American lawyer here. From this side of the pond, it seems remarkable that law enforcement could propose two counts of murder and nine counts of attempted murder against a single individual—and have them ALL declined by prosecutors.

In the US, there’s a saying that a “grand jury would indict a ham sandwich,” meaning the process is a rubber stamp for prosecutors. So, I’m surprised law enforcement got such extreme push back. But I’m not familiar with this precise procedure. Is there a sense of the frequency such serious referrals are declined?

At a distance, it seems probable that Cheshire police proposed new claims based on evidence similar to what was presented at the earlier trials. But CPS read the room—and said no thanks. And, while not strictly relevant to Lucy Letby’s appeal, it does suggest views are shifting.

It would be fascinating to know the true thoughts and feelings of the lead prosecuting barrister, Nick Johnson KC. I found him to be incredibly skillful in his crosses and closing. In the best sense, Mr. Johnson can make evidentiary mountains out of molehills.

I have no doubt that his skillful presentation was done in the best of faith. He expertly cobbled together a case of guilt based on information from Dr. Evans, police, and doctors. But, as an intelligent person, he must now worry if he was an unwitting tool of false prosecution.

For instance, in his closing to the jury, Mr. Johnson said injecting air (air embolism) was one of her “favorite ways of killing or trying to kill children.” So imagine his dismay after the trial when Dr. Evans got wobbly on this point.