UK - Lucy Letby - Post-Conviction Statutory Inquiry, 21 August 2023

[Parker Knoll]

I’m sure he will have a go if he can.
SMH.

 

[Ruthbullock]

So the defence have been heavily criticised on here for having a PR company to represent them and it has been stated by many as odd, unusual, uncalled for amongst other things, when all along the prosecution team also have a PR firm acting on the families behalf, which was providing press releases and was publicly available for interviews upon request.

Lucy Letby – statement and information for the media on behalf of Switalskis Solicitors about the Lucy Letby retrials. | News | Scala

All requests for interviews and further information should be directed to Scala.

www.scala.uk.com

 

[Tortoise]

So the defence have been heavily criticised on here for having a PR company to represent them and it has been stated by many as odd, unusual, uncalled for amongst other things, when all along the prosecution team also have a PR firm acting on the families behalf, which was providing press releases and was publicly available for interviews upon request.

Lucy Letby – statement and information for the media on behalf of Switalskis Solicitors about the Lucy Letby retrials. | News | Scala

All requests for interviews and further information should be directed to Scala.

www.scala.uk.com

The victims' families are not part of the prosecution team.

 

[Ruthbullock]

Sorry, I will clarify- the families employed a PR team through their solicitors- I’m not sure what point you wanted to make.

 

[Tortoise]

Sorry, I will clarify- the families employed a PR team through their solicitors- I’m not sure what point you wanted to make.

My point is the prosecution team don't have a PR firm.

 

[Parker Knoll]

The families have been represented via their lawyers.
This is common practice and to be expected.

 

[Ruthbullock]

My point is the prosecution team don't have a PR firm.

My point was there are other PR teams involved in the case, I then corrected the statement as it wasn’t clear enough if people don’t open the articles. My point still stands- multiple PR teams have been involved, so it is not unusual and the defence team having one is no different to the families having their own via their solicitors.

 

[Ghostwheel]

My point was there are other PR teams involved in the case, I then corrected the statement as it wasn’t clear enough if people don’t open the articles. My point still stands- multiple PR teams have been involved, so it is not unusual and the defence team having one is no different to the families having their own via their solicitors.

Seeking clarification and real question: Was your point that the families have a PR team? Because that is what the article said and your original statement was "when all along the prosecution team also have a PR firm acting on the families behalf" and that is not the same thing. Or was your point that the defence should not be criticized for having it's own PR team because the families have a PR team, though not associated with prosecution team? (real question, I am trying to understand.)

 

[katydid23]

My point was there are other PR teams involved in the case, I then corrected the statement as it wasn’t clear enough if people don’t open the articles. My point still stands- multiple PR teams have been involved, so it is not unusual and the defence team having one is no different to the families having their own via their solicitors.

A PR team trying to spin the narrative that a convicted serial killer is actually innocent vs a PR team working on behalf of the INNOCENT victims, the surviving family members of the deceased newborns.

Tell me that there is no difference between the two.

 

[JosieJo]

A PR firm looking after the interests of bereaved families is a totally different kettle of fish to the PR campaign McDonald is waging.
To try what is pretty much "trial by media" is disgusting and I have no qualms saying it.
He has had information plastered across all media forms week in week out ..I can only imagine what decent KCs think of it.
What have we seen from the families via their representatives? Pretty much nothing

 

[Parker Knoll]

Thursday …. SMH.

https://www.parliament.uk/business/news/2026/march-2026/coming-up-in-the-commons-23-27-march/

 

[MrsAddick]

Thursday …. SMH.

https://www.parliament.uk/business/news/2026/march-2026/coming-up-in-the-commons-23-27-march/

Not familiar with adjournment debates, but quick googling suggests they let MPs get pet projects on the public record?
Assume he’ll be sermonising to no one given Easter break. What’s the goal here?

If only the opposing bench could be stacked with the baby’s parents… so he’s forced to look them square in the eyes

 

[Parker Knoll]

Will be interesting to see how many stay.
It’s the last on the list before the Easter break.

 

[Ruthbullock]

Pib

Not familiar with adjournment debates, but quick googling suggests they let MPs get pet projects on the public record?
Assume he’ll be sermonising to no one given Easter break. What’s the goal here?

If only the opposing bench could be stacked with the baby’s parents… so he’s forced to look them square in the eyes

Public record is the purpose and yes MPs are allowed to present and escalate all sorts of things on behalf of constituents- that’s how the system works- the MPs are there to represent “the people” in parliament.

 

[Ruthbullock]

It was the latter- a lot of posts just simply criticising the defence for using a PR team with no other substance. The reality is it’s a non point, PR teams are used by both sides and it is certainly not a way of judging either guilt or innocence. It’s just an action taken by various parties involved in such public trials and it shouldn’t be judged or used to imply ulterior motives.

 

[JosieJo]

It was the latter- a lot of posts just simply criticising the defence for using a PR team with no other substance. The reality is it’s a non point, PR teams are used by both sides and it is certainly not a way of judging either guilt or innocence. It’s just an action taken by various parties involved in such public trials and it shouldn’t be judged or used to imply ulterior motives.

Personally I think that is a simplified rationale...it's the extent, methods and purpose that crosses the line , not just purely that they are there

 

[Parker Knoll]

It is definitely not the norm …. I’m struggling to think of any convicted serial killers with a PR firm but there you go !

 

[MrsAddick]

It is definitely not the norm …. I’m struggling to think of any convicted serial killers with a PR firm but there you go !

Ted Bundy was a one-man PR firm. His relentless self-promotion and attempts to control narrative did win some groupies and even a wife.
Thankfully our legal system is more robust than the court of public opinion and trial-by-media… we know how things ended for Ted

 

[Sweeper2000]

Ted Bundy was a one-man PR firm. His relentless self-promotion and attempts to control narrative did win some groupies and even a wife.
Thankfully our legal system is more robust than the court of public opinion and trial-by-media… we know how things ended for Ted

I thought of bundy the b stad as well. Even the judge seemed to think highly of him. What was it he said something along the lines of "i could see you working here" or the likes, almost like it was regrettable that he wasnt. He was nothing special and ended bald with burn marks and a good thing too.

 

[Parker Knoll]

You can watch it live here

Parliamentlive.tv

House of Commons

parliamentlive.tv