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 #38

[sleuth777]

Sky News link:

Healthcare worker arrested on suspicion of murdering eight babies

Media, Maps & Timeline *NO DISCUSSION* thread

Thread #1 Thread #2 Thread #3 Thread #4 Thread #5 Thread #6 Thread #7 Thread #8 Thread #9 Thread #10 Thread #11 Thread #12 Thread #13 Thread #14 Thread #15 Thread #16 Thread #17 Thread #18 Thread #19 Thread #20 thread #21 Thread #22 Thread #23 Thread #24 Thread #25 Thread #26 Thread #27 Thread #28 Thread #29 Thread #30 Thread #31 Thread #32 Thread #33 Thread #34 Thread #35 Thread #36 Thread #37

 

[Sillybilly]

ADMIN NOTE:

Please remember that WS copyright rules and copyright law require that images have a link to the original source to give credit to the source.

Also, Mods not only have to edit the OP to remove unsourced pics, they then have have to go through all subsequent pages and posts to edit where the post has been requoted by others. OR we can remove the entire post and all responses and response to responses.

All we ask is that members ensure a link is provided. It takes only a moment for the members but takes WS staff a lot of time to fix if the link is not included.

 

[Sillybilly]

Hey folks,

It's fine to disagree but if you can't post without snark, and with total respect toward fellow members, don't post !!

Members who continue to disrespect others will be removed from this discussion.

 

[Knitty]

Please continue here.

 

[Moll]

I would be grateful for further information on this business of Lucy Letby not having waived privilege and what this implies for the intention to appeal.

Parker Knoll said on page 38 of the last thread, 37, on 3 April
'#750
So she hasn’t waived privilege then.
We can all pack up and go home as it’s finished before it’s started.'
and explained on 4 April
'#757
One cannot ( if it ever should happen and it does get referred ) pitch up at the COA without knowing why experts were not called at the original trials except the Plumber and you are relying now on new experts as that is going to be the first question asked.
She has to give consent to MM that he can have access to original documents that could have been used to support her case in the original trials in a nutshell, good, bad or indifferent.
Now I’m guessing that the expert opinions were not used at trial because they did not help her case, in fact they most probably helped dig the hole even deeper for her when cross examined by the prosecution so experts not called.
It a nightmare scenario for the defence but if they are not called the can of worms remains shut and it’s a salvage situation all round.
The fact that they are going forward to me without this transparency speaks volumes as to the strength of the case they are now putting forward and the characters involved.'

First of all, where does the information come from that she hasn't waived privilege? Secondly,
is it true that Mark McDonald automatically has the right as her new barrister to ask the previous defence barrister for such material?

I'm not a lawyer but if the information comes from Liz Hull's podcast of 3 April I gather from an article on the Jolly Contrarian website that she hasn't quite got this right, in that Mark McDonald automatically has the right to see the earlier defence material, so he already has access. The barrister Andrew Robertshaw says the same thing in his Art of Law podcast of 10 April.

Google Search

He also says she will have to waive privilege to allow the material to be presented in court and without that it would be the end of the matter as you said, Parker Knoll.

So I'd be grateful for your opinion and that of any lawyers present on this matter.

 

[Tortoise]

I would be grateful for further information on this business of Lucy Letby not having waived privilege and what this implies for the intention to appeal.

Parker Knoll said on page 38 of the last thread, 37, on 3 April
'#750
So she hasn’t waived privilege then.
We can all pack up and go home as it’s finished before it’s started.'
and explained on 4 April
'#757
One cannot ( if it ever should happen and it does get referred ) pitch up at the COA without knowing why experts were not called at the original trials except the Plumber and you are relying now on new experts as that is going to be the first question asked.
She has to give consent to MM that he can have access to original documents that could have been used to support her case in the original trials in a nutshell, good, bad or indifferent.
Now I’m guessing that the expert opinions were not used at trial because they did not help her case, in fact they most probably helped dig the hole even deeper for her when cross examined by the prosecution so experts not called.
It a nightmare scenario for the defence but if they are not called the can of worms remains shut and it’s a salvage situation all round.
The fact that they are going forward to me without this transparency speaks volumes as to the strength of the case they are now putting forward and the characters involved.'

First of all, where does the information come from that she hasn't waived privilege? Secondly,
is it true that Mark McDonald automatically has the right as her new barrister to ask the previous defence barrister for such material?

I'm not a lawyer but if the information comes from Liz Hull's podcast of 3 April I gather from an article on the Jolly Contrarian website that she hasn't quite got this right, in that Mark McDonald automatically has the right to see the earlier defence material, so he already has access. The barrister Andrew Robertshaw says the same thing in his Art of Law podcast of 10 April.

Google Search

He also says she will have to waive privilege to allow the material to be presented in court and without that it would be the end of the matter as you said, Parker Knoll.

So I'd be grateful for your opinion and that of any lawyers present on this matter.

I don't know who the Jolly Contrarian is (have found the website but still can't find out who it is or how qualified they are) but there is a YT podcast called Double Jeopardy by Tim Owen KC and Ken MacDonald KC, former Director of Public Prosecutions, and in their episode dated 27 Aug 2024, they say -

Tim O: "unless and until Lucy Letby has a new legal team and waives privilege...

Ken M: Yes

Tim O: ...so that those who are freshly instructed can examine the decisions taken by the defence at the first trial, and at the appeal, and at the retrial, unless and until that happens it's going to be impossible to know why the decision was taken as it was to call no expert evidence at all, and to simply call this plumber who gave evidence about being called to the hospital to deal with sewage leaks and so on, but which the court of appeal said ultimately had no relevance to the expert evidence about the causes of death, or attempted homicide.

 

[Moll]

Thanks, Tortoise. That podcast was the month before Lucy Letby instructed Mark McDonald. It's not clear whether 'and waives privilege' just means what the sources above say, i.e. that it is normally waived for a new defence team, or something more.

I couldn't find details of who had written the Jolly Contrarian article either. The site seems to be one woman's project and she's not a lawyer - though it seemed a convincing article - so it probably has to be discounted. But Andrew Robertshaw clarifies the point.

She would still have to waive privilege for any appeal though. I just thought it was important as it means the new team do know what the reasons were for defence experts not being called.

 

[Tortoise]

Thanks, Tortoise. That podcast was the month before Lucy Letby instructed Mark McDonald. It's not clear whether 'and waives privilege' just means what the sources above say, i.e. that it is normally waived for a new defence team, or something more.

I couldn't find details of who had written the Jolly Contrarian article either. The site seems to be one woman's project and she's not a lawyer - though it seemed a convincing article - so it probably has to be discounted. But Andrew Robertshaw clarifies the point.

She would still have to waive privilege for any appeal though. I just thought it was important as it means the new team do know what the reasons were for defence experts not being called.

I thought Mark McDonald did say at the first press conference that he doesn't know why she didn't call her experts. Maybe I imagined it though, so I will have to look for it.

 

[Tortoise]

here we go

Sky News : the juries in both of Lucy Letby's trials did not hear from any experts from the defence, why was that?

MM: I can't say why, I wasn't representing Lucy Letby at the time.

Sky: You must have seen the papers...

MM: You're...uh uh uh...let me come back..uh let me expand, you are right, of course I've seen the papers, you are right that there were defence experts called, what I don't know and what I haven't asked and what I haven't gone into is why they weren't called. Because, I came in three and a half months ago as a fresh pair of eyes, look at this case and look at the prosecution evidence, to look at the trial transcripts and to see whether or not the prosecution team have got it right. I have now found fresh evidence that they haven't...[blah blah blah]

from 32.38

 

[Moll]

Hmmm...
Thanks as always, Tortoise!
Is he just playing his cards close to his chest? Or what?
He is saying he's seen the papers, anyway.

 

[Tortoise]

Hmmm...
Thanks as always, Tortoise!
Is he just playing his cards close to his chest? Or what?
He is saying he's seen the papers, anyway.

I think he probably means their expert reports, rather than discussions concerning calling them.

I don't trust him anyway, I feel he manipulates like a used-car salesman when he speaks.

 

[Ruthbullock]

I would be grateful for further information on this business of Lucy Letby not having waived privilege and what this implies for the intention to appeal.

Parker Knoll said on page 38 of the last thread, 37, on 3 April
'#750
So she hasn’t waived privilege then.
We can all pack up and go home as it’s finished before it’s started.'
and explained on 4 April
'#757
One cannot ( if it ever should happen and it does get referred ) pitch up at the COA without knowing why experts were not called at the original trials except the Plumber and you are relying now on new experts as that is going to be the first question asked.
She has to give consent to MM that he can have access to original documents that could have been used to support her case in the original trials in a nutshell, good, bad or indifferent.
Now I’m guessing that the expert opinions were not used at trial because they did not help her case, in fact they most probably helped dig the hole even deeper for her when cross examined by the prosecution so experts not called.
It a nightmare scenario for the defence but if they are not called the can of worms remains shut and it’s a salvage situation all round.
The fact that they are going forward to me without this transparency speaks volumes as to the strength of the case they are now putting forward and the characters involved.'

First of all, where does the information come from that she hasn't waived privilege? Secondly,
is it true that Mark McDonald automatically has the right as her new barrister to ask the previous defence barrister for such material?

I'm not a lawyer but if the information comes from Liz Hull's podcast of 3 April I gather from an article on the Jolly Contrarian website that she hasn't quite got this right, in that Mark McDonald automatically has the right to see the earlier defence material, so he already has access. The barrister Andrew Robertshaw says the same thing in his Art of Law podcast of 10 April.

Google Search

He also says she will have to waive privilege to allow the material to be presented in court and without that it would be the end of the matter as you said, Parker Knoll.

So I'd be grateful for your opinion and that of any lawyers present on this matter.

The Jolly Contrarian:About - The Jolly Contrarian

jollycontrarian.com

 

[Parker Knoll]

I don’t believe she has waived privilege before MM lodged the appeal with the CCRC but she may have and we just don’t know about it.
However if she had I can’t see him being able to keep that to himself judging on how he seems to be running this circus.
BM cannot speak either to him so he will only know what’s on the public record.
I agree with @Tortoise … one thing he is actually quite good at is manipulation and him saying he has seen the papers just suggests to me he’s see what’s been released to him and no more.
He’s all bluster, that’s his MO

 

[Moll]

I don’t believe she has waived privilege before MM lodged the appeal with the CCRC but she may have and we just don’t know about it.
However if she had I can’t see him being able to keep that to himself judging on how he seems to be running this circus.
BM cannot speak either to him so he will only know what’s on the public record.
I agree with @Tortoise … one thing he is actually quite good at is manipulation and him saying he has seen the papers just suggests to me he’s see what’s been released to him and no more.
He’s all bluster, that’s his MO

I understood e.g. from Andrew Robertshaw's podcast that this waiving of privilege was automatic between defence teams - or is that wrong, since you say Ben Myers cannot speak to him? He might keep it to himself if it didn't help him at all, although that would come out eventually.

 

[Parker Knoll]

She would have to waive privilege to BM in order for BM to discuss it with MM.
The privilege is attached to Letby not her legal teams so it’s entirely her choice wether to grant it or not.

 

[Marantz4250b]

Thanks, Tortoise. That podcast was the month before Lucy Letby instructed Mark McDonald. It's not clear whether 'and waives privilege' just means what the sources above say, i.e. that it is normally waived for a new defence team, or something more.

I couldn't find details of who had written the Jolly Contrarian article either. The site seems to be one woman's project and she's not a lawyer - though it seemed a convincing article - so it probably has to be discounted. But Andrew Robertshaw clarifies the point.

She would still have to waive privilege for any appeal though. I just thought it was important as it means the new team do know what the reasons were for defence experts not being called.

Do you mean Alan Robertshaw who has the Art of Law YT channel?

He's excellent in what he does.

 

[Furore]

IMO it was crippling the original trial, appeal and retrial did not have defence experts. You can’t keep having trials until you get the answer you want. Particularly by influencing the national pool of jurors by holding non cross examined press conferences.

There must have been good reason not to have used any defence experts and this will indeed have to be a good reason to allow the court to take on the cost and burden of any new trials. The reason is probably not to Letby’s advantage or we would surely have heard about it.

The new “expert panel” chair - Shoo Lee - has already declared he followed none of the trial either, and in the absence of forensic post mortems is not able to exclude air embolism - different level of testing eg vials of blood from central veins looking for micro bubbles, JMO. His claims would have been tested in court had they passed muster for court of appeal.

Neonatologists are general specialists in that they specialise in the newborn and prematurity, and conditions that are seen in this state - they do not have expert knowledge in haematology, livers, endocrinology etc IMO and in real world medicine would seek advice from the experts in these fields to treat their patients if basic measures fail. Just like adult intensive care doctors consult surgeons, respiratory physicians, cardiologists etc IMO.

I find it incredibly disturbing and poor judgement, for the panel who are using their flashy titles and credentials, to bamboozle the public, outside of due legal process. It smacks of rampant disregard for the families, systems in place to ensure fair trials, the entire legal process, and clinicians involved who have had their mental health and lives devastated by the individual LL. all IMO only.

 

[Moll]

Do you mean Alan Robertshaw who has the Art of Law YT channel?

He's excellent in what he does.

Yes, I do mean Alan, sorry - Andrew Robertshaw is a military historian! Link to the podcast on waiving of privilege is :

Google Search

 

[crespo29]

I have just watched the Daily Telegraph podcast on YouTube which is strongly suggesting that babies that were said to be murdered by LL died due to natural causes or inadequate medical care. I know most people on this site are convinced of LL's guilt but there does seem to be questions about the NHS and British justice that many people do not want to consider.

 

[Tortoise]

I understood e.g. from Andrew Robertshaw's podcast that this waiving of privilege was automatic between defence teams - or is that wrong, since you say Ben Myers cannot speak to him? He might keep it to himself if it didn't help him at all, although that would come out eventually.

I don't believe, from a logical point of view, it would be automatic. Say for instance a representing barrister had to recuse himself because the defendant had told him she did it. That would mean every barrister thereafter would automatically be privy to that information and not be able to represent a not guilty defence.

MM said in December he didn't know why she didn't call her experts. It doesn't make sense if he got to receive that handover of information automatically.

Take one example, baby E, for instance.

The new panel says -

<snip>

"The 2 episodes of massive gastrointestinal haemorrhage were most likely due to in-utero hypoxia causing stomach or
small intestinal ulceration, and erosion into an intestinal blood vessel; or to a vascular abnormality like Dieulafoy’s lesion, which can cause life- threatening hemorrhage.

CONCLUSIONS
1. Baby 5 died from massive gastrointestinal hemorrhage due to either intrauterine
hypoxia causing stomach or intestinal ulceration or a congenital vascular lesion.
2. Emergency blood transfusion should have been given much earlier.
3. There was no evidence of air embolism
4. Post-mortem should have been requested"
International Expert Panel New Summary Report of additional 10 cases - EMBARGOED UNTIL NOON GMT on Thursday 3rd April.pdf


The trial heard the conclusions of Myers' experts via Myers' cross-examination of the prosecution experts as follows -

Mr Myers said: “He died because of a catastrophic bleed, didn’t he?” Dr Bohin replied: “I don’t believe that is so.”

Cross-examining, Ben Myers KC, defending, said: “The haemorrhaging that Child E experienced on August 3 and 4 could be due to some form of ulceration or bleeding from the stomach from natural causes, albeit not normal?”

On Thursday Mr Myers suggested that medics were too slow during the night-shift to order an emergency blood transfusion for Child E.

Rigid wire could have caused baby’s ‘extraordinary bleeding’, court hears


"Dr Bohin is asked about Child E's gastric bleed. She says she has 'never' seen a nasogastric (feeding) tube causing that damage - she says the infant lost 25% of his blood volume as a result

She says she was left 'clutching at straws' to explain such a haemorrhage. One explanation she found was an extremely rare condition (only six cases globally recorded since 1968) called Dieulafoy's lesion"... (link to tweets in media thread)

---

This is obviously not making it to the court of appeal. The only basis upon which they will hear it is if there was an acceptable justification for not calling her experts and not calling Dr Lee at her second trial.

McDonald had read trial transcripts he says, by December 2024.

Unless he said to Dr Lee, or any of his new experts, 'listen guys, it doesn't matter if you don't find anything new, because there's a really great reason the court of appeal will give her a fifth stab at this (two trials plus two appeals conducted by an outstanding KC), just go ahead and copy/paste the trial evidence, because we've got Dr Lee now to say there were no air embolisms', even though Myers chose not to call Dr Lee at the first trial, or for the second trial in June 2024, after he had Dr Lee give evidence to the court of appeal in April 2024.