Alleged baby killer Lucy Letby claimed today that a “gang of four” consultants conspired to “bring her over” for deaths in a neonatal ward so they could cover up deficiencies at the hospital.
Letby, 33, said two doctors in particular had decided she was responsible and then tried to remove her from the ward.
She called them Stephen Brearey, the lead pediatric consultant at the Countess of Chester Hospital, and one of his senior colleagues, the TV doctor Ravi Jayaram.
She said they had joined a “conspiracy” against her by consultant John Gibbs and a female doctor who cannot be named for legal reasons.
Prosecutor Nick Johnson KC had run Letby through a list of 19 doctors who had been involved in caring for the seven babies she allegedly killed and 10 others she allegedly tried to kill.
Court sketch of Nicholas Johnson KC interrogating nurse Lucy Letby, as she appears in the dock at Manchester Crown Court where she is charged with the murder of seven infants and the attempted murder of a further ten
Alleged baby killer Lucy Letby (pictured) today claimed a ‘gang of four’ advisers conspired to ‘bring her over’ for neonatal ward deaths so they could cover up hospital deficiencies
As each name was presented to her, the neonatology nurse agreed that she had no problem with the doctor in question. In some cases she agreed that they did not harm her, in others that they held no grudge against her.
But when the accuser came to Dr Brearey, she said she put him ‘in the same category’ as his colleague Dr Jayaram. “When I worked on the unit, I had no problem with Steve. It came after’.
Since then she had come to see him in the same light as Dr Jayaram ‘because of the things they said about me.
“They had made comments that I was responsible for the deaths of babies, and they strongly insisted that I be removed from the unit.”
Mr. Johnson asked, “Are you suggesting there was some kind of agreement between one of the medical staff who testified in this case to get you?”
Letby replied, “In the advisor group, yes.”
When she named the doctors she accused, Mr. Johnson suggested, “So the gang of four?”
“Yes,” she said.
When asked what the conspiracy was, she said, “That they blame me … I believe to cover up deficiencies in the hospital.”
The list of doctors presented to Letby also included the male registrar she allegedly flirted with.
When she agreed that she had no problem with him, Mr. Johnson asked, “Were you in love with him?”
Letby replied, ‘I loved (first name) as a friend. I wasn’t in love with him.”
Later, the nurse was asked about the allegation that she killed Baby A, a boy, on June 8, 2015.
She said if the cause of death had been determined to be air embolism, it would have been caused by the person connecting the fluids, “and it wasn’t me.”
When asked if she agreed that baby E was poisoned with insulin, she said, “Yes, I agree that he was on insulin.”
Mr. Johnson asked, “Do you believe someone gave it to him unlawfully?”
“Yes,” she said. She did not know where the insulin came from and denied harming the baby.
She gave similar answers in the case of Baby L, the other baby she allegedly attacked with insulin. In his case, she risks being charged with attempted murder.
She added, “I don’t believe any member of staff on the ward would make a mistake when administering insulin.”
Ms Letby said she didn’t know ‘where the insulin came from’ and denied harming the baby.
‘Insulin was added by someone, but I can’t say when or by whom. But not me’.
Mrs. Letby also agreed that child L had been poisoned with insulin.
“I don’t know how the insulin got there,” she said. She added, “I didn’t enter it. I don’t think any member of staff on the ward would make a mistake when administering insulin.’
Previously, Letby denied getting “a little excited” by taking a picture of a condolence card she wrote for the parents of Baby I – a little girl she allegedly ended up killing on the fourth attempt.
Mr. Johnson put it to her: “You took a picture of a card, addressed to the parents of a child who had died in appalling circumstances, at the place where she died.”
Letby said, ‘The place is insignificant. My usual behavior is to photograph things I send or receive.’
Mr. Johnson asked, “Did you find it a little exciting to photograph it at the place where this poor unfortunate child died?”
Letby replied, “Absolutely not.”
The court learned that a blood gas reading related to Baby M was found among numerous hospital sheets at Letby’s home.
Letby alleged that doctors had joined a ‘conspiracy’ against her by consultant John Gibbs and a female doctor who cannot be named for legal reasons
Mr Johnson reminded the alleged killer that a fellow nurse who took the measurement said as evidence that she allegedly threw the printout in the unit’s confidential bin.
He then asked, “When did you fish it out of the tank?”
Letby replied, “I’ve never fished anything out of the confidential bin.”
Mr. Johnson asked how she got it, and she said, “I can’t remember specifically.”
The lawyer then suggested, “It was for your small collection, wasn’t it, Lucy Letby?”
“No,” she replied.
Mr Johnson suggested that Letby was the only ‘common trait’ in the collapse from Baby A to Baby Q and therefore must be the person responsible for harming them.
He said, “Do you agree that if certain combinations of these children were attacked, unless there was more than one person attacking them, you must be the attacker?”
Letby replied, “No, I didn’t attack anyone.”
Mr Johnson continued: ‘If the jury concludes that a certain combination was actually attacked by someone, then the shift pattern gives us the answer, who was the attacker?’
Letby replied, ‘No, I don’t agree. Just because I was on duty doesn’t mean I did anything.’
Mr Johnson said: ‘If the jury concludes, let’s say babies five, eight, 10 and 12 were all attacked, the only common feature is you, it should be, are you the attacker?’
Letby replied, “That’s for them to decide.”
Letby, originally from Hereford, is on trial at Manchester Crown Court. She denies all charges against her.