Dr Dewi Evans, the chief medical witness for the prosecution, said the full maternity notes were not relevant to the case.
"I never saw any obstetric notes and I have no idea what happened to them," he said.
"I don't think that maternity care was a particular issue in the Letby case. I think [but have no idea of the facts because I didn’t review the notes] most of the babies I dealt with were born in acceptable condition."
Evans said he did see brief maternity summaries - "usually a couple of paragraphs" - attached to each baby's neonatal notes.
….
The prosecution argued that Baby O was born in good condition and was stable for 48 hours before he suddenly collapsed. They said that indicated that Letby attacked him.
But Bennett's opinion is that the baby died from a liver condition caused by an injury to his liver during, what he believed was, a difficult Caesarean section to deliver him.
He says though this is quite rare, there was substantial medical literature on it.
In these medical reports the injury usually happened during delivery and the baby seemed to be well for an average of 48 hours until suddenly collapsing and often dying.
Bennett said he would like to see the obstetrics notes to get a better understanding of the delivery.
In response, Evans said Baby O was born in good condition.
He added: "I don't think [but have no idea of the facts because I didn’t review the notes] that anything in the obstetric notes would have improved my understanding or the understanding of all of us who became involved with this investigation."
So Evans assumed the baby was born in good condition, without reviewing the birth and maternity notes, despite a difficult caesarean and the baby being unwell enough to require care in a neonatal unit and the fact that if a baby did sustain liver damage during a difficult birth, it may not become apparent for 48 hours.
And he was the chief medical witness??
How did his testimony not get torn apart in court?