Lucy Letby's lawyer issues fiery statement after two top experts quit hours before inquiry verdict

Lucy Letby's lawyer issues fiery statement after two top experts quit hours before inquiry verdict As two experts quit Lucy Letby's defence team over "fundamental unresolvable problems", a bombshell public inquiry has concluded that vulnerable babies could have been saved if hospital bosses hadn't failed to act on warnings Lucy Letby's lawyer has insisted her campaign for freedom has not been undermined after two key experts quit her defence team, warning that some of her legal arguments have "fundamental, unresolvable problems”. Engineering expert Helen Shannon and bioengineering professor Geoff Chase withdrew from the team on Monday, raising concerns about legal arguments put forward by Letby’s team, adding that it was placing the killer's nurse chances of freedom at "serious, unnecessary, and unacceptable risk." The former neonatal nurse, who maintains her innocence, is serving 15 whole-life terms for murdering seven babies and the attempted murders of seven others at the Countess of Chester hospital between June 2015 and June 2016. The Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC), which investigates potential miscarriages of justice, is currently considering evidence presented on her behalf by an international panel of medics, who claim the infants died of natural causes or poor medical care. In a joint letter to the CCRC and reported by The Guardian, the two departing experts maintained their belief that two alleged insulin poisonings were "very unlikely." However, they criticised the wider legal strategy, writing: "Whilst it is entirely legitimate for the defence to advance multiple arguments, some of the other arguments now being put forward we cannot support as scientifically credible and which have, in our view, fundamental unresolvable problems.” Asked by BBC Newsnight whether their withdrawal undermined Letby’s case, lawyer Mark McDonald said he “fundamentally” disagreed. “They don’t know what I put into the CCRC because I haven’t told them. So how on earth could they make that conclusion?” he said. “But really, it comes back to this. Both sets of experts say that Lucy Letby is innocent. “One set of experts remains in the CCRC. One set of experts have withdrawn. But they both are of the same position that whatever happened at the trial, what took place at the trial, was wrong, that the jury was misled.” McDonald, Letby’s barrister, told the Guardian: "We now have evidence from a number of leading international experts in insulin, endocrinology and laboratory medicine which fundamentally undermines the scientific evidence relied upon at trial. Importantly, the case does not stand or fall on any one expert. "The strength of the new evidence lies in its breadth and convergence, with independent experts from different disciplines and jurisdictions identifying fundamental problems with the scientific basis upon which the jury were invited to conclude that babies [6] and [12] had been deliberately poisoned.” The defence split comes as a bombshell public inquiry concluded today that some of Letby's victims could have been saved if hospital managers had acted earlier. "There was a complete failure to protect babies on the neonatal unit at the Countess of Chester Hospital," said Lady Justice Thirlwall. “This was because no-one seems to have understood that safeguarding action is required when a member of staff is suspected of causing deliberate harm and does not require colleagues to be sure of guilt. “My report describes dysfunctional management and governance, a gulf between hospital leadership and clinicians, and failure to understand the fundamentals of safeguarding.” Addressing the heart-wrenching legacy of the hospital's inaction, the senior judge added: "How many lives could have been saved had the hospital acted differently? This is something we will never know for sure. “It is clear that some babies would have been saved and some attacks would have been prevented if action was taken earlier.”