Mr Myers is beginning with the case of Child J. She was born prematurely at the Countess of Chester in late October 2015 and transferred to Alder Hey Children's Hospital in Liverpool on 1 November as she had a bowel condition which required surgery.

She returned to Chester on 10 November, where she remained stable until 27 November, when she suffered two unexplained seizures within a half-hour period.

A medical expert for the prosecution said her collapse could be "consistent with some form of obstruction of her airways, such as smothering"

Mr Myers is quoting evidence from Child J's mother - who painted a picture of the Countess of Chester. She contrasted it with Alder Hey, she said Alder Hey staff were 'extremely professional'.

At Chester Mr Myers said the mother 'felt like staff on occasions did not take her or her husband's concerns seriously when they raised them'. He said in the parents' view staff at the Countess 'did not have the same competence and ability'

The mother said she felt 'complaints were not taken seriously' and cited one occasion were the mum found Child J 'wrapped in a towel covered in faeces and called for a meeting with a consultant', he said her 'concerns were met with pushback'

Mr Myers takes the jury through Child J's collapses on the morning of 27 November 2015 - he says the experts and doctors on shift at the time could not explain her collapse. He says given the timings of events, 'there is no space for these allegations'

Mr Myers is now turning to Child K. Despite being born at 25 weeks, Child K was considered to be in a good condition, but as a precaution, arrangements were made to transfer her to Arrowe Park Hospital shortly after her birth in February 2016.

While waiting for transport, she was left in the care of Ms Letby, who, the prosecution said, deliberately dislodged her breathing tube.

A consultant told the court he felt uneasy about Ms Letby being left with the child as the team were aware "of a number of unexpected and unusual events and we were aware of an association with Lucy Letby".

He said "no cause and effect had been ascribed", but he saw Ms Letby standing by the incubator, noticed the breathing tube was dislodged and saw the nurse do "nothing" to help until he arrived. The baby eventually stabilised, but died three days later.

Mr Myers says the implication of Dr Ravi Jayaram's evidence - that he saw Ms Letby standing by Child K and doing nothing - was that she had sabotaged the baby. Mr Myers says Ms Letby does 'not accept that is something she did'

'She does not and has never accepted doing something to harm these children', Mr Myers says

Mr Myers says 'Dr Jayaram did his best to support the allegation he made by saying (Child K) was sedated when get into this case we discover she was not'

He says when the case was 'opened it was based on (Child K) not being mobile because she was sedated and therefore couldn’t be responsible for moving the tube'

Mr Myers says 'that's all wrong, because when we get to the evidence it became clear (Child K) had not been sedated until after the tube movement'

Mr Myers says if Dr Jayaram had 'really saw that do you think he would have taken his eyes off Ms Letby for one moment from that point on, seriously? We say the most striking feature is how he did nothing despite what he claimed to the police over a year later'

'If things happened the way he tells us there’s absolutely no way he would allow this to happen twice more, in front of him, it’s unbelievable. He would be watching her like a hawk', he said

Mr Myers notes that Dr Jayaram never called the police - despite seeing what he said he did - something he said was 'incredible'

Mr Myers says Dr Jayaram - and the other consultants who said they were concerned - didn't even fill out at Datix report on the incident. The medic said he 'wasn't convinced' Datix was 'the correct way to investigate' this'

Mr Myers says the evidence in this case has 'no basis for attempted murder'

He now turns to the case of Child L. A twin boy born in early April 2016, Child L stabilised after treatment for mild low blood sugar and was moved to nursery one.

In the hours that followed Ms Letby's arrival on 9 April, Child L's glucose levels fell to abnormally low and he had to be given glucose in an attempt to correct hypoglycaemia.

The prosecution said blood tests revealed a very high level of insulin, which they said had been caused by the administering of synthetic insulin in a "deliberate act of sabotage" by Ms Letby.

Mr Myers is taking the jury back over the charts for Child L - he says the allegation 'doesn't make sense' based on all the information. He says claim that Ms Letby was on her own in the nursery with Child L is 'speculation' and constructed again on a 'theory of guilt'

Mr Myers, as with the other insulin case Child F, focuses on the fact the alleged contaminated TPN bag was changed multiple times - when Ms Letby was not present. He said 'she cannot physically be held responsible for what has happened for the whole period'

He says 'it is impossible to see how that could be done when so many bag changes were needed, Ms Letby was simply not there'

He says the implication of the Crown's argument is that Ms Letby 'has done a job lot' of contaminating all the dextrose bags (15 or so) on the unit to guarantee Child L was sabotaged. He says there's no evidence of that or any of the bags causing issues with other children

Mr Myers is now turning to Child L's twin brother Child M. Child M suffered an unexpected life-threatening event on 9 April 2016, at about the same time that his twin brother Child L's blood sugar was dangerously low.

Mr Myers notes that Ms Letby was busy with other duties around this time. She was the designated nurse for two other babies in nursery one