Lucy Letby's Judge EXPOSED — The Evidence The Jury Was BANNED From Seeing

Added: 2026-05-27

[00:00:00]at HMP Bronzefield where she's doing 15 whole life prison sentences for seven murders and eight attempted murders of newborn babies at the countest of Chester hospital where she worked as a neonatal nurse. Lucy Leby is apparently engendering resentment because she's basically being pampered. But the thing is Lucy Letby shouldn't even be in prison.

[00:00:23]The criminal investigation into this ex- nurse was according to David Davis MP a witch hunt and then in court all Lucy let's best defense was blocked.

[00:00:35]We did not find any murders in all cases death or injury were due to natural causes or just bad medical care.

[00:00:47]Lucy was charged with seven murders and seven attempted murders.

[00:00:52]In our opinion, the medical opinion, the medical evidence doesn't support murder in any of these babies, just natural causes and bad medical care. After these words from a world famous neonatlogist that was shared with the world in February 2025, one can't help but feel thoroughly outraged that, as I say, Lucy Letby is stuck behind bars. Then again, in defending Lucy Leppy, Ben Meer's KC wasn't just up against the prosecution.

[00:01:25]He was up against the blatantly, but yet inexplicably blinkered and obstructive Judge James Goss. There was a report from 2016 from the RCPCH, that's the Royal College of Pediatrics and Child Health, which showed that the neonatal unit at the counter such hospital was underperforming. The RCPCH made a raft of recommendations that should have been enacted and it was heavily critical of the standards obviously of the neonatal unit. However, Judge James Goss said that that report was irrelevant and on that basis he excluded it from the trial. The jury were wholly unaware of it. Renowned neonatlogist Dr. Shu Lee who comes from Canada has not only criticized Dr. Dowi Evans's use or rather misuse of his Dr. Shu Lee's 1989 paper on air embisms as a cause of death in newborns. But he's also said that the state of the neonatal unit at the counter such hospital was so dire that in his country the unit would have been shut down if not the whole hospital getting shut down. There was also another report this time from the Care Quality Commission CQC that again like the report from the RCPCH said that there were major problems with the neonatal unit at the countest of Chester. But again, Judge James Goss didn't allow that report to be used as part of Lucy Leb's defense. The jury were unaware of it.

[00:03:04]I've already mentioned that Dr. Shu Lee said that Dr. Dowi Evans misused, misqued, misrepresented his 1989 paper on air embolisms as a cause of death in newborns. In line with that, even before the trial began, Ben Meyers Casec put in a no case to answer application for the matter of deaths that were meant to have been caused by air embolisms. And of course he will have provided solid and robust reasons for applying to have a no case to answer granted. When I talk to neontologists they say that's just ridiculous. And the reasons it's ridiculous. The tubes are tiny and to inject enough to cause some sort of catastrophic result. I think a would take far too long and b almost certainly be absurd. The proposed causes and mechanisms of her murdering these babies were just implausible.

[00:04:03]And that's a very polite way of putting it.

[00:04:06]>> Nearly all but one was premature. Uh most were less than £3. One was less than 2 lb, I think, and desri described by one of the nurses as one of the tiniest babies I've ever seen. Now, that doesn't mean Lucy let me didn't harm them. does mean is they were probably at high risk of of of death. With Lucy Leby, they're alleging she used a whole load of bizarre methods, but the most damning thing to me is if you were going to use all these methods, you would have researched them. But she didn't research any of these methods. How would you expect a neonatal nurse to come up with this without leaving any evidence of researching it on the internet?

[00:04:43]Judge James Goss ignored that and allowed the case to be answered. The thing is, however, Dr. Dowi Evans isn't a neonatlogist.

[00:04:55]He's a retired pediatrician who when he involved himself in the Letby case, had been away from medical practice for a decade and was in fact no longer even registered with the GMC, General Medical Council. On grounds of all the information that I've just said, at least one person who is a neonatlogist says that the man shouldn't have gone anywhere near the trial. I would argue that the people who should be qualified to be medical expert witnesses should be people currently practicing within that particular specialtity or recently retired.

[00:05:34]Babies that are born prematurely function in a very different manner to older babies, children and grown-ups.

[00:05:44]Our specialtity is so different and it is really hugely inappropriate for non-neologists to be giving evidence.

[00:05:54]>> On the point of Dr. Evans's reliability if any as an expert medical witness understand that a very senior judge took the extraordinary step of writing to the presiding judge in the Lucy Leby case and that judge was Mr. Justice Goss alerting him of Evans's failings in a previous case. We lay people need to appreciate just how unusual it is for a judge to take one such step. Lord Justice Jackson, the judge in question, described Evans's evidence as quote worthless, unquote, saying that the man makes no effort to provide a balanced opinion and that his approach amounts to a breach of proper professional conduct.

[00:06:38]The worthless testimony of this man has, according to a number of educated parties, from Tory MP David Davis to Mark Macdonald, Lucy Leby's barrista, put an innocent person behind bars for the rest of their life.

[00:06:54]So, Judge James Goss was aware before the trial begun that there were very strong grounds for not even allowing the case against Let Be when it comes to the murders of babies supposedly by air embolisms to even be answered. But he allowed that. He was aware that Dr. Dowi Evans is a charlatan, but he still allowed the man's so-called expert testimony. And I'm sorry, but we haven't heard the end of the outrageous allowances that Judge James Goss made where Dr. Dowy Evans is concerned. When you present a case of murder in court and you're seeking to prove that the defendant is guilty, you've got to have your facts straight, which means not suddenly changing the date that the murder actually occurred. That is what happened in the case of the trial of Lucy Leppy. The date of the apparent murder of child C was changed during the trial. That change, of course, came from Dr. Dowi Evans after Let's murder convictions against baby C and two others, which sprang from Dr. Evans's testimony that Letby had murdered the three babies in question by injecting air into their stomachs. Dr. Evans changed his mind about this specific piece of testimony. And that leads me to show you a clip that I presented earlier in this video, but with a bit that follows on from it that I didn't show you, you'll soon understand why I'm showing it to you. Now, when I talk to neontologists, they say that's just ridiculous. And the reasons it's ridiculous. The tubes are tiny and to inject enough to cause some sort of catastrophic result, I think a would take far too long and b almost certainly be absurd. But also when you use a bag and mask over a baby's face when you're resuscitating them, invariably air will go into the stomach.

[00:08:48]He sent Cheshire police a new report saying that the three murders came from Let's Act of injecting air into the veins of the three victims. I don't know how we can have someone sitting in prison due to evidence which the evidence provider himself now disclaims anymore than you do.

[00:09:07]In a courtroom trial, it is normal practice for the prosecution to go first. They present the charge. They get all the testimony and present all the evidence that they have to show that the defendant is guilty and then the defense comes in and defends. So on this occasion, there were multiple charges of murder and attempted murder. So presenting all those charges and having all the testimony from witnesses and presenting all the evidence and cross-examining Lucy Letby or examining Lucy Letby all those things were bound to take ages and they of course did take ages cuz the trial lasted 9 or 10 months. The defense led by Ben Meyers had actually applied for a change to the structure of the trial because of the number of charges and because of how long then the defense would have to wait before they actually had the opportunity to defend. They asked for each charge to be dealt with one at a time. So the prosecution would for instance present the first murder charge and then the defense could come in and defend Lucy Leby against that charge before the prosecution moved on to the second murder charge. But as luck would have it, Judge James Goss refused that request. So as a result of that, I believe that the prosecution's case took about seven months to cover and the defense said in their close that the the closing speech that both the prosecution and the defense get to make at the end of the trial. That basically by the end of those seven months, the jury had already made up their mind that Letby was guilty. There was nothing the defense could have said or done to have changed their mind because they'd had a 7-month indoctrination into Lucy Leby's apparent guilt.

[00:10:58]The investigation into Lucy Leby was triggered after a meeting between Cheshire police and four doctors that worked the neonatal word at the countest of Chester. Dr. Brer, Dr. Joram, Dr. Gibbs and one other doctor who is allowed to be anonymous.

[00:11:17]The thing is Letby had had a grievance or rather she'd filed a grievance against Dr. Rar and Dr. Jaram and she'd won her grievance and those two doctors were ordered to apologize to her. So clearly that would have been an important point of evidence for Lucy showing that those doctors who got her investigated by the police were by no means impartial. They had it in for her because she brought a successful grievance against them. But you'll never guess what. Judge Goss didn't allow the grievance of Lucy Lebby to actually be mentioned in court. It was excluded.

[00:11:58]Again, the jury were kept ignorant of that very important matter. According to David Davis, all of the doctors who reported against Lucy had themselves committed very serious errors of practice that led to serious effects for the babies that they were meant to be caring for. And in at least one case, one of the errors led to the baby's death. And those doctors themselves according to Dr. Mr. Davies MP could have been why there was a spike in neonatal deaths in the countest of Chester hospital between 2015 and 2016.

[00:12:35]There are other reasons for that spike like the fact that at that period the hospital was taking in a lot more uh pregnant women who were about to give birth and then obviously enabling them to give birth and looking after their babies than they normally did. And also they were taking in a lot more premature babies and the clinical skills available on the neonatal unit at that hospital weren't good enough to care for baby babies born prematurely with all the special needs that such babies have. Ben Meyers Casey of course makes an important point of this in his closing speech and his words are of course backed up by medical experts. He reminded the jury about the gang of four. The four senior consultants, Dr. Steven Brerie, Dr. Ravi Jram, Dr. John Gibbs, and a doctor who we can't identify for legal reasons, who we've been calling Dr. B. That Lucy Letby claims conspired to blame her for the deaths and collapses to cover up failings on the neonatal unit. He insisted these doctors had not given evidence against her without motives of their own.

[00:13:44]One by one, these senior consultants have lined up in their evidence to do their bit to do down Miss Lebby. Some blatantly, some understated, but all designed, in fact, to assist this prosecution. This case is a prime opportunity to hide poor performance and bad outcomes. The evidence is clear. The unit was unusually busy in 2015 and 2016 and busy with babies that had complex needs. At the same time, there was no change in staffing levels to accommodate this. The blame for absolutely everything has been heaped on her. There was misdiagnosis of diseases in these babies. There was they were caring for babies that were probably beyond their expected ability or designated level of care. There were unsafe delays in diagnosis and treatment of acutely ill patients. There were poor skills at resuscitation and intubation. There was poor supervision of junior doctors in procedures like intubation. There were poor skills in basic medical procedures like insertion of chest tubes. There was lack of understand.

[00:14:49]>> The entire prosecution of Lucy Leby was based on the shift patterns relevant to the period where babies were unexpectedly dying and that was happening in large numbers. They said that she was on shift for every single one of the baby apparent murders and the baby collapses involved in her case and it all became a matter of statistics.

[00:15:12]However, it was ruled quite early on that statistics weren't meant to be part of the trial. However, Judge Goss then allowed the prosecution to use statistics against against Lucy Leby based on the duty roster, the the shifts that she worked when the cases of baby deaths and baby collapses involved in her case took place. The thing is the police originally they were going to use a well-known statistician, Professor Jane Hutton, to help them build their statistical case. However, she told them they were going about their statistical case the completely wrong way. So, they sacked her.

[00:15:52]On the matter of the use of expert witnesses, many of us are totally confused as to why after lining up numerous medical experts to serve as witnesses for the defense, Mr. Meyers Casey chose as his single expert witness a plumber. Before we explore the reasons for that, we should understand that Mr. Meyers had wanted to call on testimony from neonatlogist Dr. Jane Horden and from the anatlogist Dr. Mike Hall. I say call on their testimony rather than calling on them themselves since Mr. Meyers asked to read to the jury their respective reports into all the babies involved in Leby's indictments which of course said that there was no evidence of criminal activity in those indictments. Rather than having the two parties testifying in person, Judge Goss said no. Where Dr. Mike Hall in particular is concerned understand that in the field of neonatlogy the man is a very big name even now in his retirement and his reports could have been of enormous service to let quite outrageous that this man's written testimony was blocked in court but yet the testimony of the grandmothers of two of the babies involved in Leby's indictments two women who witnessed nothing was allowed to be heard Judge Goss allowed 33 minutes of questioning on the matter of handover sheets. Lucy Lebby had in her home when the police raided it 257 handover sheets and the prosecution relentlessly questioned her about those handover sheets. Can you read paragraphs 203 and 204, please?

[00:17:31]I've dealt with certain items that were taken from my house by the police in paragraphs above. I did not deliberately take any item from the hospital with the intention of keeping it. And 202 I did not deliberately retain a handover sheet from the morning of the 25th of June, 2016.

[00:17:50]What did you tell the jury this morning about the handover sheet from the 25th of June?

[00:17:55]I needed it for the next day to complete my documentation. Yes, that you deliberately kept it.

[00:18:03]Well, I'm referring here though to deliberately keeping it at my home address. Read the words for the jury.

[00:18:09]Which one? 202.

[00:18:12]I did not deliberately retain a handover sheet from the morning of the 25th of June, 2016.

[00:18:18]That's not true, is it? Were you lying there or were you lying this morning?

[00:18:25]I don't think it's a lie. I think I'm referring to the handover sheet not being at my home address for a deliberate reason. It was there for a deliberate reason. It, to use your phrase, came home with you. Yes. Are these active handover sheets? Do you understand what I mean? You're passive.

[00:18:43]They are active. Did they come home with you? Yes. The sheets have come home with me. Yes. No. You take them home, don't you?

[00:18:54]Yes. Yes. They don't come home with you.

[00:18:57]You take them home.

[00:18:59]No, they've come back in error. They were not intentionally taken. Well, this one was, wasn't it?

[00:19:06]No, it was taken home with intent on that time, but it was not left at my home address with intent.

[00:19:14]Let's deal with your addresses because when we come to look at some of these handover sheets as we will, we need to understand where you were living and when you were living there. Okay. Yes.

[00:19:27]That's the reason I'm asking the questions because what I'm going to suggest to you so you know what the objective is is that you move from property to property and you take these handover sheets with you each time.

[00:19:39]Okay? And so in due course I'll suggest when you say you didn't know you had them that's a lie. Okay.

[00:19:46]Okay. So that's the purpose.

[00:19:50]That was literally just a snapshot of the farical questioning over the matter of handover sheets. More importantly, of the 257 handover sheets that were found in Leby's possession in her home, only 21 related to the babies involved in her case, I believe that the judge again was aware of that, but just let the prosecutor Nick Johnson carry on bullying Lucy Letby about the handover sheets for as long as he did. on the point of allowing the prosecution to bully Letby over things that didn't in any way signal her liability for either murder or attempted murder. She was accused of lying about being arrested in her pajamas. And also she was questioned quite extensively over whether or not she had a shredder.

[00:20:36]And there is also a point when Nick Johnson asks her if she can remember being born. I'm giggling as I site these things cuz they're so stupid, not cuz they were funny. If I were in Lucy Leby's position, I wouldn't have found it very funny. And those matters, as I say, are not indicative of liability for either murder or attempted murder. In line with this, just supposing that Judge Goss was unaware of the true statistics to Lucy Leby's infamous Facebook searches, he would no less have been aware that a person's Facebook searches does not prove guilt of murder or attempted murder. This is the questioning that Lucy Letby was subjected to on the matter of Facebook searches when the judge possibly and the prosecution definitely knew the true details to those statistics which I'll present afterwards and which show that they just do not stand as any sort of proof that Lucy let did anyone any harm.

[00:21:38]>> You killed child E, didn't you? No. You injected him with air. No. Just as you had done with the other babies before.

[00:21:49]No. Why in the aftermath were you so obsessed with the mother of child E and F? I don't believe I was obsessed with the mother of child E and F. Can you tell us why you were searching for her continually?

[00:22:04]I often thought of child E and F. And on that subject, can we go to the child F interviews, please? at page 23. It's the third interview. Which folder is that?

[00:22:15]Sorry. It's the interviews folder one, please. You see there, you were asked in effect the same question, weren't you, that I've just asked you in a slightly different way at the top of the page.

[00:22:26]Yes. You were asked, you searched for the mother of child E and F nine times and the father of child ENF once from August to December. Yes. And two in January. You were asked why and you said to see how child F was doing. Yes. The first of those searches, if we go to the child E sequence of events please, is TL 273. Do you see that? Yes. Where was child F on Thursday the 6th of August at 1958?

[00:23:00]He was on the neonatal unit. Yes. So, was what you said to the police and to the jury true that you were looking to see how child F was collectively? Yes. This is one search. I agree this one is not, but the others were after child F left. Yes. All right.

[00:23:19]Deal with this one then. One of the 10.

[00:23:22]Why were you searching for the mother of child E and F on Thursday the 6th of August at 1958?

[00:23:30]She was on my mind and when I think of people, I often search for them.

[00:23:34]You were looking to see what reaction you had got from this grieving family, weren't you? No. Just as you were on Christmas Day. No. Of all days.

[00:23:45]Tile 306, please. Didn't you have anything better to do at 23:26 on Christmas Day than to search for the mother of child E and F?

[00:23:57]No. I often thought of Charlie and F because you had killed one and tried to kill the other, hadn't you?

[00:24:05]No, because I always thought the mother of child and F and I had a good relationship. She's not the sort of person that would make things up about you. Is she? I can't answer that. That's for her to answer.

[00:24:19]I'll move on to the parents, please. On June 25th, 2015, 2150, you search for the mother of child A and B. 1 minute later at 2151, you search for the mother of child D and for the father of child D, the parents of the baby who you don't remember.

[00:24:42]What was the connection in your mind between those three people?

[00:24:47]that they're babies that have died or been seriously unwell. On the 5th of October at 2015, a Monday at 0116, you search for the mother of child I a minute later for the father of child E and F. A minute after that, the mother of child H.

[00:25:08]What did they have in common?

[00:25:11]again. They're babies that had significant things happen to them and were on my mind all at the same time.

[00:25:18]Yes. As well as possibly other families as well. Yes. You weren't searching for them though, were you?

[00:25:25]I don't know. I haven't got the information in front of me. Why didn't you give that answer to the police?

[00:25:31]Which answer? That these were babies who had died or been seriously unwell and they were on my mind?

[00:25:39]because I couldn't recall why I'd looked at some of them. Is that a true answer?

[00:25:43]Yes. You were checking up on your victims, weren't you? No. I look at a variety of parents and people.

[00:25:52]On October 5th, child I was still a patient at the countest of Chester. So why is child I's mother in the same group as the father of child E and F and the mother of child H?

[00:26:08]I can't say that they're in a group, but they're on my mind at that time. They are in a group, aren't they? Cuz they're searched for at 116, 117, and 118.

[00:26:19]Yes, there's nothing else around that time either.

[00:26:22]But yes, they're on my mind. Not interested anybody but the children in this case. All right.

[00:26:30]You are a killer who was looking at your victims, aren't you? No.

[00:26:36]On the 5th of November, a Thursday, 2340, searching for the mother of child E and F. 2341, the mother of child G. 2344, the mother of child I How do you spell the mother of child G's name?

[00:26:58]I'm not sure right now. Come on, you've got a very good memory. How do you spell it? It's an unusual name, isn't it? Yes.

[00:27:07]Isn't it? Yes. How do you spell it?

[00:27:12]I think it's T H O I N D. No, you were reading it off a handover sheet, weren't you? No. Seven handover sheets there with the name.

[00:27:32]Yes. That's your memory refreshing document or documents, isn't it? No.

[00:27:40]What did the mother of child E and F, the mother of child G, and the mother of child I have in common?

[00:27:48]They're babies that were on my mind. Why were they all on your mind at the same time?

[00:27:56]I can't answer that. Sometimes a lot of babies and families are on my mind because you had either killed them or tried to kill them, hadn't you? No. The mother of child G and the mother of child E and death were on your mind again at 2134 and 2137 on November 14th.

[00:28:15]Any particular reason there? No. 17th of December 2246, the mother of child J.

[00:28:24]2248, the father of child J. 2327, the mother of child E and F.

[00:28:33]What's the connection?

[00:28:35]They're on my mind at that time.

[00:28:39]On December 25th, Christmas Day, you searched for the mother of child Ian F.

[00:28:46]Any particular reason that the mother of child Ian F was on your mind yet again?

[00:28:52]No, just I often thought of the mother of child and death. She was the person that caught you in the act, wasn't she?

[00:28:59]No. A good reason to remember her, isn't it? No. We had a good relationship at the time. On June 23rd, 2017, on the anniversary of their birth, you searched for the children O, P, and R. Yes.

[00:29:18]Why did you write the note to all three of the lads?

[00:29:22]I can't recall. They're triplets. So, yes, but two of them were dead. Child O and P. The third child R was still alive.

[00:29:34]Okay. I don't recall how I've directed the note to them.

[00:29:39]And now for the allimp important statistics relating to LeB's Facebook searches of which both Nick Johnson Casey and Judge James Goss the trial judge who ought to have halted any time wasting questioning were fully aware.

[00:29:52]>> Mr. Meyers accepted Lucy Letby was an avid user of Facebook who'd searched for the parents of her alleged victims days, weeks, and years after they were allegedly killed or harmed. He said that if she only searched for the parents of the babies involved in the case, it would be suggestive of a pattern. But he pointed out that she'd made more than 2,300 searches over the period covered by the charges, and only 31 of them involved parents at the center of this case. Four of the families had never been searched for at all, he said. And she'd also looked up other parents of children she'd cared for who weren't part of the case.

[00:30:31]Apparently, not having a clear memory about an event that took place seven or eight years before the point when you're questioned about the event and complaining about being arrested in one's pajamas makes a person guilty of murder.

[00:30:46]I was asking you questions specifically about what I was suggesting to you was your acceptance that at the time this in the interview your acceptance in interview that at the time child C collapsed you were in nursery 1. Do you remember that? Yes. And do you accept that you were in nursery 1 at the time child C collapsed? No. Why did you tell the police that you did accept it based on what Sophie Ellis saw and what was told to me? I took that to be accurate. I have no memory of being in the room. If you have no memory, how can you dispute?

[00:31:21]I dispute the fact that I have not agreed I was definitely in the nursery.

[00:31:25]I'll put the question a different way then. Are you disputing that you were in the room at the time child C collapsed?

[00:31:32]Yes, I have no recollection of that.

[00:31:34]Well, I'm going to suggest to you, I'm not going to do this every time because otherwise we'll be here a long time. But I'm going to suggest to you that you're ignoring the question and in due course I may suggest to the jury that the reason you're ignoring the question is because you can't answer the question.

[00:31:51]All right. So, I'll give you one more opportunity to answer it. Do you dispute that you were in the room at the time child C collapsed?

[00:32:00]Yes. Why? Because I have no memory of that. Do you remember being born? No. Do you dispute that you were born? No.

[00:32:12]And you have also deliberately misled them about the circumstances of your arrest, haven't you? No. Well, just remind us about what happened when you were arrested.

[00:32:25]What do you mean? You really don't remember?

[00:32:29]You want me to describe how I was arrested? Yes. How awful it was and why it was so awful.

[00:32:37]I've already explained that once. Yes.

[00:32:39]Well, it's a long time ago, and I'd like you to remind us, please.

[00:32:44]They knocked at my door at 6:00 in the morning, and they arrested me. And how were you dressed when you left the house?

[00:32:53]I think I had a nighty on and then a tracksuit bottom and top and trainers.

[00:32:59]Oh, but you told the jury you were taken away in your nightwear in your pajamas, I think was how you put it. Yes. You were taken away in a blue Lee Cooper leisure suit, weren't you?

[00:33:14]I don't recall exactly. I just know I had a nighty on. Do you want me to show you a video of it? No. Well, I'll ask you again.

[00:33:23]You were taken away in a blue Lee Cooper leisure suit, weren't you? Yes.

[00:33:29]>> On the 10th of June, 2019, when you answered the door, you answered in your nighty.

[00:33:36]>> No, I didn't answer the door in 2019.

[00:33:39]Oh, you've got a very clear memory of this then, haven't you? Yes, I remember this through the the arrests. Yes. When the police came face to face with you, you had a nighty on, didn't you? in 2019? Yes.

[00:33:54]>> I had my pajamas on? Yes. No. You had a nighty on? Okay. Do you want to see a video? No.

[00:34:02]Do you remember having a nighty on?

[00:34:05]I can't recall specifically which night I was in bed. Do you remember what you left the house wearing?

[00:34:13]>> Um, no. I know. I was able to get dressed and I think I took a dressing gown as well. I just >> You put your blue Lee Cooper leisure suit on again, didn't you? Yes. Then you asked them to let you put your dressing gown on over the Lee Cooper leisure suit, didn't you? Yes. So, you weren't taken away in your pajamas, were you?

[00:34:35]No. And you remember this, don't you?

[00:34:39]Yes.

[00:34:41]Why did you lie to the jury about it?

[00:34:46]I don't know. You don't know what advantage were you looking for by telling the jury that you were taken away by the police in your pajamas. What benefit was there?

[00:34:59]Because that's what happened on the first time. That was how quickly everything happened. No. No. On the first time, you were taken away in your blue Lee Cooper. Do you want to watch the video?

[00:35:13]You are a very calculating woman, aren't you, Lucy Letby? No. You tell lies deliberately, don't you? No. And the reason you tell lies is to try to get sympathy from people, isn't it? No. You try to get attention from people, don't you? No. In killing these children, you got quite a lot of attention, didn't you? I didn't kill the children. And you're getting quite a lot of attention now, aren't you?

[00:35:48]On the third arrest, you left the house in a pink or salmon pink colored gap leisure suit, didn't you?

[00:35:56]I can't recall again. I don't know. You weren't in your pajamas, were you? No.

[00:36:03]Then my SKC really did fight Lucy Leby's corner with absolutely everything he had. And nowhere do we see that more clearly than in his closing speech from which I've extracted what I see as the highlights.

[00:36:17]>> So Mr. Meyers reminded the jury that it was not up to Lucy Leppy to prove her innocence or to explain what might have happened to the babies, but he said it made no sense that this well-trained and apparently dedicated nurse had for some inexplicable reason decided to kill or try to kill children. Instead, he said the deaths and collapses more likely happened because of a baby's health or condition, >> the state of the unit, staffing pressures, failings in care, or because the unit was taking on too many babies with two high care requirements. But Mr. Meers spent the majority of his speech around three full days contradicting Mr. Johnson's assertion that the babies in the case had received good care at the countest and that there had been few shortcomings in their treatment. In fact, Mr. Meyers insisted the opposite was true.

[00:37:08]>> He took the jury through each child in turn and pointed to why he said they'd received suboptimal care and why there was not enough evidence for the jury to convict Lucy Leppy of the charges against her.

[00:37:20]>> Various medical professionals spoke out about what an excellent, caring, and committed nurse Lucy Leppy was. One of the issues was how much she wanted to care for intensive care babies. We say Miss Leppy is bound to be present when serious events unfolded because she was so flexible on a unit that was overstretched.

[00:37:38]>> And he stressed that of all the coincidences in the case, no one had seen or witnessed Lucy Leppy attack any baby.

[00:37:46]>> We have seen over and over again how the mere presence of Lucy Leppy has become the sole explanation for what happened.

[00:37:52]Sometimes without the need for any other evidence at all. One thing that's constant above all is Lucy Letby was not seen to do any of the alleged acts. It's crucial to keep that in mind. In a case where we have been asked to look at the coincidences by the prosecution, there has to be a coincidence above all others. There's a reason for that coincidence because there's no direct evidence of her doing any of the acts alleged against. And that reason, however, unwelcome in some quarters is that she did not do this. It can't keep happening like that if she did.

[00:38:26]>> Mr. Meer said she was a dedicated nurse who'd worked on the unit for years before the alleged attacks began. The only thing that changed in 2015, he said, was the number of babies being admitted to the unit and the fact they had more serious health problems.

[00:38:41]Between June 2015 and June 2016, the neonatal unit took more babies than it would usually care for and it took babies with greater care needs. You have heard that repeatedly and in that same year there was an increase in the number of deaths and type of collapses you are looking at in this trial. What did not change was Miss let be. She had been a neonatal nurse for years. That was what she was dedicated to. She cared for hundreds of babies. She did not suddenly change her behavior in 2015 and 2016.

[00:39:15]What changed was the babies cared for on the unit in terms of their numbers and needs. and we say the inability of this unit to cope. But no one is going to come here and admit that to you, are they?

[00:39:28]Between Nick Johnson Casey and Judge James Goss, Lucy Letby never stood a chance.

[00:39:36]If this video has gripped you, I recommend you to watch this one next.

[00:39:40]I'll meet you there.