3:26pm
The trial is now resuming after a short break. Mr Johnson moves to the second incident on September 21, 2015 for Child G.
He says this is when Child G was having a cannula inserted behind a screen at about 3.30pm, and there were problems with insertion.
Child G was put on to a trolley to carry out the procedure.
A nursing colleague said, in evidence, she had contacted police one month prior, to say
Letby had not switched off the monitor in this event, and one of the doctors had apologised to her for not putting the monitor back on.
Dr Gibbs said if the nursing colleague said it was true, he accepted it was true.
Dr David Harkness said the monitor was "definitely not turned off" said they were "so keen to get fluids going again" for Child G, as it had been 6 hours since she last had fluids, and Child G was 'not just left alone'.
In cross-examination, it was put to him he had previously said collapses among neonates of Child G's age was quite common.
He replied that was his experience in Chester, but his experience in other places since had showed that was not the case, and now refuted the suggestion.
Mr Johnson says the nurse was out of the room for Child G, and Letby was in room 4 with Child G.
The nursing colleague said Child G was back in the cot, after hearing Lucy Letby shouting for help.
Letby had said she moved Child G from the trolley to the cot and Neopuffed her. Mr Johnson says it is not a credible suggestion.
Dr Gibbs had said "whatever the position was with the monitor", he would have made sure Child G was stable when he left her, post-cannulation, and would have told someone he had finished with the cannulation.
Mr Johnson says if the nursing colleague wasn't in the room, the other person who would have been contacted would have been Letby.
Mr Johnson says this is another occasion where Letby had attempted to kill Child G.
The nursing colleague said she could not remember a conversation about being cross that Child G had been left alone on a trolley with the monitor off, or that a Datix form should be filled in for that event.
---
3:28pm
Dr Dewi Evans said the first September 21 incident was all indicative that Child g had been overfed with "potentially catastrophic consequences".
Dr Sandie Bohin said it was "basic arithemtic" - two large milky vomits, plus 30mls aspirate, meant Child G was fed much more than she should have been.
3:36pm
Mr Johnson turns to the case of Child H.
He refers to a form from the Countess of Chester Hospital to Arrowe Park for transfer, shown to the court, of Child H's deterioration and the chest drains used.
The form ends: 'The acute epsidoes with desaturations and bradycardias do not seem to be directly related to the respiratory problems'
Child H's mother said Child H was "like a completely different baby at Arrowe Park".
Mr Johnson says Child H had respiratory distress syndrome, which is "not unusual" for a neonatal baby, and was not particularly premature.
There were two events where Child H desaturated which were unusual.
Cross-examination of Letby said staffing levels did not contribute to the collapse of Child H. She "always had one-to-one nursing care" and the delay in issuing surfactant did not have anything to do with the collapse, Mr Johnson says.
Mr Johnson says for the two counts, the tube was not blocked and staff could hear air going in and out of Child H's lungs
((FB obvs!)
) and even at the stage she was in her career, we would work with " auxiliary nurses", now replaced by HCAs 
