Latest news with #MarkMcDonald
Cision Canada
a day ago
- Business
- Cision Canada
Ericsson deploys Canada-made indoor 5G solution Français
Ericsson's Canada-developed Fusion 8828 enhances indoor 5G connectivity, providing a premium experience for smaller enterprises including retail stores, cafes, cinemas, and more Bell Canada is a global pioneer in implementing Ericsson's advanced and innovative Indoor 5G solution TORONTO, June 4, 2025 /CNW/ -- In a national first, Ericsson today announced the launch of its Ottawa-developed Indoor Fusion 8828 5G solution. This state-of-the-art, compact 5G indoor solution seamlessly combines radio and baseband functionalities into one unit, revolutionizing indoor wireless connectivity to provide enhanced wireless coverage for consumers. "5G connectivity has the power to radically transform businesses and improve the lives of both employees and customers," says Jeanette Irekvist, President, Ericsson Canada. "We are proud to bring our innovative 5G solutions to Canadian businesses of all sectors and sizes. We look forward to providing reliable, quick and game-changing coverage to customers across a wide variety of indoor spaces." The Indoor Fusion 8828 is a compact, plug-and-play 5G solution aimed at businesses in small and medium-sized buildings, like coffee shops, chain stores, movie theatres, restaurants, and more. It supports up to four Radio Dots, delivering multi-Gbps speeds, and delivers reliable 5G connectivity for smaller locations, helping businesses improve their overall operations. Bell will be a global pioneer in implementing Ericsson's advanced and innovative Indoor 5G solutions, elevating its business client offerings as it transitions from a traditional telecommunications company to a leader in tech services and digital media. "We are committed to meeting the needs of our business clients and providing them with a great experience through state-of-the-art technologies," says Mark McDonald, EVP & Chief Technology Officer, Bell. "As the first to implement Ericsson's innovative 5G in-building technology, we're excited to break new ground, while enhancing operations and connectivity for businesses, to improve the daily experience for its employees and customers alike." The Fusion 8828 was designed in Ottawa by the Ericsson Radio team in 2023. Fusion uses Ericsson's extensive RAN and RDS assets to create a fully featured solution for small venues that works seamlessly with the rest of Ericsson's portfolio. FOLLOW US: Subscribe to Ericsson press releases here Subscribe to Ericsson blog posts here ABOUT ERICSSON: Ericsson enables communications service providers and enterprises to capture the full value of connectivity. The company's portfolio spans the following business areas: Networks, Cloud Software and Services, Enterprise Wireless Solutions, Global Communications Platform, and Technologies and New Businesses. It is designed to help our customers go digital, increase efficiency and find new revenue streams. Ericsson's innovation investments have delivered the benefits of mobility and mobile broadband to billions of people globally. Ericsson stock is listed on Nasdaq Stockholm and on Nasdaq New York.
News.com.au
4 days ago
- Health
- News.com.au
New evidence ‘proves' Lucy Letby is not the killer
Lucy Letby's lawyer Mark McDonald said that when he first met his client, he took her at her word when she said she was innocent. Now, the British barrister has claimed he has fresh evidence proving that the convicted neonatal nurse is a victim, not a killer. He believes Letby, the notorious baby murderer who is serving 15 whole-life orders for killing seven babies, has suffered 'the biggest miscarriage of justice in the criminal justice history of the United Kingdom,' he told 60 Minutes on Sunday night. 'The evidence that went before the jury, has been demolished now by the fresh evidence. And we need to get back to the criminal Court of Appeal,' he claimed. Letby, 35, who also tried to kill seven other infants – including one baby twice – at Countess of Chester Hospital, Cheshire, in 2015 and 2016, is destined to die in jail. Concerns about the nurse were initially sparked in 2015, following a surge in deaths at the National Health Service hospital that was three times the yearly average. In 2017, police began their investigation, and Dr Dewi Evans, a retired pediatrician, began investigating all the baby deaths and collapses in the neonatal ward, and led police to suspect foul play. Seven deaths and nine unexplained collapses were referred for further investigation. 'These were babies who were under control. In other words, they were not requiring huge amounts of oxygen. They were not requiring breathing support. They were quite stable, and suddenly from being quite stable, they suddenly would collapse,' Dr Evans explained. Police had a suspect they were closing in on, Letby, the then 28-year-old who had worked at the hospital since 2012. In 2018, police arrested the nurse and questioned her regarding the suspicious deaths and collapses that occurred while she was on duty. Although she denied any wrongdoing, a search of her home revealed incriminating evidence, including hundreds of hospital case notes – some relating to the children who had died – along with handwritten notes, one of which Letby had written in capital letters: 'I AM EVIL I DID THIS'. It was found that the nurse also repeatedly looked up the families of her victims on social media. Following the longest criminal trial in British history and a retrial on one count of attempted murder, Letby was sentenced to 15 life sentences for her crimes last year, and her bid to appeal was rejected. Dr Evans was the key prosecution witness, and his medical evidence was vital to the Crown's case against Letby. Having ruled out all other explanations, he concluded Letby was harming some babies by injecting air into their bloodstream and others by forcing milk and air into their stomachs. Two babies were poisoned using insulin. But Mr McDonald, Letby's lawyer, has since claimed the case had 'no direct evidence against' his client. He said the medical evidence was disproved by a team of international experts he put together to examine the babies' cases. Professor Neena Modi, a leading British neonatologist on the panel, said they found no evidence of murder. 'What jumped out at us, absolutely jumped out at us were these very, very plausible alternative explanations that did not involve wrongdoing of any kind,' she said. 'In each and every one of these cases, there was a very, very plausible alternative explanation.' She claimed the babies died from natural causes or a lack of proper care and called for the case to be reviewed. Mr McDonald also stated that other experts dismissed the insulin cases after it was found that the tests which helped convict Letby were proven to yield false results. He claims to have fresh evidence, and he is confident it will exonerate his client. 'We have new hope here, and she sees it, but she also sees it as her last chance, her last chance from her point of view to get the truth out there. All Lucy Letby wants is a fair hearing,' he said. But Dr Evans is sure that the truth has already been heard and there's 'no new evidence', just 'a new opinion'. 'And the opinion has not been tested in court,' he added. He said he was absolutely certain of Letby's guilt and believes 'She's the worst female serial killer in English history'.
Yahoo
7 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
WCG launches integrated solution to enhance clinical trial process
WCG has launched the WCG Study Accelerator, an integrated solution designed to optimise the clinical trial process and enhance outcomes for institutions and sponsors worldwide. The solution focuses on expediting the execution of trials by aligning site choices, ethical reviews, and subject recruitment and retention into a unified strategy. It uses operational intelligence and real-time data to reduce risks, prevent engagement with underperforming sites, and shorten trial timelines by up to 20%. This approach allows sponsors to make informed site selections and improve enrolment efficiency. WCG chief operations officer Mark McDonald said: 'Study Accelerator not only provides a structured framework for executing trials efficiently, but also embeds flexibility and insights by streamlining site selection and participant enrolment and engagement processes. 'The solution combines advanced technology with hands-on support to ensure seamless implementation and execution, even for highly specialised or complex protocols. This truly enables smarter, faster trials.' According to the company, operational challenges, rather than scientific uncertainty, often cause delays in the trials. Issues such as disjointed planning, inconsistent execution of the site, and last-minute efforts to meet enrolment targets can lead to time wastage, increased expenses, and jeopardised outcomes. The solution is specifically engineered to solve these issues by integrating core operational functions into a performance-oriented framework that enhances decision-making, minimises obstacles, and enables trial advancement. WCG CEO Sam Srivastava said: 'With the launch of WCG Study Accelerator, we are addressing the well-known bottlenecks that have plagued clinical trials for years. Our solution exemplifies our commitment to innovation and customer-centricity by providing a model that propels trial execution forward with precision, speed, and integrity.' In March 2025, WCG launched ClinSphere Total Feasibility, a software-as-a-service (SaaS) platform aimed at refining site selection processes to aid sponsors and contract research organisations in making more decisions during clinical trial start-ups. "WCG launches integrated solution to enhance clinical trial process" was originally created and published by Clinical Trials Arena, a GlobalData owned brand. The information on this site has been included in good faith for general informational purposes only. It is not intended to amount to advice on which you should rely, and we give no representation, warranty or guarantee, whether express or implied as to its accuracy or completeness. You must obtain professional or specialist advice before taking, or refraining from, any action on the basis of the content on our site. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
The Guardian
14-05-2025
- Health
- The Guardian
The convictions of Lucy Letby: should they be overturned?
On 4 February 2025, Lucy Letby's barrister, Mark McDonald, convened a press conference at the grand baroque Westminster venue One Great George Street. It became a landmark moment, the culmination of months in which a number of distinguished experts had spoken out to question the former nurse's convictions. The media were addressed for an hour by a Canadian medical professor, Dr Shoo Lee. He said that a panel of international experts disputed the prosecution case that had led to Letby being found guilty in two trials of murdering seven babies at the Countess of Chester hospital in 2015 and 2016, and attempting to murder seven others. She was sentenced to 15 whole-life orders, and the court of appeal unanimously refused her permission to appeal. 'We did not find any murders,' Lee said. 'In all cases, death or injury were due to natural causes or just bad medical care.' Lee is one of the world's leading neonatologists – doctors who specialise in the medical science and care of premature babies. Before his retirement from clinical practice in 2021, he held senior leadership positions in Canada, headed up international collaborations and conducted extensive research. His journey to becoming so involved in a criminal process pursued in the provinces of north-west England is a remarkable feature of the Letby case. It springs from Lee being told, after Letby was convicted, that a medical research paper he authored more than 30 years ago had been used as a basis for one of the prosecution's central allegations – that Letby killed babies by injecting air into their veins. Lee was dismayed, he told the Guardian, adding that the use of his paper was 'incorrect' and a 'categorical error', and he was concerned Letby may have been wrongly convicted. He agreed to give evidence to the court of appeal but the judges dismissed it as 'irrelevant' when they refused Letby's application. He then committed to assembling a world-class panel who would fully assess the evidence. Lee's eminence meant that the peers he could call on comprised leading specialists in Canada, the US, Japan and Europe, including two distinguished UK-based consultants, Dr Neena Modi, a pre-eminent neonatologist, and the renowned perinatal pathologist Dr Marta Cohen. Lee flew across the Atlantic at his own expense to present their findings at that bombshell press conference. He explained the acute medical problems some of the premature babies had suffered, and said the panel found 'no medical evidence to support malfeasance' or deliberate harm. But they had identified 'so many problems' with the babies' care, in a unit that had 'inadequate numbers of appropriately trained' staff. 'If this had happened at a hospital in Canada,' Lee said bluntly, 'it would have been shut down.' The neonatal unit at the Countess of Chester hospital was a small, cramped, concrete facility, built in 1971. NHS neonatal units are classified for staffing and expertise at three different levels, according to how premature the babies are, because the earlier they are born short of the 40-week full term of pregnancy, the more severe their physical underdevelopment and medical difficulties tend to be. In 2015, the Chester unit was level two, which meant it accepted very premature babies, born after 27 weeks' gestation, including those with high medical dependency needs and requiring intensive care. The agonising series of premature babies dying on the unit began in June 2015 with three infants, anonymised at Letby's trial as babies A, C and D. It was recognised as a crisis a year later when two of three premature triplets died, babies O and P. That prompted the hospital's executives to downgrade the unit to level one, so it could only admit babies of more than 32 weeks gestation. Central to understanding the Letby case is that across almost a decade of inquiries and investigations since then into the collapses and deaths of the babies on the unit, the criminal trials – the verdicts that the babies were deliberately harmed – are the exception. Before Cheshire police became involved in May 2017, there were extensive examinations and reviews: within the hospital by the neonatal clinical lead Dr Stephen Brearey, lead for children's services Dr Ravi Jayaram, and others, postmortems by consultant pathologists at Liverpool's Alder Hey children's hospital, a coroner's inquest for Baby A, a review of the unit by the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health (RCPCH), then further reviews by the pathologists and independent consultant neonatologists. None found that the babies had been deliberately harmed. Now, after Letby's trials, Lee's international panel wholly disagrees with the prosecution case, as do many UK-based specialists, including consultant neonatologists Svilena Dimitrova and Neil Aiton, who are also providing expert reports on individual babies for McDonald. In 2015-16, the Countess of Chester hospital's neonatal unit was caring for more premature babies, with more acute medical needs, than in previous periods, and was struggling with staff shortages. But the precise causes of the individual collapses had not all been explained by the doctors or postmortems. Brearey and Jayaram had noted that Letby had been at work when babies collapsed, then in June 2016, after the two triplets died when she was on shift, they became more vocal about their suspicions. They had no evidence of any wrongdoing, nor of any deliberate harm caused to the babies. Jayaram then discovered the 1989 article that Lee had authored with another doctor, Keith Tanswell. Jayaram later said that he and other doctors had begun to wonder about skin discolorations observed on three of the babies: A, whom he attended; B and M, who had had collapses and survived. Jayaram said he did some research, and came across 'the possibility of something called an 'air embolism''. He then found 'an old academic paper, written in the 1980s'. Now that it has come to feature so prominently in the prosecution case, and Lee has appeared in person to respond so emphatically, the paper itself looks strangely modest: three and a bit pages of a medical journal, the authors' full names not even given: SK Lee and AK Tanswell. Entitled 'Pulmonary vascular air embolism in the newborn', it was a study of babies' fatal collapses caused by air in the bloodstream. Based on that paper, Letby would be accused of injecting air into babies' veins, although the study also comprised babies undergoing high-pressure ventilation. In some, particularly the more premature, their lungs leaked, so air entered the bloodstream, then, when it travelled to the heart, it blocked the circulation. The key observation that the prosecution's medical experts would later cite as a guide to air embolism in the Chester babies is a single sentence, a description of skin colour changes. 'Blanching and migrating areas of cutaneous pallor were noted in several cases and, in one of our own cases we noted bright pink vessels against a generally cyanosed [blueish-grey] cutaneous background.' Jayaram has said he found that description 'chilling', because it matched the blotches observed on the Chester babies, including Baby A. He began to raise air embolism, and the Lee and Tanswell paper, as possible evidence that Letby was murdering the babies by injecting them with air. He first mentioned it to hospital executives on 29 June 2016, then to the RCPCH review team, when they arrived two months later. The RCPCH team did not find the accusations against Letby compelling. They found that the unit was not compliant with professional standards for level two, it had too few consultants who were doing only two ward rounds per week, and junior doctors were reluctant to call on them. The hospital's medical director, Ian Harvey, commissioned Dr Jane Hawdon, a consultant neonatologist at London's Royal Free hospital, to review the individual babies' collapses, based on their medical records. Hawdon found no evidence of deliberate harm, but many instances of 'sub-optimal care'. Harvey explicitly mentioned to Hawdon that the consultants had suggested air embolism. She replied that 'there were insufficient details in records' and it would probably have been impossible 'to record in anything but real time' the precise causes of some collapses, including if there were any 'sinister' cause. But she emphasised she had 'concerns' about the unit's response to babies' medical conditions, referring to 'subtle signs' being missed 'or not escalated or responded to'. There may have been 'an inherent system or leadership problem,' she said. Harvey also asked Dr Jo McPartland, one of the Alder Hey pathologists, to review the postmortems, and asked her about air embolism. McPartland replied in January 2017 regarding Baby A that 'there was no evidence of air embolism'. Brearey and Jayaram, in particular, did not accept the adequacy of the reviews. They maintained their accusations against Letby, and began to press hospital executives to involve the police. The executives were reluctant as there was no evidence against Letby, only the consultants' suspicions due to the statistical coincidence of her having been on shift. Nobody ever saw her harm a baby or commit any of the acts – injecting babies with air, or lacing two feeding bags with insulin – of which she would later be accused and found guilty, and there has never been any tangible or forensic evidence of her doing so. She was well respected as a committed young nurse, who had taken intensive care qualifications, and would volunteer for extra work and overtime when the unit was stretched. Senior staff believed that this explained why she was often on shift for the sickest babies. Eventually, the executives agreed to the consultants' pressure to contact the police. Minutes of a meeting on 12 May 2017 show that the assistant chief constable, Darren Martland, did not believe there were grounds to investigate, as there was 'no specific allegation at this point to suggest a criminal act'. He also pointed out that Cheshire constabulary 'are not clinical experts'. Martland said officers would, though, meet with Jayaram on 15 May 2017, as he had sent an email raising concerns. At that meeting, Jayaram told the police that 'unusual rashes' were seen on some babies and he raised the possibility of air embolism. Three days later, on 18 May 2017, Cheshire police announced a criminal investigation. Paul Hughes, who became the senior investigating officer, was at the meeting with Jayaram. In Jayaram's first formal police statement on 18 September 2017, he referred to his research that found air embolism, and the Lee and Tanswell paper. He gave a very precise description of discoloration he said he had seen on Baby A, that tallied closely with the paper: 'flitting patches of pink areas on the background of bluey-grey skin'. Jayaram said in his statement that 'this strange blotching', which 'didn't fit with anything I'd ever seen before in my 27 years as a paediatrician', also appeared on Babies B and M. 'The paper described what I had seen on the babies,' Jayaram said. It would emerge at the trial, when he was challenged by Letby's then barrister, Benjamin Myers KC, that Jayaram had never noted that skin discoloration on Baby A before. He did not include such a description in the medical notes he wrote on the evening Baby A died in June 2015, nor in his evidence to the coroner's inquest. Myers accused Jayaram of making up this discoloration, two and a half years after Baby A died, to fit with the Lee and Tanswell description he had read since. Jayaram replied that he had not realised its clinical significance at the time. 'You're suggesting I didn't see it? No, absolutely I saw it, and I have no reason to confabulate why I might have seen it,' he said. 'As a professional, as a paediatrician of 30 years, as a doctor of 32 years, if my character was such that I would make things up, I would hope that friends, colleagues, managers, nurses, patients, parents, would have picked that up well before now.' Jayaram has also faced intense scrutiny and criticism for another key allegation he made against Letby, that he came upon her after she had dislodged Baby K's breathing tube, in February 2016. However he did not mention that to anybody for months afterwards. This allegation led to a charge of attempted murder, for which the jury in the first trial could not agree a verdict. Letby was convicted in the retrial, whose jury was told she was by then a convicted serial killer. Asked why he waited so long to mention it, Jayaram has said he wasn't courageous enough: 'It's been suggested to me that I just made that up, which is … I will refute, it is nonsense. There is no reason I would.' Serious further criticism has been made recently of his evidence: he said at the Baby K retrial that when the baby deteriorated, Letby did not call for assistance. But in a May 2017 email only disclosed to Letby's lawyers last September after she was convicted, recently reported by the UnHerd website, Jayaram wrote to his fellow doctors: 'Staff nurse Letby at incubator and called Dr Jayaram to inform of low saturations.' Last week, the Conservative MP David Davis, who has spoken in parliament arguing that Letby has suffered a 'clear miscarriage of justice', made a formal complaint to Cheshire police calling on them to investigate Jayaram for potential perjury. Asked about his evidence by the Guardian, Jayaram declined to comment. Key to understanding how Cheshire police came to construct a case against Letby, and the allegations of injection with air that no previous expert found, is that one doctor, Dewi Evans, had a very significant role. Hughes's team took him on within weeks, after Evans read about the investigation being launched and put himself forward, emailing a contact at the National Crime Agency: 'Sounds like my kind of case.' Evans was a consultant paediatrician with experience of neonatology, at Singleton hospital, Swansea, who retired in 2009. After that, he worked prolifically giving medical opinions as an expert witness in the adversarial battlegrounds of the courts. Concerns have been raised about his objectivity: expert witnesses must restrict their evidence to an impartial analysis in their own particular specialism, not advocate for the side instructing them. But Evans has talked repeatedly about having 'won' all his cases, except one. He explained this to the Guardian last year, arguing it is proof that he is impartial, as 'partisan witnesses don't last long'. Evans began suggesting the injection of air as a possibility to Cheshire police from an early stage. He ultimately gave as his medical opinion, for the police and prosecution, that five babies, A, D, E, I and O, had been killed by air embolism due to the injection of air into their veins. He also referred to the Lee and Tanswell paper to support this opinion, in particular that it explained the skin discolorations seen on some of the babies. Myers suggested to Evans at the trial that the police must have told him about suspicions of air embolism, putting that in his mind. Evans said that was 'completely untrue'. 'The first person I know of to raise the issue of air embolus in this particular series of cases was me,' Evans said. Evans' reputation was seriously undermined by an extraordinary intervention in the middle of the trial. A senior court of appeal judge, Mr Justice Jackson, issued profound criticism of Evans' integrity as an expert witness in a separate case, and took the step of emailing the Letby trial judge, Mr Justice Goss, to inform him. Jackson was vitriolic in his ruling, writing that Evans made 'no effort to provide a balanced opinion', and his approach 'amounts to a breach of proper professional conduct'. He appeared to have wanted a particular outcome in the case, Jackson said, and sought to achieve it by 'working out an explanation'. Jackson said the report included 'tendentious and partisan expressions of opinion that are outside Dr Evans' professional competence and have no place in a reputable expert report'. Myers argued throughout the Letby trial that Evans was not impartial, and had been doing what Jackson found in the other case: 'coming up with ideas and theories' to support the prosecution case that Letby harmed the babies. Evans consistently denied that. Myers then applied for all of Evans's evidence to be disregarded. Goss refused, ruling instead that the jury should be told about Jackson's criticisms, and decide themselves how credible they found Evans' medical opinions. During those exchanges, Evans said that the opinion Jackson criticised in the other case had only been a letter to a solicitor, that he had not expected to go before the court. Myers also applied for the allegations of air embolism to be thrown out, for lacking evidence. Goss refused that application, too. He acknowledged that the prosecution's expert radiologist and pathologist did not find any 'diagnostic' medical evidence of air embolism. But he said that this crucial question – the medical opinions that air had been injected into the babies' veins, based in part on the skin discolorations linked to the Lee and Tanswell paper – should also be left to the jury. The other method of murder alleged by the prosecution, which Evans also provided as an opinion, was that Letby injected air into babies' stomachs via the nasogastric feeding tubes connected to their noses. Many experts since the trial have dismissed and even ridiculed that as a means of harm; several clinicians told the Guardian last year that it was not practically feasible, and even if it was, the air would leak out or the baby would burp or vomit it up, or pass it as wind. When the Guardian put their criticisms to Evans, he said his opinion had been that injecting air or fluid into the stomach destabilised the babies, and 'was not directly responsible for any of the deaths'. McDonald argues this is a change of opinion from the trial, when Evans said that excessive air in the stomach could cause a baby to stop breathing. The court of appeal judgment states 'air via nasogastric tube' as the mechanism of murder for three babies, C, I and P. Evans has since changed his opinion on Baby C, saying he now firmly believes air embolism was the cause, and has sent a new report to Cheshire police. They have refused to provide it to McDonald. Replying to questions from the Guardian, Evans stood firmly by his opinions on air embolism. He has pointed out that he was cross-examined on them, supported by other doctors in the trial, and that his opinions were also considered by the court of appeal. Evans said he has been 'in good standing' with the General Medical Council since the start of his career in 1971, and began giving evidence as an expert witness in 1988. He said he 'flagged up' air embolism as a cause of several babies' collapse in his preliminary, 2017 reports, and only read the Lee and Tanswell paper later. 'The allegation of 'misusing and misinterpreting Prof Lee's 1989 paper is erroneous,' he said. 'I had reached a diagnosis of air embolus long before (re)discovering Lee and Tanswell's publication.' Lee was quite unaware of the Letby case until her lawyers contacted him in October 2023. He was immediately troubled to discover how his research had been used. To the court of appeal, Lee carefully explained air embolism, and emphasised that only the one skin colour change identified in his paper, pink blood vessels against a bluish background, was diagnostic. He said none of the rashes described as having been seen on the Chester babies conformed to that; they had many possible medical causes, including hypoxia, and he disputed Evans' opinions. But the judges, while recognising that Lee was an eminent neonatologist, dismissed his testimony as 'irrelevant and inadmissible'. It was irrelevant, they said, because the prosecution's medical witnesses had pointed to the babies' rashes as 'consistent' with air embolism, not diagnostic of it. And Lee's evidence was inadmissible because he had theoretically been available for the trial so Letby's legal team should have called him then. The judges also upheld Goss's rulings that left the questions of air embolism, and Evans's credibility, to the jury. Lee told the Guardian: 'Lucy's lawyers told me that she had exhausted all avenues of appeal and would remain in jail for the rest of her life. That troubled me greatly because no one should be convicted based on wrong medical evidence.' He then agreed to assemble his panel of 'the best experts in the world' to examine the evidence. With a neonatologist colleague in Toronto, Dr Qi Zhou, Lee also researched air embolism specifically caused by injecting air into veins. Lee explains that his 1989 paper did not distinguish between cases where air entered the circulation from the high pressure ventilation, and those where air was injected into the veins. There was no research specifically into air embolism caused by air injected into the veins. 'This was not pointed out at the trial or to the court of appeal,' Lee says. It was, he says, 'a categorical error' to use his paper to allege air was injected into the babies' veins. In their new scientific paper published in December 2024, Lee and Zhou found that no 'patchy skin discoloration', such as observed on the Chester babies, appeared from air injected into infants' veins. 'This is new evidence,' he says. It was striking that when the trials ended in July last year, amid the storm of publicity, a growing number of experts immediately spoke out in disagreement, even outrage, at the evidence that led to Letby's convictions. The government had rapidly set up a public inquiry, chaired by the court of appeal judge Lady Justice Thirlwall, to learn lessons from how a serial killer had apparently been operating in an NHS hospital unit. Before it started, 24 distinguished specialists wrote to the health secretary, Wes Streeting, and justice secretary, Shabana Mahmood, calling for the public inquiry to be paused or widened, to grasp the opportunity to consider whether the legal system may have produced a miscarriage of justice. But Thirlwall and the inquiry lawyers refused to engage with that possibility. In her introductory speech, Thirlwall dismissed the mounting concerns as 'noise'. She had to focus on the inquiry's terms of reference and could not 'set about reviewing the convictions', she said. 'The court of appeal has done that, with a very clear result. The convictions stand.' For six months, until the hearings finished in March, the inquiry proceeded on that basis: an unchallengeable assumption that the prosecution case was right, and that the truth was only established once the police became involved. The scale and weight of the expert challenge to the criminal trial have not been acknowledged by Thirlwall and her lawyers, by Streeting, Mahmood or any other government minister. The legal and political establishments appear to have struggled to recognise that the concerns over Letby's convictions are far from conspiracy theory or internet noise. It is unprecedented that so large a group of experts with such distinguished reputations have so rapidly, publicly and comprehensively spoken out to dispute convictions for murder. The lawyers representing the parents of the Chester babies at the Thirlwall inquiry have criticised the raising of concerns, and said they are increasing the families' distress. They have dismissed the possibility that Letby could be the victim of a miscarriage of justice, and don't accept that Lee's panel's work or his new research may undermine the safety of the convictions. On 18 March, Kate Blackwell KC, representing Harvey and three other hospital executives of the time, applied for Thirlwall to pause writing her report, arguing that the purpose of a public inquiry, to 'fully and fearlessly' establish the truth, would otherwise not be fulfilled. Blackwell's stance signalled that the executives, who have been relentlessly criticised at the inquiry for commissioning the external reviews and not going to the police sooner, question the safety of the convictions. It was the final day, and the first time anybody involved had said the experts' concerns should be taken seriously. Streeting and Thirlwall refused the application. On 3 April, McDonald submitted to the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) the full report, 698 pages, compiled by Lee's panel, on all the babies. They found no evidence that any were deliberately harmed, and rejected the prosecution case of air embolism or air via the nasogastric tube. The panel set out detailed findings on the babies' vulnerable medical conditions, their opinions on the cause of the collapses, and alleged a catalogue of poor medical practice by the doctors on the unit. Seven other leading experts also produced a separate report for McDonald, which rejects key prosecution evidence that led to Letby being convicted of attempting to murder two babies by poisoning them with insulin. 'The convictions are unsafe and should be overturned as soon as possible,' Lee says. Of the parents, he says: 'The ordeal of the infants' families is very sad and unfortunate, and we all feel for them. However, fair justice is paramount.' Some experts who also believe the convictions are unsafe are known to have taken issue with some medical detail in the panel's findings, while agreeing with the conclusions that there is no evidence of deliberate harm to any of the babies. The CCRC, founded after a 1993 royal commission report into a series of catastrophic miscarriages of justice including the Birmingham Six, is the legal system's last chance for convicted people whose appeals have been turned down. It decides whether applications raise sufficiently serious questions about convictions for a case to be referred back to the court of appeal. The CCRC has had its funding severely cut in recent years, while miscarriage of justice applications have dramatically increased, so the organisation is taking a long time to even consider them. The commission can only refer cases back to the court of appeal on the narrow ground that there is a realistic possibility the judges there may overturn a conviction. So it has to take into account judges' reluctance to accept new expert opinion, however eminent. Thirlwall continues to work on her report. She appears certain to recommend that, in future, if any accusations are made of wrongdoing by people in healthcare settings, they must immediately be referred to the police. A spokesperson for the inquiry said: 'It is not for a public inquiry to examine criminal convictions. That is the role of the Criminal Cases Review Commission and the court of appeal.' A government spokesperson said: 'We should all remember what the families and those affected by this appalling case are going through and keep them in our thoughts. A criminal trial has taken place and Lucy Letby was found guilty. There is an ongoing independent process to review cases through the Criminal Cases Review Commission.' Meanwhile, Letby remains in prison, convicted as Britain's worst ever child serial killer. She has always maintained her innocence.
Techday NZ
06-05-2025
- Business
- Techday NZ
Wavelink partners with Honeywell to expand mobility solutions
Wavelink, a distributor of technology solutions across Australia and New Zealand, has announced a new partnership with global automation leader Honeywell to deliver its Productivity Solutions and Services (PSS) portfolio to the Australian channel. The agreement marks a strategic expansion of Wavelink's mobility portfolio, introducing Honeywell's automatic identification and data capture (AIDC) solutions to its partners. These tools will support a range of industries including retail, manufacturing, transportation, logistics, healthcare and utilities. "Honeywell's portfolio complements and expands Wavelink's existing mobility solutions," said Mark McDonald, general manager of mobility at Wavelink. "It provides our partners access to proven, industry-grade technology that addresses real-world challenges in environments where accuracy, speed and reliability are critical. Honeywell is an exciting addition to Wavelink's mobility portfolio suitable for a range of sectors where Wavelink already has a well-established presence." Wavelink will offer Honeywell comprehensive channel support services including marketing, pre- and post-sales expertise, training, staging, implementation and lifecycle management. This support structure is intended to drive adoption and integration of Honeywell's solutions among Wavelink's partner network. "This partnership is about more than just adding a globally recognised brand to our portfolio," said Ilan Rubin, chief executive officer of Wavelink. "It's about delivering value for our partners by combining Honeywell's world-class mobility solutions with Wavelink's deep vertical expertise and strong channel enablement and development capabilities. Honeywell gains access to a dedicated team that understands the nuances of local markets, backed by more than 25 years of experience creating demand and supporting partners to deliver on complex customer needs." A key objective of the collaboration is to connect Honeywell with specialist partners who have experience and customer reach in aligned verticals. Wavelink also plans to pair Honeywell's offerings with complementary vendor technologies to enhance customer value. As part of its broader operational technology (OT) strategy, Wavelink will incorporate Honeywell's solutions into cross-domain initiatives involving cybersecurity, infrastructure and data visibility. This integrated approach underscores the distributor's commitment to technology partnerships that deliver business outcomes. Bartek Krajewski, Asia Pacific sales leader at Honeywell Productivity Solutions and Services, highlighted the benefits of working with Wavelink. "Honeywell's collaboration with Wavelink will extend the reach of our portfolio in Australia. We value their proven track record in mobility, deep understanding of customer pain points and ability to build and support a thriving partner ecosystem. Together, we're confident in delivering exceptional outcomes across key verticals." The announcement reflects Wavelink's ongoing investment in its partner ecosystem and strengthens its role as a key distribution partner for global technology providers in the region. Follow us on: Share on:
