Hi, it's Caroline here. I just wanted to mention a special episode that we're releasing today about

Lucy Lettby. It's an interview with the man at the centre of a lot of the chatter around the safety

of her convictions, the man who was never called to give evidence in her defence. Dr Mike Hall

doesn't give many interviews, but he sat down with Liz and I

for an in-depth conversation about why he thinks the justice system is flawed, why he thinks he

wasn't called to give evidence for Lucy Letby, and why he's increasingly concerned about the

tactics of her new defence barrister, Mark MacDonald.

You can find that full interview over on the trial of Lucy Lettby, the inquiry.

But here's a snippet of what he had to say.

So obviously the really key question, Dr Hall, that people are asking time and again,

and we've had over and over on our podcast, is the fact that you were not called to give evidence.

But you sat there through the whole of the trial, listened to all of the evidence from the doctors at the countess,

from Dr. Dowie Evans, Sandy Bowen, Owen Arthur's,

all the prosecutions expert witnesses. And obviously, you've been quite vocal about that,

saying, you know, I don't know why I wasn't called, but I'm sure you have an idea of why you

weren't called. Are you willing to talk to us about that at all, why you think you weren't

called? Well, I can speculate, as can anybody else? And interestingly, a retired High Court

judge gave his view that I demonstrated why I was not called in the panorama documentary.

Because according to him, I gave signals that what I said

might have been supportive of the prosecution. And if it was supportive of the prosecution in one

case, which led to conviction, then I think that meant the principle of that support could apply to other cases,

so it could have a kind of domino effect, I suppose. But your argument, I suppose, and your

...