GUILTY UK - Nurse Lucy Letby, murder of babies, 7 Guilty of murder verdicts; 8 Guilty of attempted murder; 2 Not Guilty of attempted; 5 hung re attempted #38

[Parker Knoll]

The Guardian are YET again trying to muddy the waters with this disgraceful hit piece.
Do you not think Ben Myers would have been all over this at trial ?
He took voluntary erasure - unsurprisingly as he was in his 70s after all.
It’s noise from her desperate PR and “ supporters “

 

[Sweeper2000]

How can people not be troubled by the fact that one of the prosecution's key witnesses was himself under investigation for harming patients? Yet, the jury was never informed that it was advised nor were they informed that the tribunal had concluded that Hindmarsh's ability to serve as an expert witness was compromised by the allegations against him. That's a problem.

Letby had horrible legal representation, and I don't know what to think of the poor work they did. I find it baffling. Almost as baffling as a hospital that allowing numerous babies to be murdered at their facility by an individual they employ but believe to be a killer.

I know nothing about what you say about hindmarsh so cant comment. Post with links if you would. I must assume the court found it not relevant though or perhaps not quite that way if you get my drift.

On her legal representation i genuinely think the best possible was done for her and that says something by itself.

It was also the case that she was able to carry on precisely because it was not a hospital or a singular entity that was in charge, it was as all broader organisations are which is subsets of individuals and groups in this case the "management" vs the "doctors". There are always power systems at play, very unfortunately in this case one more powerful one that enabled letby.

 

[WaneLyrical]

Why would the prosecution take the chance though? It’s the most important case of their careers, the worst modern day serial killer of children in this country.

Why would they risk the entire trial by using: a man whose judgment was criticised by another judge; a woman with dozens of conduct complaints; a man whose expert testimony helped convict Angela Cannings; and a Great Ormond Street expert who was actually under restriction by the GMC.

Surely if the medical evidence against Letby is sound, it would have been easy for them to find less controversial experts?

 

[Sweeper2000]

Nobody is perfect its true. One thing against dr evans isnt substantial. Dr bohin was pretty damn close to perfect and had the full backing and support of her practice which does mean she was doing a good job and probably thst the complaints were unsubstantiated, roy meadows is a more nuanced thing in that his work hasnt been discredited but it was new learnings in science and medicine meaning its incomplete and thus when applied to something like law and medicine all the things not known have to be learned. Its like "meadows law" its applying concrete totality to something that isnt numeric in nature in essence a totalitarian answer applied to incomplete subjects like cause and effect in orher words "meadows law" isnt a law at all,just like chaotic war and a often less clear justice system in that mistakes will happen. And come on a gt ormond street doctor? To even get there you have to be of quite a serious level of proficiency.

 

[May72031]

How can people not be troubled by the fact that one of the prosecution's key witnesses was himself under investigation for harming patients?

Do you know what the investigation was about?

 

[Jules2021]

It's comments like this that suggests a retrial is in order.


The most notable revelation comes not from the police, but from one of the Chester hospital consultants, Dr John Gibbs.

“I live with two guilts,” he says. “Guilt that we let the babies down, and tiny, tiny, tiny guilt: did we get the wrong person? You know, just in case: a miscarriage of justice. I don’t think there was a miscarriage of justice, but you worry that no one actually saw her do it.”

Lucy Letby documentary reveals first admission of ‘tiny’ doubt from doctors who accused her

Netflix film revisits evidence that led to Letby’s conviction and hears from expert who says his research was misused

www.theguardian.com

He's still saying there was a serial killer though isn't he? So if you're using that comment as some sort of "gotcha" you'd have to acknowledge he still thinks all the evidence points towards deliberate harm not just poor care. I expect he has to wrestle with whether it's Lucy or not because she's been sent down for life. When you look at all the evidence it can ONLY be her, and if it was someone else we'd know by now because they wouldn't stop killing and there wouldn't be just one death in 7 years since she was removed. I'm disappointed he's bought into the whole "no one saw her do it" though, it's such a nonsensical argument.

JMO

 

[Charlot123]

None of them collapsed and died for those reasons though, did they.th
I don't think a baby has ever deteriorated because a consultant hadn't seen them that day. Consultants don't see every baby on a neonatal unit you know.

Yes, but that is for ICU babies. Consultants don't see other babies unless they have problems.

Color me confused…

 

[joltz]

If you think this is going anywhere other than court, you’re living in cuckoo land.

The real question is whether the CPS will re-try her at all.

You keep claiming this. You honestly don't have a clue. We already know you are heavily biased towards Letby because you are nourodivergent and say she is. You view every one of her behaviours through this lense and can see no wrong in anything she has done. You have blinkers on. You don't have any impartiality whatsoever.

Letby is not going back to court because there isn't any new evidence but you've got to the point where apparently CPS might not retry. I think you need to have a little rethink about this one.

Go have a look over Colin Norris recent appeal verdict. X this by 10 for Letby. Absolutely not happening. Letby also has 15 whole life orders. It was unprecedented. They are not going anywhere. McDonald has been expert shopping for a long time (CCRC doesn't like this) they have PR firm working for them.

The fact remains that every piece of evidence used to convict Letby still stands. Nothing has changed. Try as they might to discredit it, nothing sticks. It's easy to see the tactics they are employing

JMO

JMO

 

[katydid23]

Those cases were literally described as “unexpected collapse or death”. You are spreading misinformation at this point.

They were labeled that way by a police officer---not by a medical doctor.

So the only ones spreading misinformation are the ones trying to insist that the original list of collapses was based upon medical criteria. THEY WERE NOT.

And that is why they were given to medical experts to discern which ones had medical explanations and which ones didn't.

 

[katydid23]

The Sun has published a 40 minute lecture by Shoo Lee, where he clearly explains how skin discolouration in air embolism works, what’s been misrepresented, and answers all the utter nonsense raised about his work.

He explains the babies in this case were not stable, they were very clearly getting worse, it wasn’t handled properly and resulted in circulatory collapse. He’s looked at everything, and alongside the other actual experts they are unanimous.

This is a man who has witnessed so many baby deaths that he’s been present for 6 air emboli himself. It’s scandalous that people so determined to have Letby as a serial killer are calling this man a charlatan.

Has the Sun published the replies by the medical experts, explaining why they believe Prof Lee is mistaken?

 

[katydid23]

Dear Katy:

I posted the following in post 2,820.

Prosecutor Nick Johnson KC explicitly founded his claim on statistics as he opened the Crown’s case with:

Nurse Lucy Letby poisoned babies with insulin, trial told​

Lucy Letby is described as a "constant malevolent presence" at the opening of her murder trial.

www.bbc.co.uk

Prior to January 2015, the statistics for the mortality of babies in the neo-natal unit at the Countess of Chester were comparable to other like units. However, over the next 18 months or so, there was a significant rise in the number of babies who were dying and in the number of serious catastrophic collapses. And these rises were noticed by the consultants working at the Countess of Chester and they searched for a cause. “Having searched for a cause, which they were unable to find, the consultants noticed that the inexplicable collapses and deaths did have one common denominator. The presence of one of the neonatal nurses and that nurse was Lucy Letby.

The above is the opening statement from the prosecution. In that opening statement, essentially Johnson/the prosecution were saying this: whatever else you hear in this case, it pales into insignificance when compared with the shift chart, what matters most is that Letby was on duty at all of the serious incidents in this chart and it simply cannot be a coincidence; it means that whatever else you hear, Letby is guilty given that she is the only person on duty at all of these incidents.

A cynic would suggest that Johnson/the prosecution understood that the medical evidence would be difficult to understand for a jury constituting your average man and woman on the street and therefore wouldn't be convincing, but in the event you present a chart claiming that only one person was present when all of the babies died, well, that's a lot more powerful and convincing isn't it. Particularly when the jury did not hear the evolution of the chart and expert statisticians who termed it scientifically worthless due to the chart's methodology.

Dear Jimmy,

Prosecutor Nick Johnson KC was given 4 years of discovery from the investigation by Cheshire Constabulary into the deaths of 17 newborn babies @ Countess of Chester Hospital.

Hospital executives had contacted police around mid-2017 after internal reviews failed to resolve the issues, with doctors pushing for external involvement. The inquiry examined 17 deaths and 15 non-fatal collapses between March 2015 and July 2016 at the
C of CH.

The investigation involved detailed forensic reviews, medical expert consultations, examination of hospital records, shift patterns, and evidence like Letby's handwritten notes, digital searches, and physical items from her home.

It was described as a "lengthy" and "complex" probe due to the medical nature of the evidence and the need to rule out natural causes or hospital failings.

So Nick Johnson had two years to delve into this massive document dump in order to decide if this defendant should go to trial.

After studying all of the evidence he decided to take on the case in order to bring justice for these surviving family members.

Everything he stated in his opening was correct. It was not based upon 'statistics.' It was based upon the true circumstances and facts of the case. There were more deaths in that short span of time than usual. And the defendant was on duty during the incidents she was charged with.

He has nothing to apologise for.

 

[katydid23]

The problem is that you keep repeating this like you know, like you know everything, and the opinions of people far more qualified than you do not matter.

There are some well qualified people who do not agree with the prosecution's case. 'Needs a retrial.

What you and I think, as non qualified medical people, is immaterial.

Actually, she does work with newborn hospital patients so she is qualified to state her educated opinion. IMO

 

[joltz]

Why would the prosecution take the chance though? It’s the most important case of their careers, the worst modern day serial killer of children in this country.

Why would they risk the entire trial by using: a man whose judgment was criticised by another judge; a woman with dozens of conduct complaints; a man whose expert testimony helped convict Angela Cannings; and a Great Ormond Street expert who was actually under restriction by the GMC.

Surely if the medical evidence against Letby is sound, it would have been easy for them to find less controversial experts?

The experts weren't controversial, the majority of it has come from team Letby trying to discredit them. I'm sure any expert working for decades will have people who do not like them, cases which have upset certain people because they haven't gone their way, and cases mired in controversy. You can't please everybody. Every case that ends up in court has two sides. One side will always be unhappy. People who know Letby is guilty, are not currently looking for things to try and discredit the evidence and the people involved. They don't need to.

The fact is that Letbys defense with the help of a PR firm, are actively trying to discredit these people. They take turns.
It's prof Hindmarsh' turn now. Must be really annoying for them that the insulin evidence is not going anywhere. They have already tried that and came away from it looking silly. The panorama doc showed this best. Instead, the go for the man who said it.
Whos next? Anna Milan, clinical biochemist? I heard she doesn't scan her shopping bags at the self service.
It's a classic PR move.

 

[katydid23]

It's comments like this that suggests a retrial is in order.


The most notable revelation comes not from the police, but from one of the Chester hospital consultants, Dr John Gibbs.

“I live with two guilts,” he says. “Guilt that we let the babies down, and tiny, tiny, tiny guilt: did we get the wrong person? You know, just in case: a miscarriage of justice. I don’t think there was a miscarriage of justice, but you worry that no one actually saw her do it.”

Lucy Letby documentary reveals first admission of ‘tiny’ doubt from doctors who accused her

Netflix film revisits evidence that led to Letby’s conviction and hears from expert who says his research was misused

www.theguardian.com

I disagree. He qualified his uncertainty as being 'tiny tiny tiny ' because no one actually 'saw her' kill any babies. That makes sense.

The problem is, we cannot use that excuse---no one saw her do it' ---because the method of attack was one which never would be seen by anyone.

If one expected to see someone before giving them a guilty verdict, the killer could carry on for years and never be convicted.

I think that was an honest concern but that is how these kinds of cases play out. There is always a tiny tiny tiny bit of doubt. Beyond a reasonable doubt does not mean there is absolutely not a tiny tiny tiny bit of concern. IMO

 

[katydid23]

The experts weren't controversial, the majority of it has come from team Letby trying to discredit them. I'm sure any expert working for decades will have people who do not like them, cases which have upset certain people because they haven't gone their way, and cases mired in controversy. You can't please everybody. Every case that ends up in court has two sides. One side will always be unhappy. People who know Letby is guilty, are not currently looking for things to try and discredit the evidence and the people involved. They don't need to.

The fact is that Letbys defense with the help of a PR firm, are actively trying to discredit these people. They take turns.
It's prof Hindmarsh' turn now. Must be really annoying for them that the insulin evidence is not going anywhere. They have already tried that and came away from it looking silly. The panorama doc showed this best. Instead, the go for the man who said it.
Whos next? Anna Milan, clinical biochemist? I heard she doesn't scan her shopping bags at the self service.
It's a classic PR move.

Exactly. A PR team could do a deep dive on Lee's experts and very similar findings would pop up. That's easy to do if someone wants to be nasty and create scandal. IMO

 

[Charlot123]

Some thoughts about the case.

If we are to believe everything officially published, the suspicions about Lucy Letby’s involvement has been born in Dr. Breary’s head in 2015. So, with this in mind: in 2015, the first internal review by Dr. Breary and Erin Powell classifies extra deaths "as medication errors."

Then, in February 2016, Care Quality inspection Commission comes to NICU. It is not related to deaths or Lucy. Totally different managerial issues are discussed during the inspection, but the commission is NOT informed of increased mortality rate.

Dr. Breary now says that he already had suspicions about Lucy. The shift rota, etc. This inspection should be a great opportunity to ask an external observer to glance at the situation. (Dr. Breary always stated that his goal was protecting the babies). But he doesn't grab at the chance. The Commission departs praising the “positive” atmosphere on the unit (the future events indicates that the atmosphere is short of toxic, but it is strictly MOO).

In June 2016 Dr. Breary asks that Lucy is removed from the unit. He is told by the management that she is safe to work. At this time, we see a huge rift forming between Drs. Breary and Jayaram on one side and the nursing management and the executives of the trust, on the other.

In contrast to "heroic" drs. Breary and Jayaram later statements, the trust executives did act. They: 1) commissioned an external review (by the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health); 2) took Lucy Letby off the unit in the end of June; 3) reduced cot capacity increased gestational‑age threshold for admissions to 32 weeks. So, the unit was downgraded by a level.

The management did everything right! They had high mortality, staffing and infections issues in NICU, plus, anxious doctors suspecting the nurse of killing babies. They removed the nurse, unloaded and downgraded the unit and asked for an external review. They didn't go to the police, but neither did Drs. B and J! (I think no one probably had facts for the police.)

However: from this moment, there is no chance to compare “deaths on the unit when Lucy was there” with “deaths on the unit when Lucy was not there”. One can not compare the performance of Level II and Level III units. So whoever posts “but the deaths went down when Lucy was removed” is essentially comparing “Apples + Lucy” with “Oranges - Lucy”. It is illogical.

In September, the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health review started. In October report “found no definitive explanation for the increased mortality rate but identified inadequate staffing and senior cover”.

Bingo! If the review found "inadequate senior cover" during the time of excessive deaths, that:

1) could be an additional factor contributing into the NICU deaths.

2) Also, these senior doctors whose absence was noted in the review could not have a valid opinion about Lucy Letby. They simply were not on the unit enough to see with their own eyes what was going on.

3) It won't hurt to check how often were the senior doctors present on the unit at night. Lucy was working night shifts.

Besides, the Review report described concerns about Lucy Letby as "subjective and unsupported by evidence".

So the external review, essentially, said that it was not Lucy Letby's involvement.

Then Lucy complains, is apologized to by the CEO, is supposed to return back to the unit in April 2017. Before her return, Breary and Jayaram go to the police. The police gets involved, and operation Hummingbird starts.

Till this moment, I was under the impression that Dr. Breary and Dr. Jayaram, too, have no facts to use for the police, but, shall we say, appear superstitious?

But here is where my true concern starts. And any regular person should have a concern, too.

In May of 2017, Dr. Dewi Evans, a professional trial expert, approaches the National Crime Agency to volunteer his services. (Shouldn't the investigation be secretive? Dr. Evans surely had his ear to a very big grapewine). And he joins the operation on the side of the accusers.

In fact, Dr. Evans' involvement already contradicts later statement of officer Paul Hughes that initially LE also considered "a range of natural and clinical explanations". No way. They didn't bring an expert in neonatology like Dr. Shoo Lee. The Cheshire police brought in a trial guy for their initial investigation as early as in May of 2017.

Dr. Evans was well-known to represent the prosecution in court. He later prided himself on losing only one court case. (It raised the concern that his clinical judgment was less justice-geared, and more prosecution-geared, but it is not that relevant). What is relevant is that a retired pediatrician, Dr. Dewy Evans, making his money as the prosecution expert, is brought in to consult on operation Hummingbird in May of 2017.

The two doctors accuse a nurse. Their right. But it is the investigative step, when the Chester police has to be: 1) totally unprejudiced and 2) very quiet because it is "operative" work

Instead,

- the police somehow announces the fact of investigation to Dr. Evans’s

and

- delegates the review of the case, in its nascent form, to a known expert for the prosecution.

We are not in a "guilty or innocent" phase yet.

Would anyone, personally, want their investigation to be held, from the very beginning, by the expert for the prosecution?

Give or take, i see some huge problem here.
From this moment, it is predictable what turn the investigation will take.

ETA: and not that Lucy's barrister Ben Myers did not fight against it. He tried to remove Dr. Evans' evidence, but Judge Goss refused to. When you try to strike out evidence for Evan's "failure to act with the independence, impartiality and objectivity required of such a witness", but Judge Goss deems it "reliable", what's there to do?

Bid to exclude evidence of prosecution medical expert was refused by judge

Retired consultant paediatrician Dewi Evans was tasked by police to look at a series of collapses on the Countess of Chester Hospital’s neonatal ward.

web.archive.org

It is unsafe conviction, IMO.

Sorry for the long post.

 

[joltz]

How can people not be troubled by the fact that one of the prosecution's key witnesses was himself under investigation for harming patients? Yet, the jury was never informed that it was advised nor were they informed that the tribunal had concluded that Hindmarsh's ability to serve as an expert witness was compromised by the allegations against him. That's a problem.

Letby had horrible legal representation, and I don't know what to think of the poor work they did. I find it baffling. Almost as baffling as a hospital that allowing numerous babies to be murdered at their facility by an individual they employ but believe to be a killer.

Just got to keep lol'ing at some of these replies.
JMO

 

[Charlot123]

How can people not be troubled by the fact that one of the prosecution's key witnesses was himself under investigation for harming patients? Yet, the jury was never informed that it was advised nor were they informed that the tribunal had concluded that Hindmarsh's ability to serve as an expert witness was compromised by the allegations against him. That's a problem.

Letby had horrible legal representation, and I don't know what to think of the poor work they did. I find it baffling. Almost as baffling as a hospital that allowing numerous babies to be murdered at their facility by an individual they employ but believe to be a killer.

I thought that Ben Myers was not great, but in my prior post, I linked an archived article. It seems that he fought for Lucy and even made a bid to throw out all evidence of Dr. Evans. But Judge Goss declined. What can be done? Another judge warned Goss about Evans being of no use, but he paid no attention to it. I just found out that the whole Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health Report was excluded from the evidence by Judge Goss and a major part of Thirlwall report with the exculpatory facts was excluded, too. So I think that from 2017, the whole case was so strongly prosecution-inclined that at a certain point Myers might have felt demoralized.

 

[WaneLyrical]

Some thoughts about the case.

If we are to believe everything officially published, the suspicions about Lucy Letby’s involvement has been born in Dr. Breary’s head in 2015. So, with this in mind: in 2015, the first internal review by Dr. Breary and Erin Powell classifies extra deaths "as medication errors."

Then, in February 2016, Care Quality inspection Commission comes to NICU. It is not related to deaths or Lucy. Totally different managerial issues are discussed during the inspection, but the commission is NOT informed of increased mortality rate.

Dr. Breary now says that he already had suspicions about Lucy. The shift rota, etc. This inspection should be a great opportunity to ask an external observer to glance at the situation. (Dr. Breary always stated that his goal was protecting the babies). But he doesn't grab at the chance. The Commission departs praising the “positive” atmosphere on the unit (the future events indicates that the atmosphere is short of toxic, but it is strictly MOO).

In June 2016 Dr. Breary asks that Lucy is removed from the unit. He is told by the management that she is safe to work. At this time, we see a huge rift forming between Drs. Breary and Jayaram on one side and the nursing management and the executives of the trust, on the other.

In contrast to "heroic" drs. Breary and Jayaram later statements, the trust executives did act. They: 1) commissioned an external review (by the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health); 2) took Lucy Letby off the unit in the end of June; 3) reduced cot capacity increased gestational‑age threshold for admissions to 32 weeks. So, the unit was downgraded by a level.

The management did everything right! They had high mortality, staffing and infections issues in NICU, plus, anxious doctors suspecting the nurse of killing babies. They removed the nurse, unloaded and downgraded the unit and asked for an external review. They didn't go to the police, but neither did Drs. B and J! (I think no one probably had facts for the police.)

However: from this moment, there is no chance to compare “deaths on the unit when Lucy was there” with “deaths on the unit when Lucy was not there”. One can not compare the performance of Level II and Level III units. So whoever posts “but the deaths went down when Lucy was removed” is essentially comparing “Apples + Lucy” with “Oranges - Lucy”. It is illogical.

In September, the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health review started. In October report “found no definitive explanation for the increased mortality rate but identified inadequate staffing and senior cover”.

Bingo! If the review found "inadequate senior cover" during the time of excessive deaths, that:

1) could be an additional factor contributing into the NICU deaths.

2) Also, these senior doctors whose absence was noted in the review could not have a valid opinion about Lucy Letby. They simply were not on the unit enough to see with their own eyes what was going on.

3) It won't hurt to check how often were the senior doctors present on the unit at night. Lucy was working night shifts.

Besides, the Review report described concerns about Lucy Letby as "subjective and unsupported by evidence".

So the external review, essentially, said that it was not Lucy Letby's involvement.

Then Lucy complains, is apologized to by the CEO, is supposed to return back to the unit in April 2017. Before her return, Breary and Jayaram go to the police. The police gets involved, and operation Hummingbird starts.

Till this moment, I was under the impression that Dr. Breary and Dr. Jayaram, too, have no facts to use for the police, but, shall we say, appear superstitious?

But here is where my true concern starts. And any regular person should have a concern, too.

In May of 2017, Dr. Dewi Evans, a professional trial expert, approaches the National Crime Agency to volunteer his services. (Shouldn't the investigation be secretive? Dr. Evans surely had his ear to a very big grapewine). And he joins the operation on the side of the accusers.

In fact, Dr. Evans' involvement already contradicts later statement of officer Paul Hughes that initially LE also considered "a range of natural and clinical explanations". No way. They didn't bring an expert in neonatology like Dr. Shoo Lee. The Cheshire police brought in a trial guy for their initial investigation as early as in May of 2017.

Dr. Evans was well-known to represent the prosecution in court. He later prided himself on losing only one court case. (It raised the concern that his clinical judgment was less justice-geared, and more prosecution-geared, but it is not that relevant). What is relevant is that a retired pediatrician, Dr. Dewy Evans, making his money as the prosecution expert, is brought in to consult on operation Hummingbird in May of 2017.

The two doctors accuse a nurse. Their right. But it is the investigative step, when the Chester police has to be: 1) totally unprejudiced and 2) very quiet because it is "operative" work

Instead,

- the police somehow announces the fact of investigation to Dr. Evans’s

and

- delegates the review of the case, in its nascent form, to a known expert for the prosecution.

We are not in a "guilty or innocent" phase yet.

Would anyone, personally, want their investigation to be held, from the very beginning, by the expert for the prosecution?

Give or take, i see some huge problem here.
From this moment, it is predictable what turn the investigation will take.

ETA: and not that Lucy's barrister Ben Myers did not fight against it. He tried to remove Dr. Evans' evidence, but Judge Goss refused to. When you try to strike out evidence for Evan's "failure to act with the independence, impartiality and objectivity required of such a witness", but Judge Goss deems it "reliable", what's there to do?

Bid to exclude evidence of prosecution medical expert was refused by judge

Retired consultant paediatrician Dewi Evans was tasked by police to look at a series of collapses on the Countess of Chester Hospital’s neonatal ward.

web.archive.org

It is unsafe conviction, IMO.

Sorry for the long post.

In terms of Dewi’s involvement, you’ve missed a key thing. The press were already reporting unusual blotches on the babies and the royal college findings in May 2017, it was in the public domain. “I was a blank piece of paper” my backside.

The Guardian didn’t make reference to the blotches. Probably why documentaries are so determined to make everyone believe it was definitely the guardian article Dewi read, and not any of the other numerous articles published on the same day. They even gave us a spooky shot of him reading that day’s Guardian.

Police investigating baby deaths at Countess of Chester hospital

Cheshire police will look at deaths of 15 babies and six non-fatal incidents between 2015 and 2016 after trust contacted them

www.theguardian.com

But the skin discolouration was being reported:

https://www.itv.com/news/granada/story/2017-05-18/police-investigate-death-of-15-babies-at-countess-of-chester-hospital/

Furthermore, there had already been talks a couple of months earlier about the area’s NNUs requiring radical overhaul

Hospital probe report after death rate rise for high risk babies

Hospital ordered review into greater number of deaths than it would normally expect

www.cheshire-live.co.uk

 

[Parker Knoll]

Bearing in mind the charges Letby faced along side the sheer amount of evidence both given orally and produced for the jury Ben Myers did a very very good job for Letby.
She wasn’t convicted on every charge - she could have got even more porridge.
He had a guilty client who was abysmal in the box.
The end.