The 'Misfits & Ghouls'

Guaranteed human.

“Hi, I'm Bob Pittman, Chairman and CEO of iHeart Media.”

And I'm kicking off a brand new season of my podcast,

Math and Magic Stories from the Frontiers of Market. Math and Magic takes you behind the scenes of the biggest businesses and industries while sharing insights from the smartest minds of market. Coming up this season of Math and Magic, CEO of Liquid Death Mike's Asario. People think that creative ideas are like these light bulb moments

that happen when you're in the shower. It's really like a stone sculpture. You're constantly just chipping away and refining. Take two interactive CEO, Strauss Selling. And our own chief business officer, Lisa Coffee.

Listen to Math and Magic on the iHeart Radio App, Apple Podcast, or wherever you get your podcast. Hey there folks, Amy Robock and TJ Holmes here. And we know there is a lot of news coming at you these days from the war with Iran to the ongoing Epstein fallout.

Government shutdowns, high profile trials.

“And what the hell is that lake lily thing about anyway?”

We are on it every day, all day. Follow us, Amy and TJ for news updates throughout the day. Listen to Amy and TJ on the iHeart Radio App, Apple Podcast, or wherever you listen to podcasts. Parker McCallum.

Riley Green. Dylan Scott. Russell Dickerson. Gretchen Wilson. Chase Matthew.

Lauren Alaina. Tickets are on sale now. Get your speed before they sell out at ticketmaster.com. Is the new me and is the old them. This woman's history month.

The podcast, if you knew better with Amber Grimes, spotlights women who turn missteps into momentum and lessons into power. My tunnel vision of like I got it achieved this was off the strengths of like I want to make a better life for us.

If you knew better, brings real talk from women who've lived it. Unpacking career pivots, relationship lessons, and the mind set shifts that changed everything. Listen to if you knew better with Amber Grimes on the iHeart Radio App, Apple Podcast, or wherever you get your podcasts.

The more you listen to your kids, the closer you'll be.

“So we asked kids, what do you want your parents to hear?”

I feel sometimes that I'm now listened to. I would just want you to listen to me more often and evaluate situations with me and lead me towards success. Listening is a form of love. Find resources to help you support your kids and their emotional

well-being. It sounded out together dot org. That sounded out together dot org. Brought to you by the ad council and pivotal. Before we begin, please be aware.

This episode contains discussions around infant deaths and other difficult topics. Please take care while listening. After ten months of intense, complicated testimony,

the jury and Lucy let these case is finally ready to give a verdict.

In all, the jury was asked to consider 22 charges. Seven of those recounts of murder. The rest attempted murder. It actually took the jury four days to deliver all their verdicts. You see, in England, a jury can return a verdict while still

deliberating over others. She was fine guilty of murdering four babies and attempted to murder to and then slurre this time until we all of hurt each kid. Reporter Kim Pelling, who had sat through every single one of the day of the 10 month trial, remembers how the room felt.

Each time the jury would announce a verdict had been reached. You know, the tension was, you could even pin drop. It was, yeah, very tense. 14 guilty verdicts all told. The rest, the jury either landed on not guilty or they were unable

to decide. Lucy, who had become more withdrawn and seemed to retreat into

herself over the trial, was only present for the first two days of

verdict announcements. She didn't come back for those last verdicts. Through her lawyer, Lucy let be told the court that she was too unwell to attend anymore. That included when the judge would sentence her.

Later, she would refuse to leave her cell as just as gas read her sentence. That decision, one of the few she was able to make for herself, didn't go over well with the families of the babies she had been found guilty of hurting.

They were all that to make the victim personal statements in person,

I don't think they wanted too to stare it out.

“But for many, there would still be some satisfaction with how heavy the”

camera of justice fell on Lucy let be. She would be facing one of the harshest sentences ever handed down in the country. She was facing to a, she would face a life in prison. I'm Amanda Knox and from Vespucci and I Heart Podcasts, this is doubt, the case of Lucy let be.

Episode 6, The Miss Fits and Goals. The defendant, Lucy let be, has refused to attend court for this sentence hearing. Lucy let be's absence was definitely something that Justice James Goss had to deal with in court. We've had an actor read portions of his remarks. I feel delivered a sentencing remarks as if she was present to hear them.

And I direct that she is provided with a transcript of my remarks and copies of the victim personal statements read to the court. On August 21, 2023, Justice Goss delivered his much anticipated sentencing decision. Lucy let be, over a period of almost 13 months between June 2015 and June 2016, when in your mid-20s and employed as a neonatal nurse in the counters of Justice Hospital in Chester, with specialist training in intensive care, you murdered seven babies and attempted to murder six others.

In the UK, a life sentence can mean two different things. One offers a chance at parole after serving a minimum sentence. The other is life, what they call a whole life order. This was a cruel, calculated and cynical campaign of child murder involving the smallest and most vulnerable of children. Lucy let be, on each of the seven offenses of murder and the seven offenses of attempted murder,

I sentence you to imprisonment for life. Because the seriousness of your offenses is exceptionally high, I direct that the early release provisions do not apply. The order of the court, therefore, is a whole life order on each and every offense, and you will spend the rest of your life in prison.

Lucy was now one of only three women in Britain facing a whole life sentence. As soon as she was on guilty, it was, I mean, there was just no voicing of any skepticism or doubt about the verdict. Rachel Aviv is a writer with the New Yorker magazine, and while there was daily reporting of the story of Lucy let be in the UK, it hadn't really made much of a splash in the US.

It was everywhere, it was in the Daily Mail for sure,

“but it was also in the Guardian that I think I counted more than 100 stories about the case in the Guardian.”

It was a course of national fixation of a level that felt like, you know, be equivalent to Bodysens in trial, it was a huge media phenomenon. But Rachel had done some reporting on other cases of women wrongly convicted of killing children. In those cases, much of the evidence against them relied on complicated and faulty statistics and ignored medical information. According to Rachel, the similarities to let be were striking.

I started following the case and just really looking at like the daily updates on the gesture of the local newspapers website. It was just sort of following it with like an increasing sense of disbelief.

Rachel was shocked at the lack of critical reporting in the UK.

I was struck just by the difference that like the journalistic community played toward the courts. Just the sort of differential attitude towards authority in general was surprising to me. When Rachel first approached Lucy's story, she did it carefully and critically. She wasn't even convinced it would turn into a story for her magazine. Well, there were two things that happened.

One, I think I told my editor a long.

“Like if I start reporting this and then I think oh, she's guilty, I'm just going to stop.”

Like there's no point in doing a she's guilty story.

So all along, I had a high level of being critical of the conclusions I might be drawing or not.

Like if you start thinking she's guilty, like yeah, then the whole story collapses. And I think hearing there sort of evolving experience of reading the records was very affirming. Because their job is to basically doubt me and to doubt what I'm writing. And the fact that they came in ready to doubt and then, you know, one of the factors are said, like, oh my god, I think she might be innocent. You know Rolldahl, the writer who found up Willy Wonka, Matilda, and the BFG.

But did you know he was also a spy? Was this before he wrote his stories? I must have been. Our new podcast series, The Secret World of Rolldahl, is a wild journey through the hidden chapters of his extraordinary controversial life.

His job was literally to seduce the wives of powerful Americans, and he was really good at it.

You probably won't believe it either. Okay, I don't think that's true. I'm telling you, because I was a spy. Did you know Doll got cozy with the Roosevelt's? Play poker with Harry Truman, and had a long affair with a congresswoman.

And then he took his talents to Hollywood, where he worked alongside Walt Disney, an Alfred Hitchcock, before writing a hit James Bond film.

“How did this secret agent wind up as the most successful children's author ever?”

And what darkness from his covert past seeped into the stories we read as kids? The true story is stranger than anything he ever wrote. Listen to The Secret World of Rolldahl on the I-Heart Radio app, Apple podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. I'm Iris Palmer, and my new podcast is called The Gensel Odds, and that's exactly what the show is about. So we whatever it takes to be thoughts.

Get ready to hear from some of your favorite entrepreneurs and entertainers as they share stories about defining expectations overcoming barriers and breaking generational patterns. I'm talking to people like award-winning actress, producer, and director, Viva Lungoria. I think I had like $200 in my savings account, and my mom goes, "What are you going to do?" And I'm saying, "Come, I'll figure it out." We had a one-bedroom apartment for like $400 a month, and we all could not afford like, I was like, "How am I going to make $100 a month?"

I'm opening up like I've never before. For those of you who think you know me from what you've seen on social media, get ready to see a whole new site of me.

Listen to against all odds with Iris Palmer as part of the Michael Thuda podcast network available on the iHeart Radio app, Apple Podcast, or wherever you get your podcast. When you listen to podcasts about AI and tech and the future of humanity, the host always act like they know what they're talking about, and they are experts at everything. Here, the Nick Dickham poll show, we're not afraid to make mistakes. What Google did, that I think was so unique, he's the right director. Who do you think he is? I don't know.

“You need to like, the president? You think he's the president? You think Canada has a president? You think China has a president?”

Let's walk through that. God, I love that thing. I use it all the time. Look how I wrap it in a blanket and sing to it. It's like the old Polish saying, "Not my monkey's not my circus." It's a good one. I like that saying. It's an actual Polish saying.

Yeah, it is an actual Polish. Yeah, better version of play stupid games when stupid prizes.

Yes, which, by the way, wasn't Taylor Swift who said that for the first time.

I actually thought it was. I got that wrong. Listen to the Nick Dick and poll show on the iHeart Radio app, Apple Podcast, or wherever you get your podcasts. Hey, ambitious, well-intentioned, ferocious, and wealthy mother looks like in the black community. This woman's history month, the podcast, Kirit Pazesweedy, celebrates the power of women choosing healing, purpose, and faith, even when life gets messy.

“Love is not a destination. You have to work on it every day.”

Kirit Pazesweedy creates space for honest conversations on self-worth, love, growth, and navigating life with grace and great led by women who have lived inspire and tell the truth out loud. I have several conversations with God, and I know why it took 20 years. To hear this in more, listen to Kirit Pazesweedy on the iHeart Radio app, Apple Podcast, or wherever you get your podcasts. Hi, I'm Bob Pippman, chairman and CEO of iHeart Media, and I'm kicking off a brand new season of my podcast,

Math and Magic Stories from the Frontiers of Market. Math and Magic takes you behind the scenes of the biggest businesses in industry, while sharing insights from the smartest minds of market. I'm talking to leaders from the entertainment industry to finance, and everywhere in between. This season of Math and Magic, I'm talking to CEO of liquid death, Mike Siseria,

finance, and public health advocate, Mike Millkin, take to interactive CEO, Strauss Allen. If you're unable to take meaningful creative risk, and therefore run the risk of making horrible creative mistakes, then you can't play in this business. Sesame Street CEO, Sherry Weston, and our own chief business officer, Lisa Coffee.

Making consumers see the value of a human voice, and to have that guaranteed human promise behind it,

Listen to Math and Magic, stories from the Frontiers of Marketing on the iHeart Radio app,

“Apple Podcast, or wherever you get your podcasts.”

On May 13, 2024, Rachel Evieves article, a British nurse was found guilty of killing seven babies. Did she do it? Was published? What the impact of the New York apiece was huge? Absolutely huge. It would have been impossible for Rachel Evieve to know that the mere act of publishing her article would send shockwaves through an entire country.

But the moment filmmaker and journalist Anna Curry heard about it, she knew the impression it would make. Just in terms of opening people's minds to the possibility that something else might have happened in the case that everything might not be as it seemed. Annuk says the piece stood apart in a number of ways.

That was quite an unusual piece of writing for a UK audience who's used to, with more use to sort of news reporting. The article was over 13,000 words. The average news article is a fraction of that. The political class, and probably people working in medicine,

and people who had some expertise in different fields.

“I think it had a big impact on them, and it was just the first time”

that things were questioned really openly. Rachel's article looked closely at the entire Lucy Letby saga, and asked questions about every step from the police investigation. The police department was actually relying on the doctors who thought that Lucy Letby was the murderer as kind of translators to help them understand the medical evidence.

And so then their perception of what was going on was really filtered through people who had already had a belief that she was guilty. Was there consensus among the experts you talked to about the legitimacy or not of the evidence that was used to convict Letby? Almost everyone was quite flum mixed by the Air Enbellism idea.

There were claims being made that just didn't cohere with people's understanding of basic physiology as far as the insulin evidence everyone was very confused by those numbers. The general sense of this doesn't read on paper, at least, as an intentional poisoning and also the test that was used is just unreliable. Shockingly, for the first time, the public was asked to rethink

the statistical information used to convict her. Specifically, that chart which showed Lucy Letby was on duty each time a baby died.

It was powerful evidence.

We tend to assume that irregular things happen because someone intentionally caused them, Rachel wrote in her article. She quotes the Nobel Prize-winning economist Daniel Connamen, who says that our predilection for casual thinking exposes us to serious mistakes in evaluating the randomness of truly random events.

Reading this article for the first time, the British public was forced to question just how convincing this evidence really was. Was there any one that you reached out to who was someone who questioned that narrative but who was afraid to come forward? Yeah, there was a statistician who had consulted for the defense

who ultimately wasn't asked to testify who had those concerns. Like, you know, she, I remember her telling me that she was really concerned that Lucy Letby was being bullied.

And then the defense expert for the Letby team, who was never called.

I mean, he said he was like staying up at night worrying about this. Like, I don't think he would have gone out and spoken about his concerns unless I don't think it was something he was going to do on his own. But once he saw that a journalist was also concerned about this and he was willing to sort of like almost access some of those real doubts he had.

“But I think when I first talked to him, he wasn't in a place of this woman”

as definitely innocent. But he was in a place of like real doubt about the quality of evidence that he had seen a trial. Beyond the complicated evidence and the investigations tunnel vision, Rachel's article also forced readers to confront more basic problems

I think status and gender also really came into play.

This belief originated with a group of male doctors, who had a lot of status in that environment. And so even though the nurse's really did support Lucy Letby for a very long time, you could see that over the years with each sort of legal step, you could just see them sort of doubting themselves.

There was this one very painful interview with Lucy Letby's direct manager, sort of like the nursing supervisor. And even after the verdict, you could tell she'd like come in there to say that she'd been fooled by Lucy Letby,

but like she couldn't quite say that.

“She was still kind of asking like, how can this be?”

Like, can someone be such a good actor? You know, I just spent so much time with her crying about this. It seemed so sincere. It was almost like she was asking, help me believe that she's guilty because I still fundamentally don't.

What do you think about why the evil nurse version of the story took hold so quickly? There are a few events as a destabilizing and terrifying as a young child dying. And I do think that it kind of like breaks our brains a bit to think that this is a random act that can happen to anyone, that like you combine a vulnerable child with some health problems and you combine that with an overworked hospital and busy doctors and a couple mistakes and your child can die.

“So I think like on an intellectual level, it is easier to believe that there is one evil agent creating harm”

than to sort of sit with the fact that we are all susceptible to these random acts of like horrific luck, horrific bad luck. This is especially so in the UK, because in the UK, all public health care is provided through the NHS, the National Health Service. It's worth taking a moment to explain a little about the lore of the NHS. And I'm almost welcome to the city of London under the Olympic Stadium for the Olympic Games of 2012. In 2012, the London Olympic opening ceremony set out to tell the world who Britain believed itself to be.

Ladies and gentlemen, the Union flag is raised by representatives from the Royal Navy, Army and Royal Air Force. There were tributes to the monarchy, to the armed forces, to British music, Bowie, the Beatles, the Sex Pistols. There were even dozens of Mary Poppins floating down onto the stadium floor. But the moment that lingered most for me was something else entirely, a meticulously choreographed celebration of the National Health Service. And now we move on to celebrate an institution which has founded the year of the last London Olympics in 1948.

And I'm going to see a very special example. Please welcome on the staff of the United Kingdom National Health Service. Hospital beds rolled onto the stage, nurses and doctors stood at the center of the spectacle. The NHS wasn't presented as a public service. It was presented as a national virtue.

And now I'm very much famous principle. And I was so sad to take done with this and when they called, it's all civilized, with a sick question that was denied medical aid, because on that of mint. You know, Roldell, the writer who thought I'd Willy Wonka, Matilda and the BFG. But did you know he was also a spy?

Was this before? He wrote his stories? I must have been. Our new podcast series, The Secret World of Roldell, is a wild journey through the hidden chapters of his extraordinary controversial life.

His job was literally to seduce the wives of powerful Americans.

And he was really good at it. You probably won't believe it either. Okay, I don't think that's true. I'm telling you. Okay, that was a spy.

Did you know Dahl got cozy with the Roosevelt? Play poker with Harry Truman and had a long affair with a congresswoman. And then he took his talents to Hollywood, where he worked alongside Walt Disney and Alfred Hitchcock. Before writing a hit James Bond film.

“How did this secret agent wind up as the most successful children's author ever?”

And what darkness from his covert past, seeped into the stories we read as kids. The true story is stranger than anything he ever wrote. Listen to the secret world of Roldell on the I Heart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.

So we whatever it takes to be thoughts. Get ready to hear from some of your favorite entrepreneurs and entertainers as they share stories about defining expectations overcoming barriers and breaking generational patterns. I'm talking to people like award-winning actress, producer, and director, Eva Lungoria.

“I think I had like $200 in my savings account, and my mom goes, "What are you going to do?" and I'm saying, "Come, I'll figure it out."”

We had a one bedroom apartment for like $400 a month, and we all could not afford like, I was like, "How am I going to make $100 a month?"

I'm opening up like I've never before, for those of you who think you know me from what you've seen on social media.

Get ready to see a whole new site of me. Listen to against all odds with Iris Palmer as part of the Michael Tudor podcast network. Available on the I Heart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcast. Hi, I'm Bob Pittman, Chairman and CEO of I Heart Media, and I'm kicking off a brand new season of my podcast, math and magic stories from the frontiers of marketing. Math and magic takes you behind the scenes of the biggest businesses,

and industries, while sharing insights from the smartest minds of marketing. I'm talking to leaders from the entertainment industry to finance, and everywhere in between. This season of math and magic, I'm talking to CEO of Liquid Death Mike Siseria, financier, and public health advocate Mike Milkin, take to interactive CEO, Strausselnik. We're unable to take meaningful creative risk, and therefore run the risk of making horrible creative mistakes,

then you can't play in this business. Sesame Street CEO, Sherry Weston, and our own chief business officer, Lisa Coffee. Making consumers see the value of the human voice and to have that guaranteed human promise behind it, really makes a vice of the top. Listen to math and magic, stories from the frontiers of marketing on the I Heart Radio app, Apple Podcasts,

or wherever you get your podcast. When you listen to podcasts about AI and tech in the future of humanity,

the host always act like they know what they're talking about, and they are experts at everything.

Here, the Nick Dick and Paul show, we're not afraid to make mistakes.

“What Google did, that I think was so unique, he's the brightest director.”

Who do you think he is? I don't know. Do you think he's the president? You think he's the president? He can't have the president, you think China is the president? I love that thing.

I use it all the time. Look, I wrap it in a blanket and sing to it. It's like the old Polish saying, "Not my monkey's not my circus." Yep. It's a good one.

It's an actual Polish saying. It is an actual Polish saying. It's a better version of play stupid games when stupid prizes.

Which, by the way, wasn't Taylor Swift who said that for the first time.

Actually, I thought it was. I got that wrong. Listen to the Nick Dick and Paul show on the iHeart Radio app, Apple podcast, or wherever you get your podcasts. Hey, ambitious, well-intentioned, ferocious, and wealthy mother looks like in the black community. This woman's history month, the podcast, "Kedit Posit Sweety" celebrates the power of women choosing healing,

purpose, and faith, even when life gets messy.

“Love is not a destination, you have to work on it every day.”

"Kedit Posit Sweety" creates space for honest conversations on self-worth, love, growth, and navigating life with grace in grade, led by women who have lived in fire, and tell the truth out loud. I have several conversations with God, and I know why it took 20 years. To hear this in more, listen to "Kedit Posit Sweety" on the iHeart Radio app, Apple podcast, or wherever you get your podcasts.

In Britain, the NHS is more than an institution. It's a point of pride, a moral achievement. Something people grow up being taught to protect. So when allegations emerged that babies had died on a neonatal unit, the question many were primed to ask was not whether the NHS had failed,

whether the hospital had failed, but who within it was responsible. By the time Lucy let me took the stand, her task was not simply to defend herself against accusations of murder, a daunting enough challenge. Implicitly, she was being asked to do something far harder to convince a jury, and in turn, the public, that something had gone catastrophically wrong, inside one of Britain's most trusted institutions.

All this was something that did not go unnoticed by Rachel. I mean, the NHS is, you know, this sort of wonderful thing that is a huge part of a national identity, and yet like it's been defunded over the years. So there's like these very difficult conversations we had about the level of health care,

And I think at trial, you could even see the defense lawyer saying,

like we love the NHS, this isn't about the NHS, like he was very, almost afraid to make the jury think that they were being asked to say that the NHS was bad. There was almost sort of like, this is our nationality. We will not ruin this symbol. It's like easier to say that there's one evil creature doing these malevolent crazy things that have no explanation

“than to say like every time I go to this hospital that's extremely important to my national identity.”

There are these risks that are not being properly managed. But there was one thing that pushed Rachel's article into the stratosphere above all others. Good old fashioned censorship. What was a surprise was that somebody published when reporting restrictions were still in place in the UK. That was a really bold thing to do.

And heightened the impact in many ways because there was this element of people not being able to read it in the UK. And people want to read what they don't have access to. The restrictions that Nick Curry is talking about are pretty hard for North Americans to get their heads around.

“In the UK, as soon as a criminal matter becomes active, meaning a person gets arrested or a trial is announced,”

strict restrictions are placed on any media coverage. Anyone publishing anything that could be seen as a substantial risk to the course of justice can face contempt of court charges. Crown Prosecution Service decided that there would be a retrial on one count and that was a baby K. And I was at the court when it was just discussed announced that there would be a retrial and therefore there were reporting restrictions in place. That meant that nobody could write or talk about the Lucy let be case for nine months and that was absolutely extraordinary.

You see, after Lucy let be his first trial, there was one count of attempted murder that the jury could not come to agreement on the death of baby K.

One month and four days after Lucy was sentenced to spend the rest of her life in prison, the prosecution announced it would be retrying her for the death of baby K. Immediately, a media blackout was put in place. Additional reporting as seen as breaking the reporting rules. So it felt like there was just no counter voices. But those restrictions are only enforceable in the UK.

The New Yorker is, well, American. Rachel's piece came out in the spring of 2024. Although some hard copies did end up making it to UK shelves, there were attempts in the UK to block access online. But clearly, there are ways around geo-fensing. And there's human instinct.

People in the UK found a way to read it. So that probably heightened interest. One of the people who ended up reading the piece was a member of the British Parliament. A man named David Davis. Yesterday, the New Yorker magazine published a 13,000-word inquiry in the Lucy let be trial, which raised enormous concerns about both the logic and competence of the statistical evidence that was a central part of that trial.

With a little chance of looking at. Standing up in the House of Commons, speaking about the possibility of miscarriage of justice, David Davis forced a different conversation. That article was blocked from publication on the UK incident. I understand because of a court order. I'm sure that court order was well intended, but it seems to me it defiance was unjustice.

Am I just naive? I mean, I've learned a lot about journalism, but I've never gone to a school of journalism, like that's not my background.

Am I naive to think that it's the job of journalism to question authority and not just be the mouthpiece of authority? You are, no, I mean. It's a good characterization, but I think the laws in England, I mean, I was really shocked. You're not supposed to interview people who are involved in the case. So how then are you going to get a sort of counter narrative to what the prosecution is putting out?

“That was the real problem, and that's why my story, I think there was just this sense of how is no one else sort of articulating this.”

I mean, I think it was the reporting restrictions, but I also think it was just sort of a general sense of deference to the doctors and experts who had made these judgments.

What did these doctors have at stake if Lucy wasn't found guilty?

“At the beginning, not much, but then I think like anyone they sort of developed identities that were around being these heroic whistleblowers and they were treated like that in the media.”

And so yeah, it is humiliating. If they are not these heroic whistleblowers, what have they done? They've ruined a woman's life. I can understand even on a psychological level why it would be heard for these doctors now to consider the evidence in a sort of neutral objective way. Were you aware of how big of a splash your piece made when it came out? I mean, something I noticed that I found really interesting was that people who read it from America and from other countries outside of England kind of read it in a pretty consistent way.

They were like, I'm so horrified, I cannot believe this woman was convicted of these crimes. People who read it in England absolutely did not have that response. And I think that's because they were looking at it through this framework of having been exposed to so much media coverage about this case. Hi, nice to meet you. Would you mind introducing yourself for our audience? Sure, and my name is Polly. I can shop actually at the moment and in a small village in the English countryside sounds idyllic.

I first connected with Polly way back in 2024. She was just one of many people who reached out to me about the Lucy let be case. In her initial email to me, she wrote, "Hey Amanda, I wanted to get in touch to ask you to consider looking into a recent case that is extremely troubling." She told me that she believed the Lucy was a victim of a troubled system, writing, quote, "I wholly believe it is a gross miscarriage of justice. I do not believe there were any murders or attacks. I believe those babies died due to poor care in a seriously failing hospital."

Polly, like the majority of people in the UK, followed the Lucy let me story as it unfolded day by day.

The media in the UK, as you probably know, sort of got hold of this story and really went with it like I don't know like a terrier after a rat or something as they do quite often. The headlines that were coming out were fairly strong shall we say.

“I don't think I even questioned whether she was guilty or not. I think that was for me at the beginning it was a short thing, you know, and that was because of the media I believe.”

But as time went on, as the coverage piled on, many of the quiet questions Polly had been asking herself during the whole saga grew louder.

When you look beyond all the sort of incredibly dramatic emotive language, I just thought they just don't really have anything or what they do have. It's sort of been cobbled together and then there's this narrative spun and it just didn't sit right to me. It wasn't believable. There's huge holes in the story that they were telling and what they had to back it up with. Reading Rachel's New Yorker story had a lot of people seeing the holes that Polly saw. And that is exactly what Rachel had hoped would happen.

I mean, I hope that it would cause people to really question their assumptions and think about the case in a very different way.

“Did it? I think it did. I mean, I think it kind of really like unleashed this. It felt like it opened space. I think having the New Yorker could sort of come out and establish this real possibility of her innocence.”

It opened up more maybe confidence because there has been great reporting since my piece came out from British journalists about new aspects of the case. So I think it like the momentum shifted. It's been nice to watch momentum growing. Like there have been more and more people feeling empowered to express their concerns. And there's more sense of like alarm and concern by journalists and people in government. But not everyone was jumping to join Polly's Innocence campaign, including some in the media, especially the newspapers that spent thousands of pages writing about Lucy's guilt.

Our out in these pages soon afterwards about the strange band of misfits and ghouls convinced Letby as innocent and emboldened by conspiracy theorists online travel daily to Manchester Crown Court to see the woman in the dark who they insist is the real victim in this case.

“This is how many of Letby's supporters were painted as, just misfits and ghouls out to free a child murderer.”

Asking questions about the Letby case came with a great risk, not just risk of being ostracized, but risk of coming across as a conspiracy theorist nut, one that was not to be believed.

The mere suggestion that something could have gone wrong in the system was unthinkable. I do wonder whether we should be more mindful when somebody's convicted that sometimes the system does get things wrong and sometimes things aren't absolute, and it feels that in this case there was no room for that.

“Journalist a nut curry was also hearing from people like Polly, people who were uncomfortable with the conviction, but these people, they were afraid to stick their necks out.”

In fear they too would be labeled a misfit or a ghoul, and that included professionals who were questioning the medical and statistical evidence.

Initially people would really terrified that the fact that they had concerns might become public, they felt that it could destroy their careers, because it was very taboo. The narrative was set, Lucy Letby had unquestionably murdered seven babies, and harmed a number of others, and to question that really was taboo. And this strangled, uncriticism, discussion, questioning, it's harmful. I know this personally, and I'm grateful to the many misfits and ghouls who backed my innocence when it was extremely unpopular to do so.

It just seems like it's black and white, doesn't it? We told one thing or the other, and what is needed sometimes is exploration in the middle of it to try and find out what the truth really is.

There is no way the crown's office wasn't aware of the slow and steady beat of growing concern over Lucy's conviction, but their focus was now on the retrial of Lucy Letby, for a charge they couldn't stick during her first trial. The crown prosecution service decided that there would be a retrial on one count, and that was a baby K. Baby K was a premature infant born at 25 weeks at the Countess of Chester Hospital on February 17, 2016. She died in her parents' arms three days after her birth on February 20.

Prosecutors were alleging that Lucy tampered with the baby's breathing tube. This trial would face a more educated and more critical public, but the court of public opinion is very different from the court of justice. Now, if you look into the evidence for Baby K, it's right one of the ones where there's the least possible evidence against Lucy, and where the whole case is basically the word of Lucy against the word of Ravi Jaira.

“I think the prosecution is going to lose that trial.”

That's the next time on doubt, the case of Lucy Letby. Out, the case of Lucy Letby is brought to you by Vespucci, I-Heart Podcasts, and Knox Robinson Productions. I've been your host Amanda Knox. This episode was written by Kathleen Goldhardt. The co-producer was Lucy Ditchment. The senior producer was Natalia Rodriguez. The assistant producer was Ami Gil. The sound designer is Tom Bittle. The theme music was also written by Tom Bittle, story editing by Kathleen Goldhardt, fact checking by Ami Gil, voice acting by Sarah Starling, and David Charles. Legal advice was provided by Jack Browning.

The executive producers were Joe Meek, Amanda Knox, Christopher Robinson, Daniel Torkin, and Johnny Galvin. Thank you for listening.

Math and Magic takes you behind the scenes of the biggest businesses and industries while sharing insights from the smartest minds of marketing.

“Coming up this season on Math and Magic, CEO of Liquid Death, Mike Siserio.”

People think that creative ideas are like these lightball moments that happen when you're in the shower. Or it's really like a stone sculpture, you're constantly just chipping away and refining. Take two interactive CEO, Strauss Selling, and our own cheap business officer, Lisa Coffee.

Listen to Math and Magic on the I-Heart Radio App, Apple Podcast, or wherever you get your podcast.

Saturday, May 2nd, countries, biggest stars will be in Austin, Texas. At hour 2026, I-Heart Country Festival presented by Capital One. We became proud, part of a column, Riley Green. Dylan Scott, Russell Dickerset. Hey there folks, Amy Robock, and TJ Holmes here.

And we know there is a lot of news coming at you these days from the war with Iran, to the ongoing Epstein Fallout.

“Government shutdowns, high profile trials, and what the hell is that lake lively thing about anyway?”

We are on it every day, all day. Follow us, Amy and TJ for news updates throughout the day. Listen to Amy and TJ on the I-Heart Radio App, Apple Podcast, or wherever you listen to podcasts. It's the new me, and it's the old them. This woman's history month, the podcast, if you new better with Amber Grimes, spotlights women who turn

missteps into momentum and lessons into power. My tunnel vision of like, I got to achieve this was off the strength of like, I want to make a better life for us. If you new better, brings real talk from women who've lived it. Unpacking career pivots, relationship lessons, and the mind set shifts that changed everything. If you're new better with Amber Grimes on the I-Heart Radio App, Apple Podcast, or wherever you get your podcasts.

Baves, what are you doing? What? I'm just mowing the lawn?

“No, it's blazing hot and dry out here. Don't you remember? Smokey Bear says.”

Avoid using power equipment when it's windy or dry. Where do you learn this? Oh, it's on SmokeyBeard.com with many other wildfire prevention tips. Right. Thanks, honey Bear. Because remember, only you can prevent wildfires.

Rot you by the USDA Forest Service, your state forester in the ad council. This is an I-Heart Podcast. Guaranteed human.