UK - Nurse Lucy Letby, murder of babies, 7 Guilty of murder verdicts; 8 Guilty of attempted murder; 2 Not Guilty of attempted; 5 hung re attempted #37

[Tortoise]

In light of the above, I don't think the consideration of pausing the Inquiry has anything to do with Letby's CCRC preliminary application for an appeal. I think it's more likely to do with the police investigating individuals for gross negligence manslaughter.

 

[katydid23]

In light of the above, I don't think the consideration of pausing the Inquiry has anything to do with Letby's CCRC preliminary application for an appeal. I think it's more likely to do with the police investigating individuals for gross negligence manslaughter.

I'm sooooooo curious to see who is on their list.

CPS said earlier:

Earlier, in a statement, Cheshire Police said: “In October 2023 following the lengthy trial and subsequent conviction of Lucy Letby, Cheshire Constabulary launched an investigation into corporate manslaughter at the Countess of Chester Hospital.

“This focuses on senior leadership and their decision-making to determine whether any criminality has taken place concerning the response to the increased levels of fatalities.

“As our inquiries have continued, the scope of the investigation has now widened to also include gross negligence manslaughter.”


Mm'Kay----'Senior leadership ' that failed to 'respond to increased fatality levels.'

Who is on that list?

 

[Tortoise]

Or, was the police announcement strategically to confirm to Lady T and Inquiry participants that police are not stepping back as a result of McD's media stunts?

 

[joltz]

In light of the above, I don't think the consideration of pausing the Inquiry has anything to do with Letby's CCRC preliminary application for an appeal. I think it's more likely to do with the police investigating individuals for gross negligence manslaughter.

Absolutely. He's just jumping on the bandwagon.

 

[May72031]

The arrogance of McDonald knows no bounds.

 

[Ruthbullock]

I understand the police announcement in that they have effectively been given a whole heap of evidence via the inquiry and Mark McDonalds experts and that they were almost forced to publicly acknowledge that they are looking at other charges and people- for them not to do so would reflect badly.
The timing of it seemed out of place, but I think they may have been offered some advice and insights into any potential outcomes and things raised throughout the inquiry that need further investigation criminally- this won’t have come from Mark Mc (there is no logical reason professionally they would listen to him) , but the people involved in the inquiry.
What is currently floating around in my mind is why at the very end would they consider pausing the inquiry. What would be gained at this point? It was evident to most people at the start of the inquiry there were going to be obvious failings identified within the trust- that was inevitable.
Why now, there are many months left before a report was due and it could be paused later to reflect on future police findings. The only thought I have around pausing before closing arguments is to keep it open for further evidence to be submitted.
What are people’s thoughts, and who if anyone (and why) would certain parties request a pause now?

 

[marynnu]

Better Call Saul. I'll just park it there.

 

[Parker Knoll]

So apt Mary !

 

[mrC]

as far as i can see matk mcdonald is just doing what a defense lawyer is supposed to weather it will work or not is another matter its to early to say

 

[Furore]

https://www.itv.com/watch/news/lucy...nched-at-countess-of-chester-hospital/z9nkh2y

Interview with ITV

Mark McDonald : “are they doing, in light of all the evidence that I’ve presented, am about to present, to the Criminal Cases Review Commission, is this time for them to step back and really start looking as to whether or not they’ve made any mistakes”



It's a bit idiotic to expect police to know what he hasn't even presented yet. IMO

Also IMO there are genuine safeguarding and procedural failings that occurred irrespective of whether Letby is actually guilty or not in that these were unexplained deaths, that did not receive the proper process (eg SUDIC - sudden unexplained deaths in childhood process) and there was a question of assault or murder by a member of staff - that was never the Trust’s to solve internally, forensic post mortems were missed, and again given suspended from clinical duties for potential harm, Letby should never have been put on the patient safety team. It was also completely inappropriate for the nursing manager to be pursuing a friendship/dinners/intimate texts etc with a member of staff she was investigating (they were not close friends beforehand), just because she thought LL was nice. Just so dangerous, unethical and ill advised - that is the kind of system murderers do get away with it and that’s more what the Thirlwell enquiry was for - IMO -trust management does not have the authority to clear an individual of murder and I’m appalled more has not been made of that in the media. All JMO

 

[Furore]

https://www.itv.com/watch/news/lucy...nched-at-countess-of-chester-hospital/z9nkh2y

Interview with ITV

Mark McDonald : “are they doing, in light of all the evidence that I’ve presented, am about to present, to the Criminal Cases Review Commission, is this time for them to step back and really start looking as to whether or not they’ve made any mistakes”



It's a bit idiotic to expect police to know what he hasn't even presented yet. IMO

He seems like such a chancer this dude, and likes his time in the sun.

 

[Tortoise]

as far as i can see matk mcdonald is just doing what a defense lawyer is supposed to weather it will work or not is another matter its to early to say

He's breaching bar council professional ethics. Just for example -

20. The following paragraphs may assist you to identify situations in which expressing a personal opinion in relation to anticipated or on-going litigation might breach your Core Duties and/or specific rules in the BSB Handbook, or put you in other difficulties.

27. Even if all advocates in a case express personal opinions to the media during the currency of proceedings, there is the potential for all of them to be in breach of their professional duties, not least through damaging the confidence which the public places in the independence and objectivity of the profession and in the fairness and impartiality of the administration of justice. The expression of personal opinions should not be used as a litigation tactic. Such behaviour could be seen as usurping or undermining the proper role of the jury or judge in finding the facts on the basis of admissible evidence, and in reaching decisions as to the law based on the arguments. Even if you do not intend this, there is a risk of you being seen as conducting or encouraging ‘trial by media’, or of trying to secure an unfair advantage in the litigation by swaying public opinion.

30. Personal views expressed to the media in connection with a criminal trial in which you are involved may come to the attention of witnesses and jurors. Those views may be given particular and undue weight, particularly if you are continuing to act as counsel in the case. Expressing such views could undermine the fairness of the trial, and could involve an abuse of your role as an advocate. More generally, this type of behaviour could undermine both the administration of justice and your independence, and bring the profession into disrepute.

https://www.barcouncilethics.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Expressing-personal-opinions-about-your-cases-to-or-in-the-media-October-2024.pdf

MOO

 

[Ruthbullock]

He's breaching bar council professional ethics. Just for example -

20. The following paragraphs may assist you to identify situations in which expressing a personal opinion in relation to anticipated or on-going litigation might breach your Core Duties and/or specific rules in the BSB Handbook, or put you in other difficulties.

27. Even if all advocates in a case express personal opinions to the media during the currency of proceedings, there is the potential for all of them to be in breach of their professional duties, not least through damaging the confidence which the public places in the independence and objectivity of the profession and in the fairness and impartiality of the administration of justice. The expression of personal opinions should not be used as a litigation tactic. Such behaviour could be seen as usurping or undermining the proper role of the jury or judge in finding the facts on the basis of admissible evidence, and in reaching decisions as to the law based on the arguments. Even if you do not intend this, there is a risk of you being seen as conducting or encouraging ‘trial by media’, or of trying to secure an unfair advantage in the litigation by swaying public opinion.

30. Personal views expressed to the media in connection with a criminal trial in which you are involved may come to the attention of witnesses and jurors. Those views may be given particular and undue weight, particularly if you are continuing to act as counsel in the case. Expressing such views could undermine the fairness of the trial, and could involve an abuse of your role as an advocate. More generally, this type of behaviour could undermine both the administration of justice and your independence, and bring the profession into disrepute.

https://www.barcouncilethics.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Expressing-personal-opinions-about-your-cases-to-or-in-the-media-October-2024.pdf

MOO

He knows what he is doing and won’t cross the line- hence the press release by Dr Shoo Lee. The fact that a serious amount of information from the police and hospital investigations is already out via the public inquiry also gives a lot of scope for commentary as it’s now in the public domain. Its commentary he is doing, not his own personal opinions at least in the eyes of the law.

 

[mrC]

and the press would expect the defense to comment

 

[joltz]

I understand the police announcement in that they have effectively been given a whole heap of evidence via the inquiry and Mark McDonalds experts and that they were almost forced to publicly acknowledge that they are looking at other charges and people- for them not to do so would reflect badly.
The timing of it seemed out of place, but I think they may have been offered some advice and insights into any potential outcomes and things raised throughout the inquiry that need further investigation criminally- this won’t have come from Mark Mc (there is no logical reason professionally they would listen to him) , but the people involved in the inquiry.
What is currently floating around in my mind is why at the very end would they consider pausing the inquiry. What would be gained at this point? It was evident to most people at the start of the inquiry there were going to be obvious failings identified within the trust- that was inevitable.
Why now, there are many months left before a report was due and it could be paused later to reflect on future police findings. The only thought I have around pausing before closing arguments is to keep it open for further evidence to be submitted.
What are people’s thoughts, and who if anyone (and why) would certain parties request a pause now?

"they have effectively been given a whole heap of evidence via the inquiry and Mark McDonalds experts and that they were almost forced to publicly acknowledge that they are looking at other charges and people- for them not to do so would reflect badly"

There's no evidence to suggest the police are acting or making public statements because of McDonald's press conference, or because it would reflect badly if they didn't.

New evidence has emerged about the conduct and actions of the management through the enquiry, possibly things that make them liable for charges and the police are investigating.

Anything else is just guessing.

JMO

 

[Marantz4250b]

as far as i can see matk mcdonald is just doing what a defense lawyer is supposed to weather it will work or not is another matter its to early to say

Nothing of what he's doing is what a defence lawyer is supposed to do!

 

[Ruthbullock]

Nothing of what he's doing is what a defence lawyer is supposed to do!

He is registered as a human rights lawyer, so on the face of it he is just trying to get a fresh hearing for LL (but that is simplifying his role)- his interest in this case is based on highlighting flaws as well within the judiciary system and eventually calling for changes. The use of expert witnesses was already part of an ongoing parliamentary discussion prior to this case and was due to be reviewed- so he is highlighting support for this debate. The scrapping of NHS England this week , which was a fundamental part of the external and impartial whistleblowing procedures at COCH and all other hospitals will also either publicly, or behind the scenes, potentially be another angle in the longer term that we see MM take issue with- and is a sound reason for pausing the inquiry. His role is not merely to free one person, but to advocate through individual cases that changes in process need to be looked at- in this case it is how expert witnesses are being utilized. Whether they win or lose individual cases is not the only aim.

 

[mrC]

<modsnip> Medical experts ‘struck by witnesses’ lack of expertise’ at Letby trial

 

[Furore]

He is registered as a human rights lawyer, so on the face of it he is just trying to get a fresh hearing for LL (but that is simplifying his role)- his interest in this case is based on highlighting flaws as well within the judiciary system and eventually calling for changes. The use of expert witnesses was already part of an ongoing parliamentary discussion prior to this case and was due to be reviewed- so he is highlighting support for this debate. The scrapping of NHS England this week , which was a fundamental part of the external and impartial whistleblowing procedures at COCH and all other hospitals will also either publicly, or behind the scenes, potentially be another angle in the longer term that we see MM take issue with- and is a sound reason for pausing the inquiry. His role is not merely to free one person, but to advocate through individual cases that changes in process need to be looked at- in this case it is how expert witnesses are being utilized. Whether they win or lose individual cases is not the only aim.

I’m not convinced scrapping NHS England has any merit on the LL case and IMO if that gets reached for, it’s due to running out of any other proficient argument!

The defence have always been able to utilise expert witnesses and chose not to, in the trial. MM has been able to submit evidence to a judicial review body, commissioned to adjudicate merits of appeal. Previous attempts rebuffed due to lack of novel material - the original trial was in depth and had already covered ground that appeared novel to the casual layperson.

It is a defence counsel’s role to advocate in court, not in the press. I would be surprised if his colleagues hadn’t submitted complaints regarding the media frenzy he has instilled in this situation, either to his Chambers or the Bar. All MOO.

 

[Marantz4250b]

He is registered as a human rights lawyer, so on the face of it he is just trying to get a fresh hearing for LL (but that is simplifying his role)- his interest in this case is based on highlighting flaws as well within the judiciary system and eventually calling for changes. The use of expert witnesses was already part of an ongoing parliamentary discussion prior to this case and was due to be reviewed- so he is highlighting support for this debate. The scrapping of NHS England this week , which was a fundamental part of the external and impartial whistleblowing procedures at COCH and all other hospitals will also either publicly, or behind the scenes, potentially be another angle in the longer term that we see MM take issue with- and is a sound reason for pausing the inquiry. His role is not merely to free one person, but to advocate through individual cases that changes in process need to be looked at- in this case it is how expert witnesses are being utilized. Whether they win or lose individual cases is not the only aim.

Barristers are not supposed to be holding pressers and doing the stuff he's doing. This is the UK, not the USA.

Lawyers don't get "registered" as a particular type of lawyer/barrister as far as I'm aware. Do you have a source for that statement?

I don't think that referring to these people as "expert witnesses" is appropriate in the context of this discussion; if a court accepts them as such then fair enough but just because a few people who know about the subject decide to write a paper does not make them so.