12:07pm
Mr Myers says for this allegation, Letby would have to be close to Child B - "and of course, she is not".
He said it was "normal" for her to be assisting a nursing colleague in room 1, in assisting putting up the TPN bag at 12.05am.
He says the nursing colleague is "not going to miss that" if air is injected, and it would not take 25 minutes for it to have an effect [when the deterioration takes place].
Mr Myers says at the time of deterioration, Letby was with the nursing colleague and not with Child B.
He says the nursing colleague had said she was "keeping a particularly close eye on [Child B]", given the prongs had been dislodged and what had happened to Child A.
12:12pm
Mr Myers says the deterioration was not rapid in this case, and resuscitation was successful.
A radiograph was taken 40 minutes after the deterioration.
He says 'no-one is suggesting air' is present.
He says that is different from the radiograph image for Child G, which was taken at Arrowe Park, where the air was still there.
He says for discolouration, there was contemporaneous notes at the time.
He says the defence are not disputing these discolouration descriptions at the time.
He says none of the descriptions match that from the research paper.
12:17pm
My Myers said a doctor who had been present for Child A and Child B said what she had seen on Child B was something she had "not seen before", Mr Myers tells the court.
He says it is accepted the skin discolouration is 'striking', but what happened was 'not air embolus'.
He says it is not a particularly nice detail [to point out in comparison to other cases], but there was 'no screaming or distress' for Child B.
He says that detail of 'screaming/crying/distress' was 'worked into the theory' by medical experts later in the case.
