91热爆

Leading criminal barristers Sasha Wass and Jeremy Dein investigate whether the murder of a care home resident was carried out by the nurse who was convicted of her poisoning.

Nottingham, 1935. Ada Baguley, a 55-year-old resident in a family-run nursing home passed away. Initially Ada was thought to have died from natural causes, but a post-mortem revealed her body to contain lethal doses of morphine.

Dorothea Waddingham, the owner of the nursing home and Ada's primary caregiver, and her partner Joe Sullivan were made the subjects of an inquest into Ada鈥檚 death. The inquest revealed that a short time before Ada鈥檚 passing she had changed her will and left her entire estate to Dorothea and Joe. Furthermore, the victim鈥檚 mother, another resident of the care home, had also died in suspicious circumstances. Investigators deemed the motive for the killing to be financial gain. Dorothea and Joe were arrested and charged with murder. Joe Sullivan was acquitted but, despite professing her innocence, Dorothea Waddingham was sentenced to death for the murder of Ada Baguley, but not her mother.

Now, almost 90 years later, Chris Canner, a relative of Dorothea Waddingham, is convinced of Dorothea鈥檚 innocence. Chris is bringing the case to the barristers to see if they can uncover new information from a modern-day nursing historian and a forensic pathologist.

Jeremy and Sasha examine the motive surrounding the case to see whether there was any truth in the accusation that Dorothea killed for financial gain. Can they uncover new evidence to put before a judge that casts doubt of the safety of Dorothea鈥檚 conviction?