Why Lucy Letby Is Innocent: Her Lawyer Tells Me All

0:00You're a pro at running your life, at committing to your workout, at showing up every day, at Bombas War Pros 2. Pros at Making Socks. Our Sportis Orban has specialized socks for whatever sport you're committed to. Running, hiking, golf, Pilates, and so much more. Mabes sweat-wicking yarns, blister-fighting details, and targeted art support. Bombas Sport is pro-level socks from the pros of socks. For another pro, you go to bombas.com slash audio and use code audio for 20% off your first purchase. That's bombas.com and use code audio. Hi, it's Brook to Vard host of Naked Beauty, and I want to talk about how I upgrade my hosting experience. There's a moment just before guests arrive when my home stops feeling like a series of rooms and it becomes an atmosphere. The light settles the air shifts, and then the beautiful scent of Jasmine Rosenfig fill the air. It feels warm and considered. That's what Pura does. It turns fragrance into environment. A collection of beautiful, clean fragrances, all controlled from your phone. Choose your sense of place at Pura.com. This message is brought to you by today's sponsor, Walden University,

1:01set a course for change. Now is the time to make a real change. In your life, career, and community. At Walden University, we give you the support and flexibility to get the W. Walden's online programs are designed for working professionals like you. You'll gain hands-on skills to take on real-world challenges and succeed. Your future is waiting and Walden is here to help you achieve it. Take the first step to make your impact. Visit WaldenU.edu. Walden University, set a course for change. Certified to operate by chef. Now Lucy Letby was a nurse convicted of murdering seven babies and attempting to murder seven. More of the countess of Chester Hospital, this was 2015 and 2016, when these crimes were said to have taken place. Well, look, to say the least, there is mounting evidence that a conviction is not safe. On a personal level, I should say I personally do not believe she's guilty of those crimes. People may have seen, I've posted about this several times and I just think the evidence

2:05used to convict her is just completely unsafe. Now, there has been a mounting legal campaign backed by really very big, big, big top experts, which has really gone into the weeds of the evidence and really cast the most enormous question marks. A whole range of people now have come out, obviously, who believe that she isn't guilty of what she was convicted of doing, which is, you know, we're talking here about murdering babies. Just the most heinous potential crime you can think of really, for which she is being sent to prison for the rest of her life. I mean, this is what we're talking about here. Talking about a, you know, miscarriage of justice, it doesn't doesn't get bigger than that, does it? Now, there is this week a report which is undertaken by Lady Justice, Justice Thurwall. Now, the issue with this report is it's based on making recommendations

3:09on the basis of Lucy Letby being guilty of those crimes and the processes that therefore need to be changed to make sure something like that doesn't happen again. Well, you can see the problem with that if indeed she is not guilty of the crimes which she has been convicted of. There's a big legal process taking place. I'm really delighted to be joined by Lucy Letby's lawyer, Mark Middollard, who has been doing a absolutely astonishing legal campaign over the last few years. Firstly, Mark, it's great to see how you did. Very well, thank you. All good. Hard work. Yes, I can't, I can only imagine. Let's just start. I mean, actually now, I mean, it's now been, it's been a long time and she's been in prison for a long time. Yes. Just before we just talk about the report and also just in terms of, because there'll be people watching this who won't know or might think Lucy Letby's actually guilty. Where do you think

4:10what are in terms of, where do you think you've come to? Do you think now you've got to apply where that's actually quite a critical mass and actually, you know, because you've had politicians, you know, including people who in government, government former government ministers have come out and said that they don't believe she's guilty. Do you think you get, is getting to the point where you think there's a kind of critical mass behind this legal campaign? Yeah. I mean, there's two hurdles that we've got to overcome to overturn the conviction. The first, getting it back into the Court of Appeal, you can only go to the Court of Appeal once. Once you've been there, you have to then go to what's called the Criminal Cases Review Commission and you have to persuade them to send it back to the Court of Appeal. And historically, that's been really difficult to do is we've found out with the Mount Canson case, you may remember a massive miscarriage of justice and there was a review into the CCRC and its management structure and as a consequence of that, they've got a new leadership and a new approach. And I know they've

5:13been taking what I've been putting into the CCRC over the last two years, very seriously, and they're working hard, but it takes a long time. I've got cases with the CCRC now which are in the year eight. So it does take a long time. It depends upon the amount of resources that's put into it. But as I say, they are taking this matter seriously. They're working on it. And your right from a critical mass point of view is come to a stage now where I'm almost reluctant to put fresh reports into the CCRC because each time I do, it delays things wherever. And I think there's enough now, certainly by far there's enough to say this needs to go back to the Court of Appeal. What is the timeframe, do you think? Because you said that you're talking about year eight. I mean, that really is, I mean, it's been a long time as it is. But what time the timeframe do you think it is until does the potential for this to be heard in court again? I'm hoping we've been the next six months that we're going to hear something.

6:19The thing about the CCRC is they don't give a running commentary. They don't let you know where they are, what they're considering, what they're prioritising, what their time table is, what they're thinking shouldn't be referred back. They don't until, I mean, the first time we were here is when I get an email in my inbox that says see attached. And you open up the attention, it says wait for the next email when the password is going to be so you've got this rate for about two minutes. Then you put your password in, then you find out whether or not they're referring it. And so I will be the first to know. And each day I hope that there's going to be any amount of my inbox. But as you write you say, we've reached a point now where it's really what more can one do to prove one's innocence? I'm going to talk about that. Yeah, we're going to talk about it because it really is astonishing the sort of evidence and the experts, and we're talking

7:21preeminent experts here. And just before we talk about that though, so look, there's this report, Lady Justice Thurwell and she's got this detailed inquiry. Just tell us what the remit is and what you expect to be in the report. So the report's been released tomorrow. It's been shown to the press and the core participants, I mean, the main part is involved in the inquiry. Tomorrow morning, I think they go into a locked room and they will be able to read it. I'm not invited. I don't know what's going to be in that report. But having followed the inquiry as I have them for the last couple of years, you know where the inquiry is going. Pause there for a moment. This inquiry was set up under the previous government, so under the Conservative government. I mean, Michi, soon that was prime minister at the time. And I understand from cabinet, when it was discussed

8:23about setting up this inquiry, Stephen Barkley, Stephen Barkley, who was the second-to-state for health, set up the inquiry that there were some in cabinet that thought it was too soon that we needed to rate, rate. But he went ahead and set up this inquiry in any event. Under the terms of reference, she and I paraphrase, in many terms of reference, she has been convicted how was she allowed in this hospital to do what she's been convicted of. So it's an innocent, that's the remit of the inquiry. Immediately when I was instructed within weeks of the inquiry being set up, I made an application for Lucid to be part of core participants. So being involved in the inquiry, that was refused. And over the last months, I've tried, and I've written

9:25to the inquiry to ask them to pause the publication of this report until the Court of Appealers had chance to hear the evidence. Every attempt has been refused. I've at no stage, never, has anyone in the inquiry, or indeed the quail prosecution service, said to me, what evidence do you have? What is that? Can we look at it? Can we look at these reports? None. And so the whole premise of the inquiry, I'm saying, because I've seen all this evidence and through the Court of Appeal will, is working on the wrong premise. And so everything that comes from it is in error. And all the recommendations are undermined. And I think the crucial thing to take away from this is the government can't implement any of those recommendations until, that's my, I was strongly

10:31urged and not to, until the Court of Appealer have heard this from us because if she's innocent, that everything that they do may be wrong. I mean, just on that, do you think the danger is wrong conclusions could lead to other miscarriage justice? What we both believe are miscarriage justice, you from the position of expertise, obviously, given you're the, you heard, you heard, lawyer. Is that the danger that you can end up kind of, for example, with convictions which basically push hospitals towards, you know, believing that medical staff are killing children, for example? Yes. And I think from it will come, it may even be a green light for further investigations into, to further nurses in different hospitals. They're missing the, the core point here. At the heart of this, lays a failing unit,

11:36a failing neonatal and maternity unit in a poorly resourced hospital. And the whole, the whole problem is, and as we've seen with the, with the�odon inquiry and other inquiries, this is systemic across the board in the NHS. I mean, NHS, when it comes to maternity and neonatal gown, I'm sorry to say, is sadly broken. And this and the government need to take a grip as a matter of urgency. Stop having reports, stop having inquiries, stop spending millions on these these inquiries and start focusing on getting very properly resourced maternity and neonatal health service system up and running. Until that is done, more babies will die unnecessary. And that's the other thing. Babies died when Lucy let me run, not was not there, that are I asking and demanding questions. And this inquiry doesn't answer any of them,

12:40because they're not dealing with their issues. And this is a key point, I guess, that this isn't simply about a miscarriage of justice for Lucy let me, it's that we're not addressing systemic failures, which are killing babies. And actually, because we're not focused on that, that means that more babies will potentially continue to die in significant numbers whose lives could be saved. If that's what we were focusing on, rather than the case of Lucy let me. One of the problems that, you know, that I've thought about over the last two years, you know, a lot of politicians, as you said, have come out and spoken about this and I'm publicly spoken at senior politicians and senior members of the judiciary. How many Labour MPs have spoken about this? No. Not. How many unions have spoken about this? None. There are nurses in NHS that are living under fear that the next

13:48finger that is going to be pointed is at them. There are many nurses that are scared to come forward and they're getting no support by their trade unions, none whatsoever, and none, sadly, by a Labour government that should be protected. And I'm talking about whistleblowers, not just nurses but doctors as well, that you have the institution of the health service, that is huge and is big and it comes together and it eventually throws people under the bus. Who's there to protect them? Nobody. The trade unions, you know, I was a union shopster with Nupi when I worked in A&E. Like my dad's? My dad was also in E.P. shopstead. I was the Nupi shopstead back under thatcher and I remember campaigning and working hard for all nurses, doctors,

14:54porters, everybody working in the hospital. That voice seems to have been lost now and there are many people within our health system that are simply scared. So yeah, we have a systemic problem that seems to be constantly kicked down the road by various inquiries and nothing, or certainly very limited set by our government, sadly. Let's just talk about the convictions of Lucy Letby and because obviously, that there'll be people watching who are skeptical or even might, you know, they just think she's guilty. They'll say a jury sat through a 10-month trial. That convictions returned across numerous babies, different alleged mechanisms, clinicians described highly unusual and unexplained collapses. She was there repeatedly when that took place, these deaths, which were then concluded with suspicious. The court repealed the Jetsett of First Challenges and then another jury convicted her to murder Bernie Peabee. So just to put

15:54that there in context for people, you know, that's what people are thinking. Let's just first of all then. So firstly, tell us about this international group of specialists and they've done case-by-case reviews and they actually, contrary to what I just said down, in terms of the official narrative, they came to the conclusion that none of the reviewed babies showed medical evidence of deliberate harm and actually instead they offered natural or aiatrogenic explanations. I don't actually properly know what I aiatrogenic explanations is. I have them in my notes so you can explain them. Well, let me just first of all unpack the first part of what you said in relation to jury trials and the court of appeal. Every miscarriage of justice, every, Bernie Comsick, Guilford IV, Malcolm's most recently, there was somebody released with a month ago that spent 30 years in prison that they found is now innocent. Every miscarriage of justice, a jury convicted them. Sometimes after many weeks or months of trial, they went to the court of appeal and the

16:57court of appeal upheld them. Sometimes they went backwards and forwards to the CCRC and the court of appeal more than once upheld. I mean, Bernie Comsick, I think it was twice the court of appeal upheld their convictions before it was finally over time. So, and this is the stock press release from the Grand Prosecution Service and the police. He was convicted after a jury trial. Twice, one of them was a retrial and the court of appeal of refused and leave to appeal. That is every miscarriage of justice. They're not dealing with the real issue here, which is the fresh evidence that have been put forward. So, let's talk to, first of all, about the international panel. Now, one of the things the court of appeal does not like is somebody's been convicted. You go down the road, you find another expert. Now, that expert says, oh, I disagree with the expert that was given a trial. Same type of expert, just contradicts with each other. They don't like that. It's the second bite of the cherry types and they dismiss

18:01that. So, I knew that you had to do a lot more. The simply go down the road and get another expert. You had to get the best experts at the best in the world. Now, I don't know the best in the world, but somebody contacted me who does know the best in the world and that's Professor Shulie. Professor Shulie became very important in the trial because it was his research that became the whole foundation of the concept of air embolism that was put before the trial. So, he was quite cushioned. He took the view post-conviction and post-avil appeal that really wanted to stand back and just look at all these babies. So, he, it was him that put together this international panel because he so widely recognized across the world in neonatology. He wrote the book, literally, only an autology. He knew everybody across the world that he could simply contact and say,

19:02can you look at this? But he did it properly like one would do a blind research for a study. He said, these are the notes. These are, this is what was said before Shulie, can you look at this and tell me in your view how this baby collapsed and died. So, from Japan, Japan, actually, is the leading country in the world on neonatal medicine. So, from Japan, Harvard, hospital to Harvard Medical School, to other hospitals in Canada and in Amsterdam, they started looking at it. And when he contacted me, he said, I'm going to do this. I'm going to set this up. But if any of this evidence come back, that she is guilty, that I'm going to publicly say so. I'm putting my reputation on the line by doing this. So, I'm going to publicly say,

20:03refound evidence that she did this and she's guilty. And they did. They went off and the reports came in and they were all coordinated. They put together. They're culminated in a astonishing series, I mean, nearly a thousand pages of reports. And frankly, they said, these babies were sick babies. Now, it's important when we talk about a baby, we all know what a baby is, that we're looking at neonatal units. We're looking at very vulnerable pre-birth, I mean, they're born, but if you know what I mean, they're fully developed babies, neonates. Some of them are 29, 30, 31 weeks old and very, very susceptible to infections and sadly dying. And collapses and what they call apneic, so respiratory, stop and breathing. In fact, happens quite regularly of these units.

21:07I have actually have a pro form of form that they fill in. It's commonplace that this happens. And that was what was picked up by the International Panel, not just that this was a natural collapse. But here are the reasons why the collapse was caused. And in some cases, the response that collapse was not so optimal is the term that's used. So some, some, you know, some of the responding actions by the treating clinicians may have contributed to, sadly, the death as opposed to assisting. So this is what the report produced and said, I've that went into the criminal cases commission that I didn't leave it there. There was more

22:08than I did, but that's the core of the evidence that went before the CCRC. This message is brought to you by today's sponsor, Walden University, set a course for change. Now is the time to make a real change in your life, career and community. At Walden University, we give you the support and flexibility to get the W. Walden's online programs are designed for working professionals like you. You'll gain hands-on skills to take on real-world challenges and succeed. Your future is waiting and Walden is here to help you achieve it. Take the first step to make your impact. Visit waldenu.edu. Walden University, set a course for change, certified to operate by chef. Holen Cancer is on the rise. It's the second deadliest cancer and the number one cancer killer of people under 50 in the U.S. yet it remains one of the most preventable cancers. If you're 45 or older and at average risk, it's time to talk about screening. Colorguard Plus is a non-invasive at-home collection kit that requires no prep can be completed in

23:13about 15 minutes and is 95% effective. If you've been putting it off, you're not alone, but timely screening matters. Let's talk about what isn't talked about. Talk to your provider or request Colorguard Plus online or ex-only. The question of statistics. Now, this is a famous book, Counter-Living Statistics. The whole point of statistics is you can make, what often seem very superficially convincing cases. The statistics don't lie. The statistics are what they are. In this particular case, the claim was that Lucy Letby was present at every single death of a baby, which was deemed to be suspicious. Therefore, statistically speaking, the odds of her not being responsible were very low. This also came up with an infamous case the Birkley-Dutch nurse who was convicted of killing several babies. I can't remember. It was something like, maybe you know, it was, it was, it was argued that she was present at all these

24:14deaths and therefore statistically speaking, there was like one in a billion or something chance that she, she wasn't responsible. She also lost her appeal and had a stroke which paralyzed her down one side of the body. She's having died then. And then died. But she was, she was, her conviction was overturned. But there was people often make a comparison between these two cases because of the world's statistics. So you just explained the role of statistics in all of this. So, statistics polluted the whole of the trial because the central thesis, the prosecution's case was that she was always there when a baby collapsed. And that is a statistical impromptuity with the thesis. And it was constantly said to the jury. It was constantly put out there. And it was constantly, it was formed the whole of the, of really the foundation of the prosecution's case. But when you unpack that and you, and you just simply, it's to make us say, well, well, well, is that right? Or first of all, you have to bring in a number of factors.

25:20She was one of the most experienced nurses, where I talk on the unit. She was so experienced that she was called when she was off duty because people that were there didn't know how to, to set up business equipment. So she would take calls and texts. She would work more shifts than, most other nurses because she was saving up for more games. So she could get herself a little flat, which she eventually did. But also, she'd done a lot of extra courses. She was very experienced. And as a consequence, she got the sickest babies as well. You know, years ago, I worked at Hair Field Hospital, we were Professor Yaku doing assisting. I was, I was nearly, I wasn't a doctor, but as a technician, as part of the team, assisting in pediatric transplants. And a lot of Professor Yaku's patients died. The reason why they died is because he got the sickest patients from all over

26:21the world where other doctors wouldn't operate. And so he had a higher mortality rate. And so if you're looking after the sickest babies, there's going to be a higher risk that child's going to die. It's the way it is. And it's elements like that, the shift work, but also who's selecting these babies. And what babies have been left out of this, this, this, the one that one has to really start from what we need is a specialist in medical statistics. Somebody who can, who can take this data and look at it and say, look, is this this is correct? What we want to say to the jury, is it right? And so they did it. That's exactly what they did. They, they, they, they went to one of the most senior statisticians in the country, the head of the legal department of statistics. And as, as, you know, they met with her, they gave her a lot of the information.

27:28And she came back and said, stop right there. You're going the wrong way. You're going down the wrong path. So the police haven't heard all this. They went to the crime prosecution. So they had a meeting with them. And they said, look, we've been going down. We've been instructing this, this has a decision and, you know, presumably, they must have said, well, this is what they said, this is what she's saying to us. And they were directed according to the police to drop her, the sack to get rid of her. And so they did the very thing that they should have done and then stopped it. And then they didn't disclose it to the defense that they've had meetings with her for statistician. And that there's what the statistician had said and what the prosecution had told them to do according to the police. That's what they said that had happened. And, and so

28:30what you had there, and one of the problems, of course, is if, if they've carried on with this statistical analysis, the got this statistician, it would have been very difficult for the prosecution to stand up in trial and said to the jury, what a coincidence meant was the jury. But she's gone. Now, the thing about this particular statistician, and in fact, the reason why they went to her is because she, 10, 15 years previously, had been instructed on another nurse case. A man called Ben-Gee. I represented Ben-Gee in post-conviction. So, and I instructed her as my expert. So she knew me. So certainly she, I was instructed. She made contact with me and told me. Now she's my expert. Now I've asked her to do the very thing that the police

29:34asked her to do. And she did. And she produced a report of dance now with the CCRC. Now, I think the strongest piece of evidence that the prosecution had was that insulin. And an expert witness, Professor Peter Heinmar, said that both babies, F and Del had been given exigenis insulin. They've been administered insulin. And insulin poisoning goes obviously, we know, people dive insulin poisoning. And that can't be a means that people kill people. And there were two, these two deaths took place eight months apart. So their prosecution argument, they will lightly convolve two independent poisonous. Now, it's often said that Lucy let be accepted this, that two babies would be poisoned insulin, but it wasn't her. So just explain, firstly, that element. But also, what do we now, what's the evidence now suggesting about the question of insulin? So it was always the defense case at trial that exogenous insulin had not been given. Under cross examination, under very careful and skillful cross examination,

30:40the premise was presented to her. Well, we have these experts that say that exogenous insulin has been given. And therefore, you must accept that. And I paraphrase quite a lengthy cross examination. But in essence, she, the answers were, well, if they are right, then it must have been given, well, I didn't do it. So it was an analogy to draw is of a postmaster, postmaster being told that they're taking money and being told that everything was fine with the equipment and the software and that they were responsible, and pleading guilty to it, knowing that they hadn't done something. But I mean, but being told that there was nothing wrong with the system, we later find out there's massive problems with the software and the system, and they were actually innocent. So, but the important issue is that it was never accepted,

31:44that exogenous insulin by the defence was given to to any child. Certainly, as I say, by not by Lucy or at all. Now, the whole basis of this relies upon what we call an assay test, an assay test that sort of produces a result that suggestive, suggestive of external insulin being given. The assay test itself, and it was really important that this was closely looked at. So, what I've put together are several experts in endocrinology, in medicine, in insulin, in hyperlicemia, and looked at it and said, well, is this reliable and combined, they have said, no, it's not. And it's important to say, no one expert, it's not about just one expert,

32:50it's about a combination of several experts that have come forward and said, no, this is not a reliable form. And it's interesting, this assay testing is the same one that's used in the Olympics. And if that had produced a result that said that a substance had been taken, the Olympian is entitled to a further test to clarify the position, because it's seen by the Olympic Committee as not being a reliable test to determine it whether or not a substance has been taken. And yet, in this country, you can go to prison for the rest of your life on it. And so, it's widely recognised as not being reliable, but there's another factor, an important factor. Professor Heimarsh, experience with children and young adults, not with neonates,

33:52and neonates fit into a special category. There are issues in relation to stress-in-duced hyper-insulism, which is in effect something can happen to new more babies that can produce particular blood results that were relied upon in this case to show that insulin had been given, but in fact, are naturally occurring results. And none of that was put before the jury. So, I've got the leading expert in stress-in-duced hyper-insulism as long as whereas other experts from across the road to look at this and say, no, this is wrong. And I mean, here's the importance about this. There's a direction, a legal direction that's given to the jury. I don't know if you have it on jury service. So, you're given a set of legal directions

35:00which you must comply with. This is what the judge says, you have to comply with it. Part of that direction was what they refer to as cross-admissibility direction. What does that mean? It means that if you find her guilty of one of the counts on the indictment, you can use the fact that you've found her guilty, we're going to help you and you decide whether or not she did something else. If you decide that she's a deliberate poisoner, you can use that to decide whether or not she's murdered or maybe. So, the cornerstone, and there's no criticism of this, this is how the prosecution ran their case, was prove the insulin tests were accurate, then you can use that for the rest of the indictment because that's what the jury were told. So, the how cornerstone of the prosecution case is the, are these results? I've now shown

36:05and the CCRC are now looking at, whether or not they're reliable. If they're not reliable, then it's like a domino effect for the rest of the indictment of all the other counts. Go. Because I ordered say, because of this cross-admissibility direction. This message is brought to you by today's sponsor, Walden University, set a course for change. Now is the time to make a real change in your life, career, and community. At Walden University, we give you the support and flexibility to get the W. Walden's online programs are designed for working professionals like you. You'll gain hands-on skills to take on real-world challenges and succeed. Your future is waiting and Walden is here to help you achieve it. Take the first step to make your impact. Visit WaldenU.edu. Walden University, set a course for change, certified to operate by chef. You're a pro at running your life, at committing to your workout, at showing up every day,

37:07at Bombas War Pros 2, pros at making socks. Our sportist Orban has specialized socks for whatever sport you're committed to. Running, hiking, golf, Pilates, and so much more. Mabas sweat-wicking yarns, blister-fighting details, and targeted art support. Bombas sport is pro-level socks from the pros of socks. For another pro, you go to bombas.com slash audio and use code audio for 20% off your first purchase. That's bombas.com and use code audio. Just like you mentioned, I have embellish them earlier. And there's this evidence of Dr. Shulee. And this was about how he said ordinary pala, San Ossius, and motley, we're not diagnostic of embellish them. Just to make, what was the basis of that kind of the claim about air embellish them? And also, but the point some would say is, well, look, the court of appeal heard him, and they did, obviously, didn't accept it. So what, what, just that whole question of air embellish them, and what I just said there, because that was a bit of a lot of medical issues. Yeah. That last point, the court of appeal did hear him and did accept it. They did accept his

38:12research. They accepted his evidence. They just said that there were other issues that they showed that this was air embellish them. Well, let's start from the beginning. One of the treating clinicians started researching what he saw as an unusual rash, failed a paper, a research paper, offered by Shulee, which said that this type of rash was indicative of air embellish them. And that became one of the areas of one of the issues that when it was first reported to the police, that paper was given away. It certainly appeared I think very early on in that particular conditions witness statement. By coincidence, Dr. Dary Evans, the first prosecution expert instructed by the police also came up with this

39:13theory and also came up with this paper, both independent of each other. And so this hypothesis ran throughout the trial. What happened post-conviction is that Shulee was either contacted or came forward and never to show which one happened first, but he said, hold on, you're misinterpreted my paper. That's not what I was saying in my paper. And later he protested, produced further research that was effectively saying that that rash occurred with arterial air embellish them, not venous air embellish them, but that aside, he came forward, they went to the court of appeal, not just on him, but on that same that that's now totally undermined everything that was written during the trial, but it became clear that as I say his evidence was accepted,

40:20but they were lied upon also certain conapses, afraid of to respond to resuscitation. That's the corner. One, the particular which is different from all the other cases, baby K, and this is where the argument was that a consultant, periodiatrician, said that he entered the room to find Lucy let me stand at the cop of the baby, when the oxygen saturation was dangerously low, doing nothing to intervene with the endotracheal achieved dislodged. But what's that's again, that's the kind of other than, that's the kind of, we caught them in the app basically. Yeah, yeah, but my co-incidence is the same person, the same that found his paper that did this. Yes, so he's evidence before the jury, and in fact, quite strongly relied upon the prosecution, because there was never any eyewitness evidence of doing anything wrong to any child at all. But there was this, and it was quite a powerful and

41:22emotive evidence that he gave to the jury, which was this baby had, was actually being transferred to another hospital. And so the baby had had collapsed already and he had gone in and he'd, I think he'd had to reach, he made his thoughts on the count with the tube, and he'd left the room with another nurse, with the baby, and gone to write his notes in the coward of it at a death. And then he saw that nurse walking past him, and he said, this is his evidence of the jury, in a paraphrase, a little, but he said, I was concerned, what I asked, well, who's looking off the baby? She said, Lucy, let me, and I was immediately concerned because we'd had discussions about Lucy, let me, so he was able to bring in this suspicion about Lucy, let me, oh my gosh, what's Lucy doing there? So then he gets up from the desk acting upon that suspicion and

42:28walks down into the room to find a standing-mider baby. He says the alarms were turned off, there's been a quantity of evidence, there's still a lot, the alarms were turned off, but he says the alarms were turned off and she was standing there doing nothing. So that was what the evidence was, so quite strongly emotive evidence about her standing there while a baby suffers. Now, what happened post-conviction, or as I say, let me go get a post-conviction and post trial because she was retried on that particular count in fact, so he gave this evidence twice before the jury, was that an email, emails were discovered or seen which would then disclose the defense where he gave a first account. Your first account is really important, it's a bit like you go

43:30outside the road, you see someone mugging someone and you've got it and you speak to a police officer and you said that's what happened, they're eight months later you give your statement. So it may be that your memory is faded after eight months or after a year or after two years, as it was in this case, your makeup statement, your memory is faded, that first account was quite important. The first account that he gave, which the jury never heard, was that he was sitting at the desk when Lucy shouted out from the room, can you come into the room, something's gone wrong, and he went into the room, summoned by Lucy. So she did the very thing that one would expect an experience nurse to do, there's a problem with his child, you get a medic in and that's what she did. Now that's a very different account and the jury never had from that, just never had it.

44:32A couple of final things, one, and this is again, it goes back to just about statistics again, but we already talked about this, but it's just about the claim that the death stopped when Lucy let be was removed from her position. Yeah, well, I don't know if you watched, you made a good morning Britain last week, there were parents that appeared on that show, that their baby died after this event when Lucy wasn't there, it should have been taken off. So it's not as accurate as one believes, it's led to think. That's number one, number two, it's important that people understand that there are three levels of unit, there's level one, level two, level three, level three is the most seriously sick baby, level two is poorly needs intensive care, but not the most sick, and level one is we need to just need to look after the baby before they go go back to mom,

45:38basically, it's a sort of specialist unit that can just keep an eye on the baby. This was a level two unit when Lucy was removed from the unit, it became a level one unit, so therefore didn't have the most sick babies that woman expects, therefore the mortality rate was going to drop as a natural occurrence in any event. But again, that comes back to statistics, it comes back to looking at all the medical data, it's like the spiking in a depth over a time period, if you look at other units, there are other hospitals, there are also spikes in depth, there are spikes in depth in most units, there are spikes in depth in operating theaters. The question that what they did here is that they looked for someone responsible, as opposed to looking at whether or not there are greater systemic issues if they're help service.

46:40And actually just on that, I mean, just before just conclude, I mean, what are we talking about in terms of the issues at the hospital, which could, which should have been focused on and addressed if Lucy let me, of course, as I believe, is innocent? It was an old unit, it had huge problems of sewage and pollution and pipes, in fact, that the unit's gone down, it's been baldased, doesn't exist anymore. There was not sufficient qualified staff on the unit. A lot of the staff had been let go and be made redundant, in fact, in the years leading up to, before Lucy worked there. The doctors were doing two-world rounds a week, where they should have been doing one more round or two more rounds a day. They, babies that were on the unit because other units,

47:41other hospitals were overstretched, they were taking babies that were level three babies, and not level two babies, don't even more sick. There's a question mark raised by Professor Shuley as to the competence of some of the people that were looking after the babies. I had some amount of the CCRC to decide. I'm not a certain that I've just put the experts reports into the CCRC for them to decide, but there were question marks over that as well. So a combination of everything led to the spike, but you know what, as Ockerton reports and other reports approving, you look at Nottingham, you look at Sheppard, you look at you look at even past cases in Stafford, who I think Andy Berder was Secretary of State for Health at the time, I've Stafford, if you look at all of those, all of those, you'll find that there's more than one problem on a unit that has caused that unit to fail.

48:44There, before we've on, and you may have another question, there is something that I do also want to talk about. It's, why am I doing this so perfectly? Yeah, why am I here talking to you? Most baristas are sat in their chambers at their desk, right in the rail, or typing in a way with their ice cream light on, and you don't hear anything from them, until you see them in courtyard and they're rigged. I'm doing this for one reason. When I took over, there was an established narrative of guilt that did not happen by accident. That narrative, that strong narrative that went across all the papers and all the networks was there in part because of the way that the police had interacted with the press, with giving material to the press, both through the trial

49:45or before the trial, but also having press conferences on the eve of the trial, and having another press conference. So let's get us right. This is the police sitting on a table, on a panel, talking to members of the media, and then from what we understand, getting them to sign NDAs before they left the room, and telling them and briefing them about the case before she's convicted. Why is that being allowed to happen? How is that allowed to be happening? You have then videos and corporate videos taken place after the English and by the police, about the name. You have a Netflix program that has information in it that was not even disclosed to the prosecution, specifically talking about the body-worn footage of her arrest.

50:45Now, how is that allowed to happen? Then you have me taking over, looking at this and knowing me, a negative publicity, and I'm pretty much being on my own, trying to turn it around. So yes, I've been out there in the public, and I've been talking about this, and I've been giving interviews, because I think the public need to understand that something has gone seriously wrong. I want more things on this, so if we are referred back to the court of appeal, I want the whole of the appeal to be run live. They do it in the Supreme Court. We have the sentences now that you often see, with the sentence in comments going on. I want the whole appeal to be done. So the public can watch everything and hear the new evidence and listen to the new evidence.

51:47That of course is a matter for the Ministry of Justice, not me. Very lastly, I hope you don't mind me asking, how is Lucy, let me do it? She is totally focused on proving that she's innocent. I don't know if you remember this, but it was the retrial. It was the last thing, it was last time anyone publicly saw Lucy, was when she was being led away from the dock, and she shouted out to the court, I am innocent. And she is innocent, and that's what she's focused on, and she's focused on trying to overturn this conviction, and that takes up all of her time and all of her day. She has all the reports. I don't do anything about taking instructions from my late life first. She has all the reports,

52:48and she sees them, and she's read them, and she's got them. And she's 37 years old now. She's sentenced to dying in prison. This is her only chance. This is her only chance. If she doesn't succeed here, if she doesn't prove that these convictions, and it's a test that the Columbia have unsafe, that's it for her. She'll never be released. Well, the stakes couldn't be higher, and obviously, given to those of us who believed that she's not guilty of what she was convicted of, this is a terrible miscarriage justice for her, but obviously, it also has much, much wider implications, and it has implications, of course, for our natural health service, and how we should be focused on having an NHS, which, for one thing,

53:49is a place which allows babies to be delivered safely, and to be protected and locked after. And we're not dealing with that if we're instead in a better situation where a nurse has been scapegoated to the systemic failures of that national health service, and that will mean other babies will die unnecessarily. So this is not just about, of course, Lucy Letby, it's about saving babies and making sure we have an NHS that actually is a resource to work with. So for those watching, please share, press like, subscribe, share the video, leave your comments. I would love to hear people's thoughts about this, but Mark, honestly, thank you so much. That was absolutely fascinating and obviously good luck with the legal challenge to come. Thank you very much. Holon Cancer is on the rise. It's the second deadliest cancer, and the number one cancer killer of people under 50 in the US, yet it remains one of the most preventable cancers. If you're 45 or older, and at average risk, it's time to talk about screening.

54:50Hologard Plus is a non-invasive, at-home collection kit that requires no prep can be completed in about 15 minutes and is 95% effective. If you've been putting it off, you're not alone, but timely screening matters. Let's talk about what isn't talked about. Talk to your provider or request Hologard Plus online, our ex-only. Hi, it's Brook to Vard host of Naked Beauty, and I want to talk about how I upgrade my hosting experience. There's a moment just before guests arrive when my home stops feeling like a series of rooms and it becomes an atmosphere. The light settles the airships, and then the beautiful scent of Jasmine Rosenfig fill the air. It feels warm and considered. That's what Pira does. It turns fragrance into environment. A collection of beautiful, clean fragrances, all controlled from your phone, choose your sense of place at Pira.com. You've probably been putting off your will or trust for years. Not because you don't care. Because hourly rates and a visit to an attorney's office haven't made it any easier. Legal Zoom changed that. Start your will or trust online today with an independent attorney

55:54available to help if you want one without the hourly rates. When you need a legal hand, visit Legal Zoom. Legal Zoom provides access to independent attorneys and sell service tools. Legal Zoom is not a law firm, it does not provide legal advice.