Speaker 1: Before we begin, please be aware this episode contains discussions
Speaker 1: around infant deaths and other difficult topics. Please take care
Speaker 1: while listening.
Speaker 2: Let's take this very slowly. Did she have her back
Speaker 2: towards the direction you were coming from.
Speaker 3: No, she definitely was facing in my direction. I can't
Speaker 3: remember whether she was directly face on or slightly angled
Speaker 3: towards the incubator, but she wasn't looking at the monitor.
Speaker 3: And as I approached, I looked up, and I can't
Speaker 3: remember my exact words. I just said, what's happening? And
Speaker 3: Lucy looked up and said, oh, it looks like she's desaturating.
Speaker 4: What kind of a story is that you call a
Speaker 4: doctor of help and the doctor walks in and she's
Speaker 4: monitoring the baby. You go and do your doctor thing
Speaker 4: at that point, it's not a story. But somehow that
Speaker 4: piece never got told in court.
Speaker 5: It couldn't have happened the way he described that it
Speaker 5: happened in court, which is hugely problematic for the prosecution.
Speaker 1: It's been nearly a year since Lucy let Be was
Speaker 1: convicted and sentenced to life in prison, but during the
Speaker 1: first trial, the jury couldn't settle on six of the charges,
Speaker 1: including one that led to a retrial the charge for
Speaker 1: the attempted murder of Baby K. But this retrial is
Speaker 1: about much more than what happened to Baby K. It's
Speaker 1: about whether a story can hold up in court a
Speaker 1: second time. And in this courtroom, the prosecution's case leans
Speaker 1: hard on a single vivid account. One you've already heard,
Speaker 1: that of doctor Robb Jayram that moment he says he
Speaker 1: walked into a neonatal room in the early hours and
Speaker 1: saw Lucy let Be standing by a cot as a
Speaker 1: baby's oxygen levels fell while she did nothing. It's the
Speaker 1: most wrecked allegation in the entire case, one that the
Speaker 1: first jury didn't find compelling enough to convict, but the
Speaker 1: Crown was willing to try again. And yet as time passed,
Speaker 1: serious questions would be asked about that testimony, questions about timing,
Speaker 1: about memory, about what was written down at the time. Eventually,
Speaker 1: one piece of evidence would surface, an email at odds
Speaker 1: with the account the jury was asked to believe. I'm
Speaker 1: Amanda Ox and from Vespucci and iHeart podcasts, this is
Speaker 1: doubt The Case of Lucy Let be Episode seven, the retrial.
Speaker 6: Breaking news in the last hour and nurse Lucy Letbie,
Speaker 6: who was given a whole life sentence for the murder
Speaker 6: of seven babies and the attempted murder of six others,
Speaker 6: is to face a retrial on an outstanding allegation that
Speaker 6: she attempted to murder a baby girl.
Speaker 1: This time, the world around the courtroom is different. After
Speaker 1: the first convictions, reporting restrictions tightened, But as we saw
Speaker 1: in episode six, Rachel Aviv's article in The New Yorker
Speaker 1: would be released the month before the retrial began. The
Speaker 1: UK courts did their best to suppress anyone in the
Speaker 1: UK reading the article, but in the void left by
Speaker 1: the media restrictions, her words only rang louder. For UK
Speaker 1: calumnist John Robbins. Her article signified that there were finally
Speaker 1: more eyes on the case and now the retrial.
Speaker 7: Perspective. There was this appetite in America to kind of
Speaker 7: understand the potential for mistakes in our justice system.
Speaker 1: But regardless of who was now watching, the retrial was
Speaker 1: still taking place in the backdrop of those first convictions
Speaker 1: and the dominant media story that Lucy was the angel
Speaker 1: of death. In fact, this was the only media story
Speaker 1: the court had allowed before the restrictions.
Speaker 7: So any kind of nuance, any kind of inaccuracies are
Speaker 7: sealed forever in the trial, and the prosecution story becomes
Speaker 7: the story. The truth very hard to get the genie
Speaker 7: back into the bottle, and there's this one story that
Speaker 7: is she is a serial killer.
Speaker 1: For the Crown, this retrial was a chance to close
Speaker 1: a loose end and to reinforce the integrity of the
Speaker 1: wider case.
Speaker 8: But those stakes cut both ways with that, what's the
Speaker 8: thing we all agree Lucy let Be should be free?
Speaker 9: What's the thing we all agree Lucy let Be.
Speaker 10: Should be free?
Speaker 1: An emerging group of supporters believe Lucy let Be is innocent.
Speaker 1: One even turns up outside the courthouse holding a huge
Speaker 1: banner that reads justice for Lucy let Be.
Speaker 6: In Liverpool is the proof that there are people who.
Speaker 8: Support Lucy let Be.
Speaker 10: We are proud of that and we are going to
Speaker 10: keep it up. We are not going to give up
Speaker 10: what until this conviction is overturned in every one of them.
Speaker 1: For them, this retrial matters because a second acquittal wouldn't
Speaker 1: undo the verdicts, but it would change the conversation, forcing
Speaker 1: uncomfortable questions about the wider case into View journalist Clucy
Speaker 1: de Oliveria followed the entire trial.
Speaker 10: And the case of Baby K. She was born very
Speaker 10: very premature. I believe that twenty five weeks in February
Speaker 10: of twenty sixteen. And she was not supposed to be
Speaker 10: born at the Countess. You know. The Countess wasn't really prepped.
Speaker 10: The doctors didn't have the right experience that of dealing
Speaker 10: with like super premature babies on a constant basis in
Speaker 10: order to be able to care for the baby appropriately.
Speaker 10: She wasn't supposed to be born there, but there were
Speaker 10: concerns when the mother was already in labor of transferring
Speaker 10: her out to another hospital, that there was a fear
Speaker 10: that the baby could be born in the back of
Speaker 10: an ambulance, you know. And so the baby was born
Speaker 10: at this hospital, which wasn't qualified for this kind of
Speaker 10: birth of a very very vulnerable baby.
Speaker 1: When Baby Ka was born, the Countess was already on edge.
Speaker 1: By that point, three babies had died the hospital in
Speaker 1: just one month alone, in a unit that typically saw
Speaker 1: two or three deaths in an entire year. Concerns had
Speaker 1: been raised internally, reviews had taken place, but crucially, no
Speaker 1: allegation of deliberate harm had yet been made to police.
Speaker 1: Questions were circulating among doctors, Patterns were being discussed, associations
Speaker 1: were being noted, but there was still no crime scene,
Speaker 1: no suspect, no police investigation. That all changed when doctor
Speaker 1: Jayram came forward with his shocking account. What follows is
Speaker 1: what was presented to the court, read by actors.
Speaker 3: Lucy let Be was we use the term babysitting, so
Speaker 3: it's when the name nurses called away, another nurse goes
Speaker 3: to supervise. At this time, February twenty sixteen, had a
Speaker 3: number of unusual instants with babies and a number of
Speaker 3: colleagues and myself had noted the association with Lucy let
Speaker 3: Be being present at these things. At this stage we'd
Speaker 3: had a thematic review, an external review, which hadn't found
Speaker 3: any other obvious factors. I was sitting and I'll be
Speaker 3: very honest, I felt very uncomfortable. Objectively, you could say
Speaker 3: that was completely irrational, but I just had a feeling
Speaker 3: because of knowing what had happened before, and my internal
Speaker 3: dialogue was very much stop being stupid, get on with
Speaker 3: your work.
Speaker 1: Nick Johnson, the prosecuting lawyer, asks doctor j Ram to
Speaker 1: describe what he saw on Baby Kay's monitor.
Speaker 3: What I saw on the screens was that Baby Kay's
Speaker 3: oxygen saturations were dropping. They're in the low eighties and
Speaker 3: going downwards next to the incubator, so sort of around
Speaker 3: where just at the top of the A is where
Speaker 3: the ventilator sits and the pumps to give intravenous fluids.
Speaker 3: And Lucy let Bee was standing at point B next
Speaker 3: to the incubator. She wasn't looking at me. She didn't
Speaker 3: have hands in the incubator.
Speaker 2: Let's take this very slowly. Did she have her back
Speaker 2: towards a direction you were coming from.
Speaker 3: No, she definitely was facing in my direction. I can't
Speaker 3: remember whether she was directly face on or slightly angled
Speaker 3: towards the incubator, but she wasn't looking at the monitor.
Speaker 3: And as I approached, I looked up, and I can't
Speaker 3: remember my exact words. I just said, what's happening? And
Speaker 3: Lucy looked up and said, oh, it looks like she's desaturating.
Speaker 3: What was of note is usually the monitors are set
Speaker 3: to alarm if the saturations drop, usually below a level
Speaker 3: of ninety percent, and the alarm immediately I didn't look
Speaker 3: to see whether the button that caused the alarms to
Speaker 3: be suspended was pressed. But these saturations were going down
Speaker 3: and continued to go down.
Speaker 2: Was there the sound of the alarm?
Speaker 3: No, there was no alarm. Had an alarm gone off,
Speaker 3: that would have been my prompt to walk in. And
Speaker 3: although if you look at the layout of the unit,
Speaker 3: the alarms allowed and where I was sitting, had an
Speaker 3: alarm gone off, I would have heard it.
Speaker 1: The picture that the prosecution is trying to paint, he
Speaker 1: is very deliberate. A room full of machines designed to
Speaker 1: scream when something is wrong, a baby's oxygen levels falling,
Speaker 1: and yet no alarm, no call for help.
Speaker 2: Did you hear while you were either sitting at the
Speaker 2: nursing station or your progress into nursery one any call
Speaker 2: for help from Lucy Leppie?
Speaker 3: No, not all. I was surprised that the alarm wasn't
Speaker 3: going off, although my priority was baby k and I
Speaker 3: didn't question it at the time, and in retrospect I was.
Speaker 3: I'm surprised that help hadn't been called, given that baby
Speaker 3: Kay was a twenty five week gestation baby and her
Speaker 3: saturations were dropping.
Speaker 1: Doctor jerm suspected something was wrong with Baby Kay's breathing tube.
Speaker 3: So having established that there was an issue with the tube,
Speaker 3: I removed the tube. So basically took the tube out
Speaker 3: of Baby Kay's mouth, connected the tea piece to a
Speaker 3: small mask which I then put over Baby Kay's nose
Speaker 3: and mouth, and ventilated through the mask. Picked up extremely quickly.
Speaker 3: Within a few breaths, her color improved, her saturations improved,
Speaker 3: and I could see that her chest was moving normally.
Speaker 1: Baby Ka stabilizes, but she is still critically premature. Baby
Speaker 1: k would spend the next six hours at Countess Hospital
Speaker 1: waiting to be transferred to another hospital better equipped to.
Speaker 8: Care for her.
Speaker 1: And here is where the stories become important in terms
Speaker 1: of what actually happened and what the jury was asked
Speaker 1: to consider. A transfer note written at five fifty five
Speaker 1: am reads call received from doctor Jayram baby dislodged the
Speaker 1: tube and had to be reintubated. When asked about that
Speaker 1: wording in court, doctor Jayram was careful.
Speaker 3: I probably framed it as the tube was dislodged.
Speaker 8: So what was it?
Speaker 1: Did the baby dislodge her own tube or did someone else?
Speaker 11: We know that Ravi's saying Lucy excubated the baby dislodged
Speaker 11: the tube, but we know that also that baby self
Speaker 11: dislodged the tube on two more occasions during that same
Speaker 11: six hour period.
Speaker 1: This is former New Liddle nurse Michelle Warden.
Speaker 11: Babies wriggle, they move. If you think these tubes they're
Speaker 11: tied in, they're not what's called cuffed, which is what
Speaker 11: happens in an adult or a child where it's fixed.
Speaker 11: So they can very easily slip, and you only need
Speaker 11: that baby to slightly move their head and move half
Speaker 11: a centimeter.
Speaker 1: Although doctor Jerum makes an excuse for the difference between
Speaker 1: what the hospital note said and what he meant, other
Speaker 1: times he was much more certain that the tube had
Speaker 1: been dislodged deliberately.
Speaker 12: The nurse would have called for help. And Lucy Letby
Speaker 12: was standing by the top of the incubator. She didn't
Speaker 12: have her hands in the incubator.
Speaker 1: This is from an interview doctor Jayram did with ITV
Speaker 1: between Lucy's first trial and her retrial.
Speaker 10: What was she doing?
Speaker 12: What she was just standing there? Now? Tubes become dislodged,
Speaker 12: but this was a twenty five week gestation baby who
Speaker 12: wasn't kicking around, who wasn't vigorous. The only possibility was
Speaker 12: that that tube had to have been dislodged deliberately.
Speaker 1: This has never sat well with Michelle.
Speaker 11: He very clearly said, the only explanation for a twenty
Speaker 11: five week gestation baby is that somebody deliberately dislodged it. Well,
Speaker 11: that's just rubbish.
Speaker 1: It also didn't sit well with Lucy's defense lawyer. In fact,
Speaker 1: Ben Myers would play the interview that doctor Jayram gave
Speaker 1: in court. Here's court transcripts of that cross examination read
Speaker 1: by actors Dr Jerren.
Speaker 9: The only possibility is of the tube being dislodged deliberately.
Speaker 6: Yes, Bear in.
Speaker 3: Mind this interview was a long way after the events.
Speaker 3: You're telling the truth, and at that time we also
Speaker 3: knew Lucy Letby had been convicted of several charges of
Speaker 3: murder and attempted murder.
Speaker 9: We all know that. But you said, the only possibility
Speaker 9: you're talking about that night. Yes, the only possibility is
Speaker 9: the tube must have been dislodged deliberately.
Speaker 4: So you'd got her.
Speaker 9: Yes, hadn't you? Hadn't you You'd walked in on her,
Speaker 9: hadn't you?
Speaker 10: Well?
Speaker 3: I walked in and there are a number of things
Speaker 3: that should have been happening that didn't happen, that weren't happening.
Speaker 1: Yes, except after all this certainty that the tube had
Speaker 1: been deliberately dislodged. Doctor Jerrem would later go on to
Speaker 1: tell the court that, in actual fact, he didn't witness
Speaker 1: the tube being dislodged.
Speaker 11: He's also on record of saying he walked in and
Speaker 11: she didn't have hands in the incubator, So she didn't
Speaker 11: have hands in the incubator. How did she actually dislodge
Speaker 11: the tube?
Speaker 1: Now, some have argued that Lucy let Be may have
Speaker 1: deliberately avoided being seen with her hands inside the incubator,
Speaker 1: that she was careful to cover her tracks, but the
Speaker 1: central fact remains. No one ever testified to actually seeing
Speaker 1: her harm a baby, and yet doctor Jayram's account came
Speaker 1: to be treated as if it were eye witness evidence.
Speaker 1: A doctor from that unit later told the court at
Speaker 1: retrial that if she had been born there, she would
Speaker 1: have had access to the specialists she needed and might
Speaker 1: have survived, but by the time she reached them, she
Speaker 1: was already too fragile and there was no chance of
Speaker 1: saving her. But for doctor Jayram, there was one clear
Speaker 1: answer as to what happened to baby Kay, and he
Speaker 1: would distill his account against Lucy let Be to three
Speaker 1: points of suspicion. One, up until the point he saw
Speaker 1: Lucy at the incubator, baby k had been stable.
Speaker 8: Two the alarms didn't sound.
Speaker 3: And three I hadn't actually been called or nobody had
Speaker 3: actually been called to come and look at the.
Speaker 1: Baby except an actual fact he had.
Speaker 10: Ravi Jydham had sent an email to his colleagues.
Speaker 1: This is reporter Clucy to Oliveira again and.
Speaker 10: There's just one line in it where he says where
Speaker 10: is He's describing the incident, and he says Lucy let
Speaker 10: be at court and called doctor Jayuram for help when
Speaker 10: the baby started deteriorating. So this is the earliest recorded
Speaker 10: piece of evidence of Bravi Jayram describing the events of
Speaker 10: that night, and it is completely completely different, black and white,
Speaker 10: different from what he came to testify about at trial.
Speaker 1: Unbeknownst to the defense and prosecution at the time, there
Speaker 1: was one piece of evidence that complicated the picture. Doctor
Speaker 1: Jayram had painted, an internal email that would surface in
Speaker 1: September twenty twenty four. It had been written before the
Speaker 1: trials even before the police investigation had started, and it
Speaker 1: directly went against doctor Jayram's claim that Lucy had never
Speaker 1: called for help. The email was written when the doctors
Speaker 1: were putting together their case in a document for the police.
Speaker 1: In this email, doctor Jayram was clear about the goal
Speaker 1: the document, he said, was meant for the police to
Speaker 1: have their interest piqued, and he suggested the cases should
Speaker 1: quote highlight explicitly for these cases that LLL was in
Speaker 1: attendance and in close proximy to the incubators end. He
Speaker 1: stressed that this should be done hopefully more in a
Speaker 1: stating the facts way than a subjective finger pointing way.
Speaker 1: Jayram wrote Staffner's let Be was at incubator and called
Speaker 1: doctor Jayram to inform of low saturations.
Speaker 8: In this telling, it.
Speaker 1: Was let Be who called him, not a doctor acting
Speaker 1: on instinct or suspicion, as he testified in court. He
Speaker 1: also recorded that baby Kay's collapse and eventual death was
Speaker 1: consistent with complications from extreme prematurity, not from a dislodged
Speaker 1: breathing tube. More striking still, in a final report that
Speaker 1: the doctors at the Countess sent to the police, the
Speaker 1: report that started the whole police investigation.
Speaker 8: This information was absent.
Speaker 1: For Sarah Napton, signed editor at the Telegraph, it was clear.
Speaker 5: It couldn't have happened the way he described that it
Speaker 5: happened in court, which is hugely problemastic for the prosecution.
Speaker 1: The problem is this email would emerge one month after
Speaker 1: the retrial was over, a retrial that Lucy would lose.
Speaker 1: Although Lucy's defense was never able to bring up doctor
Speaker 1: Jayram's email in court, it raised a very important question
Speaker 1: whether doctor Jayram's account, so central to the investigation and
Speaker 1: to both trials, had been fully and consistently told. There
Speaker 1: was another detail about doctor Jayrem that was brought up
Speaker 1: during the retrial and which made those following the case
Speaker 1: even more concerned about the validity of his testimony, because
Speaker 1: on the eve of the second trial, the Guardian newspaper
Speaker 1: reported something that took doctor Jayram's interest in this case
Speaker 1: to a whole other level. They reported that the man
Speaker 1: who was already well known to the UK public from
Speaker 1: his reality TV stint, had become involved in what many
Speaker 1: could imagine to be a very lucrative project. Producers were
Speaker 1: interested in making a TV drama about the Lucy let
Speaker 1: Be case. And doctor Jayram was involved. This latest discovery
Speaker 1: only added fuel to a fire that started way back
Speaker 1: when Rachel Leviv's article was published. A public that had
Speaker 1: started to question the legitimacy of her conviction had only
Speaker 1: more questions. On the first day of the retrial, Lucy's
Speaker 1: lawyer requested that the judge get a statement from doctor
Speaker 1: Jayram to ask whether he had commercial involvement with the
Speaker 1: TV production, because, to Ben Myers, this would cause a
Speaker 1: significant issue that the doctor would quote portray himself in
Speaker 1: a particular way in a story that is being developed.
Speaker 1: The judge declined, it's hard to understand why this was
Speaker 1: a story so compelling that it was already being shaped
Speaker 1: for the screen. But it was an ongoing story, and
Speaker 1: new questions were emerging about one of the prosecution's most
Speaker 1: pivotal witnesses, and it was that exact witness who would
Speaker 1: be shaping the way the story would be told. As
Speaker 1: scrutiny rose, production on the TV drama would eventually be halted,
Speaker 1: with creators saying that the case was more complicated than
Speaker 1: first thought.
Speaker 13: I'd be amazed if that didn't form a significant part
Speaker 13: on the criminal cases. Rube's commission to the buck at
Speaker 13: the trial and it back to the Court of Appeal,
Speaker 13: which is there isn't any evidence apart from what he says,
Speaker 13: and now what he says has been called in question.
Speaker 1: Sarah Naptin was wrong, the court would deny her appeal.
Speaker 14: Thank you, Madam Dipty Speaker. I am not in the
Speaker 14: habit of issuing trigger warnings, but I must warn the
Speaker 14: House in this case that this speech covers deeply distressing events.
Speaker 1: But just because the court had decided they were done
Speaker 1: deliberating the case, others were not. Conservative Member of Parliament
Speaker 1: David Davis stood up in the House of Commons and
Speaker 1: publicly demanded answers.
Speaker 14: But my central argument today, which comes back to what
Speaker 14: they right on one gentleman ask me, is what to
Speaker 14: do about a trial which, in my view is a
Speaker 14: clear miscarriacter justice by.
Speaker 1: Judicial since in May twenty five, Davis wrote to Mark Roberts,
Speaker 1: Chief Constable of the Cheshire Police, to make a formal
Speaker 1: complaint calling for doctor Jayram to be investigated for perjury.
Speaker 1: He argued that the jury in the retrial reached their
Speaker 1: verdict on the basis of misleading testimony and that quote
Speaker 1: this matter goes beyond the outcome of a single trial.
Speaker 1: It touches on public confidence in the integrity of our
Speaker 1: criminal justice system.
Speaker 4: I think I've lost a lot of faith in the
Speaker 4: criminal justice systems. I've looked into this.
Speaker 1: For journalist Guy Roland, the issue of doctor Jayram's testimony
Speaker 1: was just one aspect of a case riddled with questions,
Speaker 1: questions surrounding stories that began with the doctors.
Speaker 4: The moment those doctors walked through the door to that
Speaker 4: police station, they're the doctors. They felt like, right, okay,
Speaker 4: we believe these doctors, and let's give them the benefit
Speaker 4: of doubt. They did believe those doctors. They just believe
Speaker 4: what they were told. They didn't look at the history
Speaker 4: of the fact that they'd lost a grievance against this
Speaker 4: slowly nurse that they'd accused of the most terrible things.
Speaker 4: And then Dowi Evans walks in and his amazing gift
Speaker 4: at being able to spot what no one else's spot
Speaker 4: in ten minutes over a cup of coffee, and then
Speaker 4: that seals that the system itself seems to work in
Speaker 4: a certain way that once you're on a track saying right,
Speaker 4: we think this is a winnable case. Now It's just
Speaker 4: extraordinary how fast it went from there's no evidence here
Speaker 4: to doctors tell a story. Another doctor comes in a
Speaker 4: spot's murder in ten minutes over a cup of coffee,
Speaker 4: and right we're after the races. And I will stand
Speaker 4: by this. I think that the vast majority of those
Speaker 4: people really believes they're doing the right thing.
Speaker 1: That belief in the doctors it mattered because once it
Speaker 1: took hold, it narrowed the frame shaping what was questioned,
Speaker 1: what was pursued, and what was quietly set aside. What
Speaker 1: Guy Roland is pointing to isn't a single missing detail.
Speaker 1: It's a pattern, a series of facts, reports, and expert
Speaker 1: opinions that never made it into the courtroom at all.
Speaker 1: And once you begin to lay them out, a different
Speaker 1: picture starts to emerge, not of what the jury decided,
Speaker 1: but of what the jury was never asked to consider.
Speaker 14: There is a great deal of evidence demonstration there are
Speaker 14: much more likely alternative causes of these tragic deaths than
Speaker 14: those put up by the prosecuting team.
Speaker 1: This is David Davis again speaking in the House of Commons.
Speaker 14: One of the problems we face is that much of
Speaker 14: the evidence was available at the time expert analysis of
Speaker 14: the case note which were there at the time, but
Speaker 14: it was simply not presented to the jury. This means
Speaker 14: the Court of Appeal CODs.
Speaker 1: Once you start asking what the jury didn't hear, the
Speaker 1: focus inevitably shifts from who was present to what actually
Speaker 1: happened to the babies themselves, Because beyond patterns, beyond charts,
Speaker 1: beyond suspicions, there were detailed medical records, there were post mortems,
Speaker 1: there were alternative explanations.
Speaker 14: The consultant in charge took a decision to insert a
Speaker 14: needle into the abdomen to release what they thought was
Speaker 14: pressure in the abdomen gas pressure in the abdomen. However,
Speaker 14: this was wrongly inserted into the right side of the
Speaker 14: baby's abdomen. As a result of this error, the needle
Speaker 14: penetrated the liver, causing serious internal.
Speaker 1: Bleeding that's later on Doubt the Case of the Lue
Speaker 1: Lucy let Be. Doubt the Case of Lucy let Be
Speaker 1: is brought to you by Vespucci, iHeart Podcasts and Knox
Speaker 1: Robinson Productions. I've been your host Amanda Knox. This episode
Speaker 1: was written by Natalia Rodriguez. The co producer was Lucy Ditchmont.
Speaker 1: The assistant producer was Amy Gill. Senior producer is Natalia Rodriguez.
Speaker 1: Story editing by Kathleen Goldhard. The sound designer is Tom Biddle.
Speaker 1: The theme was also written by Tom Biddle. Voice acting
Speaker 1: by Tobias Davies, Paul Leeming and Kenny Blythe legal advice
Speaker 1: was provided by Jack Browning. The producers at iHeart Podcasts
Speaker 1: are Chandler Mays and Katrina Norville. The executive producers for
Speaker 1: Joe Meek, Amanda Knox, Christopher Robinson, Daniel Turkin, and Johnny Galvin.
Speaker 1: Thank you for listening.