asks Lucy Letby if she acted "very excited in the aftermath of Child P's death".
"No, I did not," Letby says.
Nick Johnson KC, for the prosecution, says Letby's colleagues have previously said: "You were acting in a totally inappropriate way in that room."
"According to [colleague], yes."
Mr Johnson asks Letby if "you were falling over yourself to tell [colleague] about it?"
Letby says she told her colleague "out of respect" so the staff didn't "walk into the unit and find out".
But Mr Johnson says her colleague was not at work: "Why didn't you just leave her alone?"
"She was asking me," Letby says.
"Did you enjoy the drama?"
"No."
Letby texted her colleague (who had been looking after Child P the night before): "Just blew tummy up and had apnoaeas, downward spiral. Similar to [Child O]."
The message, the prosecution claims, echoes the one she sent to colleagues the night before.

15:20

Court breaks​

The court is taking a short break.

15:30

Prosecution corrects something previously said​

Nick Johnson KC, the prosecution barrister, begins by correcting something previously said in court.
Lucy Letby sent a text to her colleague saying she was looking after Child P and his triplet brother - but the data shown in court said she did not (see 14.56 post).
Mr Johnson confirmed that they have since found a handover sheet which suggests Letby did have both at the start of the shift before another colleague took over care of the other brother.


Judith Moritz Tweets - https://twitter.com/JudithMoritz

Judith Moritz

@JudithMoritz
·
1h

Nick Johnson KC moves onto asking Lucy Letby about baby P who died the day after his triplet brother baby O died in June 2016. The nurse is alleged to have murdered them both within 24 hours. She denies this. (The third triplet is not an alleged victim in the trial).

Judith Moritz

@JudithMoritz
·
3m

An x-ray of baby P's bowel showed that it was filled with gas on the day of his death.
Nick Johnson KC: "That was because in the aftermath of his brother’s death you had pumped air into baby P just before you handed him over (to the night shift) hadn't you?"
Lucy Letby: "No"

Judith Moritz

@JudithMoritz
·
2m

Nick Johnson KC: "Do you agree the gas was there because someone put it there?"
Lucy Letby: "I can’t comment on how the gas got there. I just know it wasn’t me who put it there".

Judith Moritz

@JudithMoritz
·
2m

Nick Johnson KC: "You were feeding a false narrative to your colleagues weren’t you?"
Lucy Letby: "No"
Nick Johnson KC: "Trying to divert attention from your homicidal activities"
Lucy Letby: "No"

Judith Moritz

@JudithMoritz
·
2m

On the morning of the day baby P died, Lucy Letby exchanged texts with the registrar who the prosecution have described as her boyfriend. (She disputes this description). About the two surviving triplets, she texted him "I’ll be watching them both like a hawk”.

Judith Moritz

@JudithMoritz
·
1m

Lucy Letby called the registrar (we can't name) to come and see baby P.
Nick Johnson KC: "Did you enjoy being in these crisis situations with (the doctor)?"
Lucy Letby: "No"
NJKC: "Did it give you something to talk and message him about?"
LL: "No, he and I were friends".

Judith Moritz

@JudithMoritz
·
42s

When Lucy Letby was arrested, the nurse's handwritten medical note relating to his resuscitation was found at her house. Asked why, she says "I collect paper... I have difficulty in throwing anything away particularly paper"

Judith Moritz

@JudithMoritz
·
42m

Nick Johnson KC says baby P collapsed again just after two doctors had left the room. One of the docs alleges that Lucy Letby had just said “he’s not leaving here alive” about the baby. The nurse says she doesn't remember that conversation.

Judith Moritz

@JudithMoritz
·
40m

Nick Johnson KC: "Did you enjoy making predictions when you knew what was going to happen?"
Lucy Letby: "No"
NJKC: "You got very excited in the aftermath of baby P’s death didn’t you?"
LL: "No"

Judith Moritz

@JudithMoritz
·
39m

Nick Johnson KC: "Your portent of doom had fulfilled itself hadn’t it?"
Lucy Letby: "No"
Nick Johnson KC: "At your hand"
Lucy Letby: "No"
 
Defence Case Thursday 8th June 2023 - LUCY LETBY'S CROSS-EXAMINATION

CHILD Q

Chester Standard Updates - LIVE: Lucy Letby trial, June 8 - cross-examination continues


3:30pm

He now turns to the case of Child Q.
Letby, in her defence statement, said she cannot recall much from the shift given what had happened in the previous days.
She said she did not understand why feeding was continued for Child Q when it was not being digested.
Letby said Child Q was sick and when she arrived, from the records, she aspirated 'air+++' from Child Q. She says she does not know how that air got there, and she did not cause it.
Child Q was not put on a ventilator as there were concerns over NEC.
She did not deliberately retain a handover sheet for Child Q.
Letby says she would like to amend the statement, to say she was on duty after June 25, 2016.

3:33pm

Medical expert witness Dr Dewi Evans was challenged by the defence on his use of the word 'crashed' for Child Q, saying that was a 'gross exaggeration'.
Letby says a more appropriate word for what happened to Child Q would be "deterioration".
A doctor colleague had referred to the event, in a message, as an 'acute deterioration'.
Letby said that would be accurate.
She said the difference would be a crash would require a crash call being put out.

3:37pm

Mr Johnson says Child Q was transferred to nursery room 1.
NJ: "He was in a serious condition after that, wasn't he?
LL: "No I disagree."
NJ: "He needed one-to-one care, didn't he?
LL: "Yes, he was assessed as ITU care."
The rota for June 25, 2016, at the beginning of the shift, is shown to the court.
Child Q was in room 2, designated nurse Lucy Letby. One other baby is in room 2, with a different designated nurse.
Letby was a designated nurse for a baby in room 1. Two other babies are in room 1. Three babies were in room 3 and four babies in room 4. Nurse Mary Griffith had designated babies in rooms 2, 3 and 4.
Letby rules out staffing levels or staffing mistakes or medical incompetence as contributory factors for Child Q's collapse.

3:40pm

Letby agrees Child Q required some breathing support at birth.
She also agrees Child Q "made good progress" after birth, according to Mr Johnson.

3:43pm

Letby says, "other than some temperature issues", the overall condition of Child Q was positive.
Child Q was looked after by Samantha O'Brien on the night of June 24-25, and Child Q was being fed 0.5ml of milk every two hours at 3am, 5am and 7am.
A blood gas reading at 6.58am was "very good", Mr Johnson says. Letby agrees.

3:45pm

Letby adds there had been a 'slight increase' in the lactate, and the pH reading was slightly lower, but accepts it was a good reading overall.
Letby said at the time of Child Q's handover on the morning of June 25: "There were concerns for his abdomen and his feeds." Asked who else had raised these concerns but her, Letby replies she does not know.

3:51pm

Letby had previously told her defence that, due to temperature concerns and aspirates, she wanted Child Q to be reviewed by doctors before feeding at 9am on June 25.
The neonatal schedule shows Letby made observations for the designated baby in room 1 at 8.30am. She also co-signed for medication at 8.32-8.34am for a baby in room 3.
At 9am, Mary Griffith is doing observations for a baby in room 2. An unsigned entry is made for Letby's designated baby in room 1 at this time. Also at this time, Letby is recorded doing observations for Child Q.
Letby says she does not recall doing the observations or being interrupted.
Mr Johnson says he uses the word 'interrupted' as swipe data shows Mary Griffith entering the neonatal unit at 9.01am. He suggests Letby pumped Child Q with some clear liquid while Mary Griffith was out. Letby denies this.

3:56pm

Letby is asked why she has only done 'half a job' for the 9am June 25 observation for Child Q.
LL: "I can't explain why I haven't filled the saturations."
NJ: "You were interrupted by Mary Griffith, weren't you?"
LL: "No, I don't know why those weren't filled in."

4:00pm

Letby said she left room 2 to go to room 1 as she needed to attend to cares for the other designated baby just after 9am.
Mr Johnson says that is a lie.
Letby says the baby didn't need a nappy change, but that baby "was an intensive care baby who needed regular attention".
Letby agrees she had not filled in the saturation readings, but otherwise 'the job was done' for Child Q's 9am observation.

4:05pm

Letby says she was not present in the room at the time Child Q vomited. She says she cannot recall aspirating air from the NG Tube afterwards, but may have done so.
Letby's nursing note: '...mottled++. Neopuff and suction applied....air++ aspirated from NG Tube.'
Letby says that information may have been relayed to her. She says the air in Child Q might have come from the Neopuffing process.
Letby agrees it could be dangerous if the Neopuffing and suction was done if there was clear liquid in Child Q's system. Letby said Child Q had vomited over his bedding.

4:06pm

Child Q, in a doctor's notes, had “just vomited” and his oxygen saturation dropped to the “low 60s”.
NJ: "There was a concern that [Child Q] had inhaled some liquid, wasn't there?"
Letby replies that is a concern any time a baby vomits.

4:08pm

The doctor's observations with Child Q continue for 53 minutes.
NJ: "This was no everyday, minor desaturation, was it?"
Letby replies it was not serious enough to require an emergency crash call.
NJ: "You pumped him with a clear liquid, didn't you?"
LL: "No."

4:10pm

Messages sent to a nursing colleague from 1.13pm are shown to the court: '[Child Q] on CPAP'
'Minna has taken [other baby] off me so just got him. Almost had a tube earlier but gases improving'.
Letby denies the event was 'trivial', saying Child Q had deteriorated but it was not on the same level as some of the other events that have been discussed, and did not need a crash call or resuscitation efforts.

4:15pm

Nurse Amy Davies recorded on June 25, 2016 for the night shift that Child Q had "settled".
NJ: "He became much better, hadn't he?" Letby agrees.
NJ: "A child that was put in your hands in good condition, left your hands in a ventilator in intensive care, but by this time was returning to normality."
Letby says by the night shift, Child Q was still on a ventilator and had a poor blood gas record on 6.23pm.
NJ: "You had nearly killed him, hadn't you?"
LL: "No, I hadn't nearly killed him."
Letby says she was later concerned she was being blamed for something that did not happen, by leaving the nursery room unattended.
NJ: "The truth is that you pumped him [Child Q] with liquid and air?"
LL: "No."
NJ: "Because you tried to kill him?"
LL: "No, I didn't."



Sky News Updates - https://news.sky.com/story/lucy-letby-murder-trial-latest-former-nurse-tells-court-why-she-repeatedly-searched-for-dead-babys-mother-on-facebook-12868375


He then moves on to the case of Child Q - the final alleged victim of Letby.

15:41

'I don't think this was a crash collapse'​

Lucy Letby tells the court she does not think Child Q had a crash collapse.
"It's a deterioration," she says.
The court is then shown a series of messages Letby sent to her colleague two weeks later.
Colleague (6 July): [Child Q] care is going to be reviewed on Thursday as well because of acute deterioration
Letby (6 July): That makes sense

"This wasn't just some common or garden desaturation," Mr Johnson says.
"Yes, it was," she says.
This crashed resulted in Child Q being transferred to intensive care.

15:50

Letby: Baby Q was not a baby in good condition​

On Saturday 25 June 2016, Lucy Letby was looking after Child Q in nursery two at the Countess of Chester Hospital and another baby in nursery one (this is not an infant she is accused of harming).
As he has asked in every case, Nick Johnson KC, the prosecution barrister, asks Letby if staffing, mistakes or nursing incompetence contributed to Child Q's collapse.
Letby answers "no" on all three counts.
"Do you agree Child Q was in good condition when you took him on at 8am?" Mr Johnson asks.
"No, there were concerns for his abdomen and his feeds."
Letby disputes that he was a "baby in good condition".
On 17 May, when being questioned by her defence barrister, Letby said: "I don't recall there being any significant problems... He was on the cold side and in the light of the aspirates on the chart I decided I'd prefer to have him reviewed before feeding him."

15:58

Nurse pumped final victim 'with clear fluid', prosecution says​

When her colleague left nursery two, Letby pumped Child Q with a "clear fluid", the prosecution alleges.
"That didn't happen, no," Letby says.
Nick Johnson KC says giving Child Q milk wouldn't have been an option because the infant was only being fed 0.5ml every few hours.
"If he vomited a large amount of milk it would be very obvious something was wrong," Mr Johnson says.
"Yes," says Letby.
"And that is why you chose a clear fluid on this occasion."
Letby denies this.

16:12

Child Q 'vomited clear fluid' from mouth and nose​

Lucy Letby is being asked why her notes place her as "giving care" to another infant at the time Child Q collapsed.
The prosecution claims she "disappeared" at the moment he suddenly deteriorated on 25 June 2016.
She says this is what she remembers doing.
"You were just looking for a reason to get out of the room when [colleague] appeared in the unit," Nick Johnson KC asks.
"No."
Letby's nursing notes later recorded that Child Q "vomited clear fluid" from his mouth and nose.

16:19

Letby walked in on colleagues and 'feared she would be blamed'​

Child Q's collapse on 25 June 2016 required 53 minutes of intervention from the on-call registrar.
Letby tells the jury it was still "not on the scale" of a serious collapse.
"Child P was in a very bad way," Nick Johnson KC, for the prosecution, says, adding that Letby has dismissed it as trivial.
"I did not say it was trivial," Letby replies but adds that she would not suggest it was on the same level as the other incidents involved in this case.
Over the course of the following night shift, Child Q "became much better", according to a note taken just before 10.30pm.
Mr Johnson says Letby was given Child Q in good condition and he "left your hands on a ventilator in intensive care but by 10.29pm was returning to normality".
"I don't think you can say a baby on a ventilator is returning to normality," Letby says.
She denies trying to kill the baby by pumping him with air and liquid.
Letby says she "walked in on a conversation" between colleagues and became "concerned I was being held responsible for something that did not happen".

16:20

Court has adjourned for the day​

It will resume tomorrow at 10.30am.



Judith Moritz Tweets - https://twitter.com/JudithMoritz

Judith Moritz

@JudithMoritz
·
34m

Nick Johnson KC now starts to ask Lucy Letby about the last baby in the case - baby Q. This is a baby boy who collapsed the day after baby P died. For clarity - babies O and P were two of three triplets. Baby Q was unrelated to them.

Judith Moritz

@JudithMoritz
·
32m

Lucy Letby is accused of attempting to murder baby Q. She denies this. He is the last of 17 babies to feature in the case. The trial has heard that Lucy Letby stopped working on the neonatal unit shortly after this, in summer 2016.

Judith Moritz

@JudithMoritz
·
9m

Nick Johnson KC: "I’m going to suggest that (whilst another nurse was absent)... you pumped baby Q with clear fluid" Lucy Letby: "That didn’t happen"
Nick Johnson KC: "Pumping him with milk wasn’t an option because he wasn’t being given milk"
Lucy Letby: "That’s correct" (1/2)

Judith Moritz

@JudithMoritz
·
8m

Nick Johnson KC "If he’d vomited milk it would have been obvious something was wrong"
Lucy Letby: "Yes"
NJKC: "That’s why you chose a clear fluid on this occasion"
LL: "No" (2/2)

Judith Moritz

@JudithMoritz
·
6m

Nick Johnson KC: "The child that was handed to you.. in good condition .. left your hands on a ventilator in intensive care but later was returning to normality...You nearly killed him"
Lucy Letby: "No I hadn’t"

Judith Moritz

@JudithMoritz
·
4m

Court has heard that after baby Q's collapse, one of the consultants was asking questions.
NJKC: You were worried about it weren’t you?
LL: Yes (1/2)

Judith Moritz

@JudithMoritz
·
4m

NJKC: Because the net was closing in on you wasn’t it Lucy Letby?
LL: "No I was concerned I was being held responsible for something that didn’t happen" (2/2)
 
Defence Case Friday 9th June 2023 - LUCY LETBY'S CROSS-EXAMINATION

Chester Standard Updates - https://www.chesterstandard.co.uk/news/23577991.live-lucy-letby-trial-june-9---cross-examination-continues/


8:55am

The jury were told at the end of Thursday that the cross-examination of Lucy Letby is expected to conclude today.

11:03am

The trial is now resuming.
Nicholas Johnson KC, for the prosecution, is continuing to cross-examine Lucy Letby.
Before that begins, Benjamin Myers KC, for Letby's defence, rises to make a statement.
He says Letby was cross-examined on a telephone call it was alleged she had made to Child N's father. Letby had disputed what the court said was agreed evidence. Mr Myers says the disupute was raised by Letby in advance with them, and it was the defence team's mistake to agree that evidence in advance.

11:07am

Mr Johnson says Letby said, in evidence, she found she was not going back to the neonatal unit the day before she went back to work on June 27, 2016. Letby agrees.
Letby says at the end of June 2016, she "liked all the doctors" she worked with.
Letby says she did not know what the issue was, she had not been informed what was happening.
She says she was worried she had "made a mistake" and "was in trouble for something".
Asked about the timing of the call, she said she was worried about receiving the call "so late in the day" [after 5pm] in advance of working a night shift.
She agrees she was worried it was something serious.

11:09am

Letby agrees this was in the aftermath of Child Q's collapse and Dr John Gibbs making enquiries.
She said she was "upset and worried".
LL: "I was upset and I was concerned something was wrong."

11:14am

Letby says she was worried about the next day, but not concerned it had gone 'right to the top'.
NJ: "You knew they were on to you, didn't you?"
LL: "No."
Letby had messaged a doctor about it: "I can't talk about this now."
She writes, 12 minutes later: "Sorry, that was rude.
Felt completely overwhelmed & panicked for a minute.
"We all worked tirelessly & did everything possible, i don't see how anyone can question that.
"Im having a meltdown++ but think that's what I need to do"
Letby says she was having a 'dramatic' meltdown.
LL: "It was all happening very last minute and in the evening - it was not normal."
She says this is different from work pressures as "this was personal". She denies that people were 'sussing' her.

11:16am

A message on Letby's phone at 11.29pm included: "Death datix x 2
Datix - no bicarb, delay in io access
Sign out ffp on meditech & pink chart
[Child O] charts obs
Fluids in sluice
Sign drugs
Sign curosurf out
Traffic light drug compatibility - inotropes, and no policy for panc
Delay in people doing drugs"
Letby said this was documents she had not yet completed for babies she had cared for.

11:25am

A message sent by Letby's nursing colleague to Letby: "[doctor] came in chatting to me at the start of last nights shift n I said [baby] needs L.L soon as uvc been in nearly 2wks n he said something about [child O]s already being changed n I said it hadn't n he told me about the open port!"
Letby's responded: "I told her about it that night.
"Yes because Thought it's a massive infection risk and risk of air embolism, don't know how long it had been like that."
A Datix form for the clinical incident is shown to the court - June 30, 2016, 3pm, with the port on one of the lumens noted to not have a bung on the end and was therefore 'open'. Registrar informed. Letby is the reporter of the incident.
Mr Johnson says this was a potential case of accidental air embolus which Letby had reported.
NJ: "You had your thinking cap on, didn't you?"
LL: "No."
Letby said this was something which needed to be reported.
NJ: "You removed the port and covered it as a cinical incident, didn't you?"
LL: "No."
NJ: "This is an insurance policy - so you could show the hospital was so lax..."
LL: "No."
NJ: "It was to cover for accidental air embolus."
LL: "No."

11:26am

Letby is asked about the investigation and Letby being seconded to an office-based role.
Letby messaged: "Hoping to get as much info together as possible -if they have nothing or minimal on me they'll look silly, not Me"
"Did you think attack was the best form of defence?"
"This was me responding what was happening to me."

11:29am

Letby's message on August 8: "Tony phoned. He's going to speak to Karen and insist on the review being no later than 1st week of Sept but said he definitely wouldn't advise pushing to get back to unit until it's taken place. Asked about social things and he said it's up to me but would advise not speaking with anyone in case any of them are involved with the review process. Thinks I should keep head down.and ride it out and can take further once over.
Feel a bit like Im being shoved in a corner and.forgotten about by.the trust. It's my life and career."
Letby said she was feeling isolated and not able to speak to anybody on the unit.
Mr Johnson asks if that was really the case.
Letby said she spoke to some friends who she was allowed to speak to about the details of the investigation. They were two nursing colleagues and a doctor.
Letby's message: "It's making me feel like I should hide away by saying not speak to anyone and going on for months etc - I haven't done anything wrong."
NJ: "You knew at this stage you were being blamed for the collapses and deaths of these children?"
LL: "No."

11:38am

Mr Johnson asks about the 'gang of four' consultants who were 'out to get' Letby.
Letby had previously said the four were Dr Ravi Jayaram, Dr John Gibbs, Dr Stephen Brearey and one other doctor, who had apportioned blame to her 'to cover failings at the hospital'.
Mr Johnson says he will go through the cases.
He says for Child A, staffing levels were a shortcoming in administering a long line.
For Child B, nothing,
For Child C, nothing.
For Child D, the antibiotics being delayed 'may have had an impact on her'.
For Child E, the delay in giving him a blood transfusion.
For Child F, nothing.
For Child G, possibly the colleague had overfed the baby, but that was later retracted.
For Child H, the location of the chest drains may have had an influence.
For Child I, that Ashleigh Hudson should have put her on a monitor, and that 'potentially' Dr Chang being called away.
For Child J, nothing.
For Child K, nothing, other than the ET Tube may not have been secured.
For Child L, nothing.
For Child M, nothing.
For Child N, nothing other than it was busy.
For Child O, concerns raised by Sophie Ellis were dealt with on the charts.
For Child P, an issue with a chest drain.
For Child Q, nothing.
Letby says she did not know what babies the four consultants were discussing about.
"How do the shortcomings count for their conspiracy?"
Letby says a lot of the babies were not cared for properly on the unit.
Mr Johnson says is it Letby's view that the overall care was not good enough, they pinned the blame on her.
Letby agrees.

11:44am

Mr Johnson says Letby has failed to identify, specifically, an issue with staffing levels for each of these cases.
Letby says it was raised at times on the unit, in relation to the overall care for babies.
Mr Johnson says the point of this case is to determine sabotage for the babies or naturally occurring deficiencies. He says Letby cannot give specifics.
Letby: "No."
Mr Johnson refers to 'sub-optimal care for the babies', from Letby's defence statement.
NJ: "You are raising the point, aren't you?"
LL: "Yes."
NJ: "And you have been given an opportunity to speak about it."
Mr Johnson turns to the Facebook searches Letby made for parents of children in the indictment. Three searches are made for parents in quick succession. Mr Johnson asks what the link is.
Letby: "They are babies that have died and been seriously unwell."
Letby is asked about another series of searches for three parents' names.
LL: "They are babies that had something significant to them and they were on my mind."
Letby is asked why she didn't give that answer to the police.
LL: "Because I couldn't recall why I had looked at some of them."
NJ: "Is that a true answer?"
LL: "Yes."
NJ: "You were checking up on your victims."
LL: "No - I look at a variety of [parents]."

11:46am

NJ: "You were a killer who was looking at your victims, weren't you?"
LL: "No."
Mr Johnson asks about a series of other searches, and says one of the parents' names has an 'unusual spelling'. Letby is asked to spell that name out in court. She does it incorrectly.
NJ: "You read it [the name of the parent] off a handover sheet, didn't you?"
LL: "No."

11:49am

Letby is asked about another series of searches.
Letby: "They were on my mind at the time."
One search was made on Christmas Day, for the mother of Child E and Child F.
NJ: "She was the person who caught you in the act?"
LL: "No, [mother of Child E and Child F] and I had a good relationship at the time."

12:04pm

The trial resumes after a short break.

12:10pm

Mr Johnson says Letby had given evidence surrounding her suspension from the unit in her first day of giving evidence to the defence.
She had said she felt very isolated from my friends and family on the unit, and her mental health had deteriorated.
LL: "We were a very supportive unit - regardless of whether we were personal friends, we were a supportive unit.
LL: "At the time the hospital advised me not to contact anyone on the unit...there were two or three friends I could contact, but [not to contact anyone on the unit]."
Letby is asked if that was true. "Yes." And if she abided by that. "Yes."
Letby adds that did change as time went on.
Letby has a document which she received from the prosecution this morning on her social life.
Mr Johnson says it "disproves everything" that Letby had said. Letby disagrees.
"You were telling the jury a sob story, that you had been cut off from your family as you called them, on the unit?" Letby disagrees.
NJ: "Were you looking for sympathy?
LL: "Yes, it was a very difficult time."
NJ: "Was it just a mistake?"
LL: "Yes."
The document includes photos of Letby's nights out and days out with colleagues, Mr Johnson says. They include a trip to London with a doctor colleague. Letby says that happened once.

12:21pm

A 'social timeline' is shown to the court, detailing meetings with the doctor in Harford, Cheshire Oaks (twice) and London between May-June 2017.
LL: I'm near the park next to where you are, let me know where you are finishing up and I'll see you outside
Doctor: Ok will do See you soon ❤️
LL: ❤️
Letby denies the doctor was her boyfriend.
Letby agrees she had a "very very active social life".
Letby says a future date on the Facebook diary, for September 2017, was listed as a trip to London, but they had to cancel as the doctor had a medical appointment.
She denies again he was her boyfriend.
NJ: "You have deliberately misled the jury about this background."
LL: "No."
NJ: "You have also deliberately misled them about the circumstances of your arrest, haven't you?"
LL: "No."
Letby says the police knocked on her door at 6am when they arrested her. She says she thought she had a nightie and a tracksuit and trainers.
Mr Johnson says Letby was taken away in a blue Lee Cooper leisure suit. Letby says she is not sure. Mr Johnson says video footage can be played of her arrest. Letby agrees she was taken away in that leisure suit.
For the 2019 arrest, Letby agrees she was not taken away in her pyjamas.
NJ: "Why did you lie to the jury about this?"
LL: "I don't know."
Letby says it was the first arrest when she was taken in her pyjamas.
NJ: "Do you want to watch the video?" Letby does not respond.
NJ: "You are a very calculating woman, aren't you"
LL: "No."
NJ: "You tell lies deliberately."
NJ: "And the reason you tell lies is to get sympathy and attention from people."
Mr Johnson says Letby was killing children to get attention.
LL: "I didn't kill the children."
NJ: "You're getting quite a lot of attention now, aren't you?"

12:23pm

One of Letby's handwritten notes is shown to the court. It is the one which includes a draft sympathy message for Child O, Child P and another triplet.
Mr Johnson asks why a sympthy message has included the name of the surviving triplet as well as the names of Child O and Child P.
NJ: "Was that your objective, to kill all three?
LL: "No."
NJ: "Did that excite you?"
LL: "Absolutely not."

12:27pm

The 'I AM EVIL I DID THIS' handwritten note by Letby is shown to the court.
Letby is asked about the notes.
NJ: "You had done nothing wrong?"
LL: "No."
NJ: "Why did you think you would not marry and have a family?"
LL: "Because I was in the position that I was in and didn't think it would end."
NJ: "You had a good job working in the patient safety department at the Countess of Chester."
LL: "It wasn't a choice for me."
NJ: "It was still a good job."
LL: "Good as enjoyable?"
NJ: "It was secure, with a secure employer."
LL: "Yes."
NJ: "Pays well?"
LL: "Not as much as nursing."
Letby said there were times when she had good times during the time she was under investigation. Mr Johnson says this includes drinking fizz and days at the races.
Mr Johnson concludes: "You are a murderer."
Letby: "I have not murdered or harmed any child."
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
76
Guests online
3,181
Total visitors
3,257

Forum statistics

Threads
592,112
Messages
17,963,392
Members
228,686
Latest member
Pabo1998
Back
Top