Evidence presented in the case of Lucy Letby showing which staff came in and out of the baby unit was wrong, the Crown Prosecution Service has admitted.

Last August, Letby was convicted of the murders of seven babies and the attempted murders of six others at the Countess of Chester Hospital.

UK:Why everyone is excited about this £59 New Blood Sugar Smartwatch
shirem
UK:Why everyone is excited about this £59 New Blood Sugar Smartwatch
Ad
A retrial earlier this year found her guilty of the attempted murder of another child, known as Baby K.

During the retrial, Nick Johnson KC, prosecuting, told the court that door swipe data, showing which nurses and doctors were entering and exiting the intensive care ward, had been “mislabelled”.

The Crown Prosecution Service told The Telegraph that the discrepancy discovered was related to one door in the neonatal intensive care unit, and that it had been corrected for the retrial.

Now Sir David Davis, the Tory MP, has written to Sarah Hammond, the chief crown prosecutor of Mersey-Cheshire CPS, asking her to “urgently make clear” what timing errors were made during the first trial and how they relate to the prosecution arguments.

In several cases in the first trial, the door swipe data was used to show that Letby was the only nurse present in the unit when babies suffered catastrophic collapses. But the CPS refused to confirm that all other door swipe data was correct during that first trial.

The trial of Letby has come under scrutiny in recent months, with several scientists and doctors questioning the statistical and medical evidence that was put before the jury.

There are concerns that not enough weight was given to levels of understaffing, poor practice and cramped conditions in the baby unit, as well as the severe prematurity of the babies.

The Royal Statistical Society is due to convene a meeting in the wake of the verdicts, stating that it was aware of “concerns” from its members and the wider community regarding the use of statistical evidence in the case.

Since the trial, it has also emerged that the ward struggled to contain infectious outbreaks that may have put the babies at risk.

I have dealt with this hospital trust who run the Countess of Chester and met people in amin at that hospital, while pursuing a case to get funding for my late farther who had wrongly been denied funding.  They are just about the most incompetent,  dishonest and lazy people who I have ever met.  They tried to hide evidence from me which I easily obtained, despite them saying they couldn't post it to me due to Covid.  The couldn't even write replies to me in understandable English, despite being white British.  When the appeal finally got as far as NHS England, they had the book thrown at them, and the chairman of the panel asked the hospital trust's rep to stay behind so he could give her a bollocking.
I am astonished that that hospital trust could actually retrieve any relevant information to convict anyone.  That hospital is a disaster in all departments.  I am sick of them.  And the car parking sucks too, and is pricey.

The Crown Prosecution Service told The Telegraph that the discrepancy discovered was related to one door in the neonatal intensive care unit, and that it had been corrected for the retrial.

Corrected by whom?  The hospital trust?  The prosecution lawyers?  Perhaps "back-fitted" would be a more appropriate way of describing it.
Maybe that hospital trust managed to uncover a real murderer.  I don't know.  Every broken clock is right twice a day.  But I believe that this Hospital Trust cannot be relied on to provide accurate records.  The whole place is chaotic.

How else could we find out what the football forumites think about the case?

Don't be like that.

There was a motive given.

She was having affair with one of the consultants (granted annonimity)
was on call, and babies took turn for worse allowing her
to call him in.



During her trial, she was quizzed about her relationship with a consultant who became her 'best friend' when she was murdering babies at work.

Letby, 33, insisted they were 'nothing more' than 'trusted' friends and denied being 'in love' with the doctor, who applied for anonymity at the start of the trial.

On one occasion Letby went to London with the doctor, and was due to go a second time before the trip was cancelled.

The prosecution claimed her infatuation with the registrar was one of her motivations for harming babies, because she knew that when of them fell seriously ill he would rush over to help.

No it's not, it's a potential cry for attention, and a motive.

He finished with her, he claims she wanted it to continue.

This was all tested in court by a jury.

No, why would I?

Far more likely the conspiracists would watch that.

I mentioned Coltrane so that you wouldn't be confused and think I was asking whether you had a box of a certain type of biscuits.
Any how, one of the things I liked most about the Cracker DVD box set is the packaging which is styled like a police card index drawer, with a little handle on the front and with typed card slotted in the front with the words:  "Case Files".  When you pull out the drawer and look down at where the cards should be, you see the 10 DVD cases.
https://www.wob.com/en-gb/film/dvd/cracker-the-complete-collection/5037115332639?gad_source=1&gclid=EAIaIQobChMI3vnW3az_hwMVcQQGAB1VeS1EEAQYByABEgK0qvD_BwE#DVDB004AFC4PAVG

The conspiracy theorists who believe there are evil killer nurses out there plotting to murder babies are the ones who sound crackers to me. Are the evil killer nurses in the room with you now?

She'll get another 20 years for that once shes found guilty of downing the yacht ^