Murder-accused nurse Lucy Letby has denied attacking a baby boy to get the attention of a doctor who prosecutors have suggested she “had a crush on”.
Letby, 33, is alleged to have murdered the newborn triplet, Child O, on her first shift back at the Countess of Chester Hospital following a holiday in Ibiza with friends.
The defendant has told jurors at Manchester Crown Court she was not in love with the doctor and they were just friends.
Both Letby and the registrar – who cannot be identified for legal reasons – were working a day shift on June 23 2016.
During the morning, Letby texted the doctor: “Bit rubbish that you couldn’t stay on nnu (neonatal unit).
“You may get time for lunch though if on clinic.”
Prosecutor Nick Johnson KC asked Letby on Thursday, June 8: “Were you disappointed he was not there?”
Letby said: “Yes, I enjoyed working with (the doctor).”
Mr Johnson said: “Were you missing him?”
Letby said: “No, this was my first day back at work.”
Mr Johnson said: “Did you want to get his attention?”
“No,” Letby said.
Mr Johnson asked: “Is that the reason you sabotaged (Child O)?”
“No,” Letby repeated.
Child O’s designated nurse Letby called for the doctor’s assistance at about 1.15pm after the infant vomited following a milk feed 45 minutes earlier.
Medical entries showed Letby signed for the feed but, giving her 13th day of evidence, the defendant told the court that the child was actually fed by a student nurse she was mentoring.
Mr Johnson said: “You deliberately overfed (Child O), didn’t you?”
Letby replied: “No I didn’t. I was not feeding this baby.”
Up to 90 minutes later, Letby called for help from the registrar who was working in a neighbouring nursery, the court heard.
The prosecutor asked her: “Were you trying to get his attention?”
Letby said: “Yes, I wanted him to be with (Child O).”
Mr Johnson said: “Personal attention as well?”
Letby said: “No, he was the registrar on the unit that day.”
On Wednesday, Letby denied the prosecutor’s suggestion that she had “a crush” on the doctor.
Letby, from Hereford, denies the murders of seven babies and the attempted murders of 10 others between June 2015 and June 2016.
The court was told that Letby had noted that Child O’s appearance was “mottled++” and his abdomen was “red and distended”.
Mr Johnson reminded the defendant that the unit’s head consultant Dr Stephen Brearey had recalled an “unusual rash” on the right side of Child O’s chest wall, which later disappeared.
The prosecutor asked her: “Is that what you saw as well?”
Letby said: “No.”
Mr Johnson told the court that Child O’s mother had noticed “changing” skin discolouration and “prominent veins”, while Child O’s father observed “something oozing through his veins”.
He asked Letby: “Do you agree with the descriptions?”
The defendant replied: “I didn’t see anything like that.”
Mr Johnson said: “You saw a sort of blotchy, purply/red rash?”
“Yes,” Letby said.
Letby agreed that a liver injury sustained by Child O – discovered post-mortem – must have been inflicted during the shift.
She told the court: “I don’t know how that has happened.”
Mr Johnson said: “You injected (Child O’s) stomach with gas down the NGT (nasogastric tube), didn’t you?”
Letby said: “No I didn’t.”
Mr Johnson said: “You injected air into his circulation.”
Letby said: “No.”
Mr Johnson said: “And through some violent mechanism, you inflicted that liver injury on him.”
“No,” Letby said.
Child O continued to decline throughout the afternoon and was pronounced dead at 5.47pm.
Mr Johnson accused Letby of then turning her attention to Child O’s brother Child P who was also in her care.
The prosecutor said: “You had already put your plan into motion by pumping (Child P) before you left, hadn’t you?”
“No,” Letby said.
Mr Johnson went on: “You overfed (Child P) some time between 6pm and handing him over at 8pm, didn’t you?”
Letby said: “No.”
The defendant allegedly murdered Child P on the following day shift of June 24 with more injections of air.
Child P suffered an acute deterioration five minutes after a doctor examined him on the morning ward round, the court heard.
Again, Letby’s alleged love interest was among medics to respond to an emergency crash call, the court heard.
Mr Johnson asked the defendant: “Were you trying to attract (the doctor’s) attention?”
“No,” said Letby.
Mr Johnson said: “Did you enjoy being in these crisis situations with (the doctor)?”
Letby said: “No.”
Mr Johnson said: “Did it give you something to talk about and message about?”
Letby said: “No (the doctor) and I were friends.”
Mr Johnson said: “Something to have in common and you could share?”
Letby replied: “No.”
Mr Johnson said: “The reason you crash called was because you had injected air down his NGT?”
“No,” said Letby.
A further deterioration happened just before 12.30pm when the registrar and another doctor were in a tea room when they heard a call for help from Letby.
The second doctor – who also cannot be identified for legal reasons – has previously told the jury that Letby went on to say to her: “He’s not leaving alive is he?”
Letby said she could not recall the conversation.
Mr Johnson said: “That, as a matter of fact, was an accurate prediction.”
Letby said: “I don’t recall saying that.”
Mr Johnson said: “Did you enjoy making predictions when you knew what was going to happen?”
“No,” said Letby.
Child P continued to decline and was pronounced dead at 4pm.
Mr Johnson put it to the defendant that she was “falling over yourself” to message a colleague about the boy’s death later that evening.
Letby said: “No, I told her out of respect.”
She added it was “common practice” to try and make nursing staff aware of such outcomes before they walked on to the unit and found out.
Mr Johnson said: “She was at the races. Why didn’t you just leave her alone?”
Letby said: “She was asking me.”
Mr Johnson said: “Did you enjoy the drama?”
“No,” said Letby.
Letby also denied she attempted to murder Child Q, a baby boy, on June 25 by “pumping him with a clear fluid”.
The trial continues on Friday June 9. The jury have been told the cross-examination is expected to conclude that day.
The Standard will continue to provide live updates that day.
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article