jeremy: Hello and welcome to another episode of 30 Minute Crime with me, Jeremy Vine, and Mark Williams-Thomas. And Mark, what are we discussing today?

Mark: Well, this is a fascinating case. It's one that divides so many people. Lucy Letbee's conviction.

jeremy: Now I've broken this into eight headings, why she was convicted. And I'm gonna whip through them and then we can go through them a little bit more slowly. So we try and get some sense of why we've got all these doubts. So number one is insulin poisoning. Blood tests showed very high insulin in the babies shouldn't have been there. Secondly, evidence of deliberate harm. And there we get, it's a little bit sketchy in cases, but breathing tubes interfered with and air injected into the bloodstream, we're told. Thirdly, let these presence at the incidents. Fourthly, the fact that there were nursing records altered or with inaccuracies that seem to be aimed at getting her off the hook. Then the famous handwritten notes at her home where she said, killed them on purpose because I'm not good enough to care for them. Then the fact that she had retained handover sheets from her job as a nurse at her home. Then her Facebook searches and shifty behavior. And finally witness evidence from colleagues. So people saw her not asking for help or whatever we're told. So there's eight headings there. There's an awful lot there, but shall we go through them one at a time, Mark?

Mark: Yeah, let's take the first one. So, of course, this is neonatal nurse Lucy Letby. She was convicted for the murder of seven babies and the attempted murder of six others. And that relates to her work at the Countess of Chester Hospital. She is in jail, but she's obviously maintaining her evidence. Let's go through step by step those specific elements.

jeremy: Yeah, the first one I gave you was insulin poisoning and that's after they did tests on the babies that showed high insulin levels that can't have been there naturally, we're told. And then the thought is she added insulin to the intravenous fluid bags.

Mark: So this is one that obviously has a challenge in respect of it. So that's the that's the evidence that was presented by the Crown, that was accepted by the Crown and of course very easy to use a syringe and put that into the drip. So intravenously it goes into the body system. Now one of the challenges of course to those people who say Lucy Letby is not guilty is that they're saying well there was no insulin missing from the storage. So there was no overuse of insulin. So if she is applying insulin, why has the amounts not gone down? Again, there's two elements to that. One says, well, you wouldn't actually have to do an awful lot of insulin. But there was other people saying, well, no, you do have to put quite a significant amount of insulin into the body in able to do that. So there is a challenge. And of course, the position that they've adopted is that insulin was one of the causes of death. The challenge is by those those eminent people who have come forward. So we've got a bank now of 14 experts who have come forward and said that is not the cause of death.

jeremy: So the second is not insulin, but some other things that the prosecution said were done. Injecting air into the baby's bloodstream directly, deliberately overfeeding them milk, interfering with breathing tubes and insulin I've mentioned. So it's those other three as well.

Mark: Yeah, so this is one of the challenges, I think, from any criminal investigation. So by the time the police get involved and they've launched a murder investigation, they of course have to prove the murder. There's very few murder investigations that begin and then get closed down as no murder having occurred. So they are then working on the basis of proving their hypothesis. Their hypothesis is that there are a number of murders that have taken place. And in regards to that, of course, they then have to find evidence to support it. One of the aspects was insulin. but they also looked at air into the body, failing to feed properly. But the counter arguments in terms of the air is that the amount of, the significant amount of air that would have had to have gone into the body is quite significant. And in fact, were other, there would be other factors that would come into play prior to the child dying. So I think in terms of the explanations that have been given by the Crown and were accepted by the court in terms of cause of death, These 14, and I'll keep coming back to them, these 14 eminent experts have said that that isn't feasible in terms of it. And we do have to look at the quality of the experts now, the 14 experts now, and the experts that were used by the prosecution. And I have to say there is some, and I'm sure we'll talk about it shortly, but there are some serious concerns around the quality of the prosecution experts compared to the 14 experts that have been cut forward now.

jeremy: Okay, the third one I mentioned was her presence at the incidents and I must admit the day after her conviction with so much evidence being in the air, the one thing that really struck me was the staff rotor which showed that every time the baby died, Lucy Letby was there. I know there's concern about the way that was put together as well.

Mark: Yeah, let me try and simplify that because it's not quite as simple as she was there at the time all the deaths took place because actually what they ended up doing focusing is when they took out the doctors. So the chart that exists solely had the nurses on there and not the doctors. So there were particularly one doctor. In fact, he was there on almost all occasions, not all the same occasions as Lucy Letby, but other. as most of those. But you also have to look at the bigger picture because while she was there in relation to the deaths of the children that she subsequently prosecuted for, there were also a number of deaths that occurred of children that she wasn't present at. So they kind of picked the ones that they wanted to and ignored the other ones. So there wasn't a clear chart, which should actually have shown all the children that were there. But let's explain why that risk went up because In 2012, there were three baby deaths. In 2014, there were three. And then in 2015, it went up to eight. Now, why was that occurring? Well, neonatal wards, depending on what category they are, depending on the children that come to them. So a neonatal ward of a certain class will have the most vulnerable children come to them. Those that need the most care. But if your care as a hospital is poor, then you won't get the children at the most dangerous, highest risk come to you. And what happened over 2015 and 2016 is that their status had improved and therefore they were receiving children who were more vulnerable than they were a couple of years before. And therefore you are likely to have an increase in deaths because of course children who are coming to you are more at risk.

jeremy: The fourth heading is clinical records. Now this is where, again in court we were told that some nursing records had been altered and the alteration of them gave let be distance from babies who died and we then found out that they were wrong and she was there. The question there I guess is whether she did it for that purpose or whether it was just sloppy bookkeeping.

Mark: Yeah, I think the record keeping, of course, is one that number of different people have an involvement in. And sometimes those records are not made at the time, they're made a little bit later when people remember to go and complete those. I think the record keeping at the hospital was probably quite poor in many ways. There was criticism applied to her by the very nature that she had under her bed, bag fulls of handover notes. Now, one of the elements of that is, and that was considered to be a very strong circumstantial evidence. You speak to anybody who works in the medical profession, particularly in hospitals, and they will often take home their handover notes. They've written them on the scrap piece of paper and they've chucked them in their pocket and take them home. And so it's not surprising that they have them. Obviously, that's not right because there's personal data on there. But to consider that that is a fundamental element, I think it It certainly was circumstantially one that the jury probably took quite a lot of weight.

jeremy: Okay, you've dealt with the retained hospital documents, which is the sixth item, but I'll go back to five. And this again was very powerful that she wrote these weird, scrabbly handwritten notes at her home, one including the phrase, I killed them on purpose because I'm not good enough to care for them. And it was very hard for her to explain exactly why she would write that if it wasn't true.

Mark: Yeah, you see, the full understanding of this wasn't made present to the jury. So she went into some kind of counselling therapy because, of course, this was a very difficult time for her. She'd been suspended. She'd been allowed back to work. been allegations against her. The hospital itself had refused to refer the matter to the police. So there was a lot of issues going on here. she'd gone to have therapy and as part of that therapy she was told to write down her thoughts, her feelings, what was going through her head. That is exactly what she did. So she wrote in terms of, know, I've committed this, I've done this, because at that time obviously she felt that that was probably the pressure that she was under and that was being put to her. The jury weren't told that. The jury weren't given the full background properly in terms of how she came to write those notes. And I think if you take them in isolation without the proper understanding, I'm not surprised the jury found it guilty.

jeremy: Well, again, very powerful circumstantial evidence. The seventh thing is that she went on Facebook and searched for the families after the tragedy, after they lost their babies. And maybe even in a couple of cases then reached out and sent her good wishes to them, sometimes on significant dates. And the prosecutor said a professional nurse wouldn't do this.

Mark: Yeah, I think that's, you know, one's taking an assumption and go, well, do you know what? You shouldn't do that. Therefore, everybody wouldn't do that. I know there are lots of medical people who over the years, of course, have reached out, nurses are nurses because they care overwhelmingly. They have this this nurturing element of them where they actually really want to help the person. And when somebody dies in their care, a child, an adult, whatever it is. They kind of feel this need to want to be able to support the person, reach out to the person. So I get it. And I think, you there's no worse death than the death of a child. So I get it why there perhaps wants to be a position where she wants to reach out, support that person, support that family and offer their condolences. Of course, if you look at it in the light of day and you're looking at murders, you go, well, why would you do that? You know, that's obviously researching, that's looking at it in the same way they considered the notes that she took home were the trophies of her killings. The problem is, is if you are looking for something, if you're looking to prove something, which is what the police were looking to prove as a murder, you can see the worst in every element. If you flip that over and look at it go, well, actually, do know what? That was the caring element of her coming through. There is an explanation.

jeremy: And the last one, number eight, is the witness evidence from colleagues who essentially described her as looking shifty, looking as if she'd just done something which might have, you know, resulted in the death or harm to a baby, not being active when there was a crisis, etc., etc.

Mark: Yeah, I mean, think the there's no doubt that there was a number of colleagues, there was doctors, were individuals, consultants who'd raised concerns about her. And as a result of that, of course, that went through to senior management. They did a review. Don't forget, all of the deaths were referred to the coroner and the coroner came back and said there are no concerns in relation to these deaths at all. You know, the hospital sat with these for this. these whole situations for years before they would pass eventually the matter onto the police. And they were very clear to the doctors and consultants who'd made comments in relation to her that they had to withdraw them and they had to make sure that they didn't mention these again. So this is a hindsight thing. It's very good in hindsight to look back on it and think, actually, do you your behavior was a bit shifty, it was a bit out of order, it wasn't appropriate. We have got a considerable amount of people from the hospital have come out of course in support of her and said, look, actually, I think it's completely unfair what's happened. I think you've also got to take into context how massively understaffed this unit was as was the whole of the hospital. Her needs as well. She was wanting to save for a house. Nurses don't get paid very much money. So she was having to do as many shifts as she possibly could. which was obviously putting her on duty a lot more than the other people. There was a statistical expert who looked at this and statistics played a big part of this. You know, when you look at it and you go, you know, what is it that, how come so many have occurred? And the problem with statistics is you can make them read what you want. I mean, look at Professor Meadows. I know you're aware of that case. I mean, you know, one... two, three, you know, the definition in terms of, you know, three can't be an accident. You you get to this aspect where medical profession, which is not a direct science, you know, I deal with evidence, whereas medical evidence is is challengeable from both sides, whereas direct evidence, which is what I deal with from a policing point of view. medical evidence is is always one you have to take with real, real care. because one doctor will tell you one thing and another doctor will say something else.

jeremy: Yeah, now I don't know whether she's she's innocent or guilty. My concern is really whether there was the evidence to convict her. That's that's all we can go on. The problem is once you're convicted, you've then got to prove you're innocent, which is different from the prosecution proving you're guilty before you go to prison. You mentioned Roy Meadow. Let me just mention why I'm interested in that case. So that's a pediatrician who developed this kind of crackpot theory really about cot death. He said one is a tragedy, two is suspicious, three is murder. And he said the chance of one-cott death in your family is you put a bet on a horse in the Grand National and it wins. And it's a random horse. You haven't looked at the odds. You know nothing about it. So that's unusual, but it's good luck. If you do it two years running, that gets a bit suspicious. Three years, something. It never happens because the chances against it is one in five billion or something. Anyway, I was interested in this case because what happened with Roy Meadow was that a number of innocent mums were jailed. and they'd had tragedies in their life. and they then ended up in jail. Some of them even died as a result of a heartbreak. So they lost their kids and then they were jailed for killing them. Can you imagine anything worse? And my dad, my late father was a big sort of mathematician, a statistician. He was fascinated with this case. And the mistake that Roy Meadow made, which is such a basic error, is that actually once you, it's fine to say three cot deaths in the same family is very unlikely, that's fine. But the fact is that once you've had one, you become more likely to have a second. And if you've had two, you become even more likely to have a third. You just can't say that three is murder. not fair on anyone. You've got to find other evidence. Now, the people who pointed that out, and they very rarely get involved in these cases, are the Royal Statistical Society. And my view of this law is they're so damn serious that when they finally say something in these cases, it has to be listened to. And what they've done with the Letbe case, and it's a very rare intervention by them, is that they said that there's been a misuse of statistics. And the misuse centers on the one piece of evidence that convinced me that she was guilty, which is the day after her conviction, as I mentioned. You see, the staff wrote her, and every single baby that died, she's the only one who's on. Now, you've already said, Mark, that the doctors weren't listed there, but the second thing is, this is even more worrying because other babies died, but they're not on the list. And were they excluded because Lucy wasn't on? That's the question. And in statistics, and I know this only because I listen to these characters when they pop up the RSS, it's called drawing the target after the shooting happens. So to give you the exact analogy here, you are you're in a bar and a guy walks in with two revolvers and he goes ping ping ping ping ping and he fires all over with a blindfold on. He's got you know and then you you you go around you look at all these shots let's say 40 holes in the wall and six of the holes are in a very tight grouping and you draw a circle around that those six shots and you say that guy's the best shooter in the world because with a blindfold on he hit the target six times. Well I'm sorry that wasn't the target, you know, there were awful lot of bullets there and we just chose six and their concern was all about this issue over the rotor. So I don't know what to think. you know, everything I see in here puts both sides of it. All I know is that if this is a miscarriage of justice, it's got to be the biggest one since we had all those IRA Birmingham six, Guilford four who were locked up when they shouldn't have been. And I wonder whether our system is almost not big enough to have the thought it could be a miscarriage because will she ever get an appeal? Will those 14 experts ever have a chance to argue what they believe?

Mark: Well, I think statistically you're absolutely right. Professor Quigley has come out and said all that chart showed is that when Lucy Letby was on duty, she was on duty. It doesn't go any further than that. It just shows that. And actually what they did is there was 10 out of 23 collapses. They only took certain evidence when it was suited them. there's no doubt that chart, which was they considered to be absolutely fundamental, that chart was applied on a biased position.

jeremy: Yeah, exactly.

Mark: in order to support their case. And this is where the hypothesis of an investigation is so much so that they have to go looking for the evidence that supports their position. We've got other eminence. I mean, Professor Li, who talks in terms of the evidence. So this is Dr. Li, who's the Chinese Canadian neonatal expert.

jeremy: Shuli.

Mark: I think one of the things about the medical profession and Most of us come across them in many different guises, but I am, I'm in awe of some of these individuals. The way they can control, bring life back, support people. He is exactly the person you'd want to look after your child. He speaks with such clarity and such confidence. And this is a man who's published an awful lot of documents. Now, what he's saying very clearly is the very prosecution case used his evidence. in support of their prosecution. And here is a man who comes forward and says, I didn't know that, but now that I know they've used it, they've applied it both incorrectly and in a manner that cannot make sense.

jeremy: And this is about

Mark: very clear coming out. So you've got a...

jeremy: the air embolism, the idea that if you inject air into a body that could have killed him. And you're exactly right, this is really worrying that his paper was used, but he says it was misused.

Mark: Yeah, so there you have a straight position. Hang on a minute. So you're going to use the paper as a prosecution. You're not even going to go to the very person you use in the paper of and say to them, yes, and this is what we're going to use it for. This is our interpretation. You get somebody else to comment in respect to that. And of course, we've got Dr Evans, who's come under an awful lot of criticism in respect of this case, in terms of his position. I think there are now so many people. who are saying there is a problem. Prosecution witnesses are absolutely key. Let's look at another prosecution witness, know, Professor Hindmarch. Now, he gave evidence, but at the time he gave it evidence, he was subject to an investigation by the General Medical Council in regards to his own suitability in terms of the way he dealt with patients and the claim was that he harmed patients. Now, he dealt with that by resigning, by removing himself. the GMC. So it hasn't even gone through with full case, yet he was a fundamental prosecution witness. Absolutely shocking. mean, that in itself, when you take some of these elements in isolation, not just altogether, but in isolation, they are alone enough to say, hang on a minute, there are some serious doubts in regards to this conviction.

jeremy: It seems to me, Mark, that the the issue here is to do with what we call circumstantial evidence, as opposed to direct evidence where you see somebody hit a person or someone leaves a fingerprint on a a dagger or whatever. Here we've got circumstantial, but but the circumstantial there's a lot of it. And it's an emotional thing, but her thing saying I killed them. My God. I mean, as soon as people read that, they just thought, what a monster.

Mark: Yeah, I think you've got to take these two separate elements. You've got to deal with the circumstantial evidence in terms of her writings, what she took the notes back, that aspects. But then also you've got to look at the medical evidence. Now, the medical evidence is incredibly challengeable. I mean, let's take one case. We've got a Professor Morley in relation to baby C, who basically says, she wasn't, this child wasn't murdered. This child was so poor, so poorly. actually the hospital failed to deal with her appropriately. There was no consultant on duty for a couple of days. That child should have been seen and had some proper treatment. That didn't take place. You going back to Dr. Lee, he just talks in terms of the air, but he also says the colour change has been misinterpreted from my paper. an incredible amount. And so what happens now? Well, there are so many elements to this case which cause me concern. And we've now got 14 eminent medical experts. And if you compared the prosecution case to the current defense position, it's chalk and cheese. I mean, the 14 eminent experts that have now come forward actually kick into touch the experts that the police used. They don't even get on the playing field.

jeremy: Hmm. Well, yeah. The trouble is you it's it's like refighting a boxing match after it's over, isn't it? Because what the defense did, and I do understand this is i in a way, is that the w there's one really high-stakes move you can make as a as a defense barrister, and that is to say there's no case here. There is no case here, and therefore there is nothing for us to rebut. And my understanding of the case is that the defense thought well, Lucy Leppie spoke in the witness box, that may count in her favour, because nothing there's nothing she said. That seemed to incriminate her, although her behavior was odd, but then she'd been in custody for a while and under tremendous stress and so on. But the defense didn't really call any. In fact, they called no experts. Now, you may say, my God, are they were they like cheap barristers or were they just sort of irresponsible? Actually, it may be that they see what everyone now is talking about, which is that the prosecution didn't really have. anything concrete at all. But the trouble is that their high stakes move, which is to say, well there's nothing here, over to you, judge and jury, was a disaster. An absolute disaster. And now we've got this separate defense team who are trying to work up a new appeal case.

Mark: So that's you've touched on an absolutely fundamental part of a criminal justice system. It is for the prosecution to prove their case. OK, it is the defense. The defense don't have to prove their case. So what happens with barristers, even the most experienced casees position is, is, well, hang on a minute, there is no case. not going to. We're just going to literally be in a position to say, well, you've got to prove it. This doesn't work. It doesn't work, particularly doesn't work in high profile cases. And I would say to anybody, if you're currently facing trial, you know, and you've got a barrister saying to you, do you know what, you've, just let them prove their case. Nowadays, you have to go on the offensive. You have to be in a position, say, do you know what, if I've done nothing wrong, then I need to show that I've done nothing wrong. I need to produce the documents. I need to produce the evidence that shows it's got nothing wrong. If they had run this defense, now she'd never have been convicted. because this defense absolutely pulls apart the prosecution case. So the barristers are involved in this and they do this all the time. You you've literally got to take the offensive as a person accused. You've got to go and find your own evidence. You've got to go and put that evidence back out there. And, you know, the the team now that are on board, you know, and I've spoken to them, they are brilliant. You know, there's some brilliant individuals. The barrister is really, really good. So there is a massive, massive, but the the weight, of course, is that it is for the Crown to prove their case. And when you've got evidence such as the writings and all of that lot, you know, you are in an uphill wicket. You can't just rely on and think, do you know what, they haven't got enough to prove their case. And now, of course, we've got a position where the 14 experts are saying, look, there's so many holes in this. mean, what will give Lucy some kind of confidence? Is this acquittal of the case of Lucy de Bourke? she was jailed in 2003

jeremy: Yeah.

Mark: for killing seven patients and attempting to murder three others. And that evidence that was against her was overwhelmingly circumstantial, but it was strongly predicated on statistical evidence. so statistical evidence has this strength sometimes brought out in court. And we know that it's a murky area, you know, to rely on that evidence in its entirety.

jeremy: Yeah.

Mark: I have to say. And I think it's really important to say this because there are families out there whose children have died and they, of course, are supportive of the police prosecution and they are supportive of someone being held responsible for their child death. Now, it is more about being held responsible for their child death rather than who it is. So if the hospital failed and the failings of the hospital or other individuals in hospital, then they want people to be held to account and absolutely right. And of course, what the hospital have done and the police have done is they're holding Lucy Letby to account. Now, those murders that she's been prosecuted for, the 14 experts say none of them were murders. So therefore, if they weren't murders, were they failings within the hospital or were they just naturally these children were very, very poorly and they were highly likely to die? So my thoughts are with the families of the young babies that die, that said,

jeremy: Yeah.

Mark: If there's a miscarriage of justice, which I, for the very first time, I'm going to publicly say, I believe that Lucy Letby's case is a miscarriage of justice. If that is the situation, then we should be getting the CCRC to launch a proper appeal back to the courts. But there is a problem, of course, of the quality of the CCRC at the

jeremy: Yeah, and they they well they've got a a drubbing in the Andrew Malkinson case, who is the man convicted wrongly of rape, who it clearly you know, we th there was plenty of evidence that he had been convicted wrongly f and it took a long time to get him out and and I think they they may as a result of that want to get w onto this one quicker. But I think there's another thing that keeps coming up here as well, to do with the way the system works. And you said don't ever go with a barrister who says, we don't need to mount a defence. That's great advice, by the way. The other thing is that we seem to have expert witnesses who think they're working for the police, who think their job is not to give a balanced view, but to go in and win a conviction. And Dewey Evans, who is one of these, you know, the most important expert witness for the prosecution in the Lepbee case, had said previously, I've never lost a case. Well, I don't know why an expert would talk like that. What it's not to do with him being winning or losing a case. So there's there's a lot of concern about.

Mark: No.

jeremy: His involvement, not least that he had to commit to a trial that was going to take at least a year of his time. And if I rang up a builder to fix my house here and he said, Yeah, I'm free for the next year, I'd be very worried about hiring him for obvious reasons. I'm not even sure that we do have such a thing as an expert in baby murder, 'cause there are so few baby murders. So what one

Mark: I'd love to know how much

jeremy: I obviously unfortunate if everything zeroes in on him. But the second point, I'm just going to respond to your point about the hospital, is that the really terrifying thought here is that it's easier to say we have a serial killer than to say we've got a failing hospital. And I hate to even say that because it's such a chilling thought.

Mark: Yeah, and I think picking up on your last point, mean, the hospital was under some measures for a while because of its poor clinical service, particularly neonatal wise. And of course, we now have the Cheshire police have launched an investigation since July 2025, which initially looked at corporate manslaughter from senior management, which has now moved into further aspects of preventing the course of justice. And we've had You know, three senior managers arrested. We've had a further arrest in relation to one of those managers for pervert and of course, adjusted. So there's some serious criminal investigations into the hospital and the management within that hospital that is ongoing. And of course, we have had the police refer a number of deaths back to the Crown Prosecution Service asking for prosecution in relation to Lisa Letby for more murders. The Crown Prosecution Service have said that it doesn't meet their charging threshold. The police are disappointed in respect of that. But I think there's a bigger picture. Of course, we've now got an independent investigation being or an inquiry launched in relation to this. The inquiry is not looking in relation to whether or not Lucy Letby is guilty or not guilty. It's dealing on the presumption that she's guilty, because of course, that was a finding of the court.

jeremy: Well, that's that's a problem, isn't it, really? 'Cause that was the this is the Thurwall inquiry and it sounds almost

Mark: Yeah.

jeremy: like it's operating in a parallel world, doesn't it?

Mark: Totally. mean, think this is where that inquiry should be stayed. That inquiry should be stayed until the outcome of the CCRC and it's encumbered on the CCRC to actually get up and do its job properly. The concerns I have around this case are so significant that the hospital have basically put this blame on a young woman when there are serious failings within that hospital that have led to the death. of all of those children. Some of them will naturally have occurred, sadly, because those children were just so very poorly. Some of them have undoubtedly been occurred because of the failings of the medical care within that hospital. And as you say, it's very easy to pin it on one person. I'd love to know, I don't know if anyone's done an FO, I'd love to know how much Evans has received from the police in terms of payment for his years time at the court. I, you know, put put Dr Lee up against Dr Evans and I tell you which one I would go for. Dr Evans does not fill me with much confidence. He's never had any peer reviewed documents. Dr Lee's had over 400. It runs into the thousands of the 14 people yet. Evans's evidence was considered to be so crucial. The prosecution case was premised on the writings, the documents taken home. being on duty at the time when the statistics have been skewed to be in favour of the prosecution case. And of course, any prosecutor wants to win, the police want to win, they've taken a lot of money. But overall, when you look at this, this is one of the biggest miscarriages of justice. And I just hope the CCRC do their job properly, which is to consider all the evidence. And there is only one outcome, and that is to refer the matter to the court.

jeremy: Well, it it's very interesting you to have y to hear you say that so clearly. I can't say it as a you know, my my day job, I'm I've got to be impartial on these things and I'm watching it with I'm fascinating. I've not made up my mind. I've got you know, but at the same time I'm I feel queasy when they say on the news who killed seven babies. I'm thinking, well, that that seems to be in pencil, not in ink now. Anyway, I'll stop us there because we've reached our time. Thirty Minute Crime is the podcast. We've done three very different cases. The first three we did Peter Merrill. We then did Savile, never convicted, and now Lucy Leppby, who many people think has been wrongly convicted. I hope you're enjoying the podcast. It's given us so much to talk about and to think about. We're building a bit of a community here, We're so grateful to you for watching. It's thirty minute crime. We're gonna be talking about a different case each week, some old, some new, mainly British. Not all murder. But we have got a murder case for you next week. Mark, tell us.

Mark: Jeremy Bamber. Jeremy Bamber is in jail, convicted for the murder of five members of family, and he will never be released. The Home Secretary has made it very clear that he is a lifer and he will remain there, but he has always maintained his innocence. We had the recent Channel 5 documentary that covered that. And I'm doing a tour at the moment, Bamber Guilty or Not Guilty. And I say again, this is a miscarriage of justice. Actually, the evidence is so overwhelming in relation to that. I will give you the back story in relation to that. And like so many of these cases, it divides people.

jeremy: See you next week.

Mark: See you next week, take care.