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

[Ruthbullock]

Well, no, because anyone qualified to comment on such matters would/could never do so as it would be contrary to their professional ethics.

Yet the law gazette from the law society did allow comment on it, in fact they published an article stating that opinion, so it can’t be against professional ethics as you state, and if you can’t find evidence of a lawyer sharing their opinion that she should waive privilege, but other lawyers stating she shouldn’t- why can that not be accepted as the legal consensus?

 

[Ruthbullock]

You only have to look upthread to read how Letby waiving legal privilege is crucial going forward as it’s been discussed and explained MANY times as to how it would shape any appeal … or Google maybe ?

So I read everyone’s opinions without links, I have also googled the question and still can’t find a single article stating she should, and just the one official law society article that states she shouldn’t at this point- so if you can find evidence please share something that would be helpful, otherwise you will have to concede you are getting swept into people sharing opinions and not links and falling foul of then telling us that is a fact. Maybe my searches are becoming biased through AI- sharing an article not only will make me reconsider my opinion, but may alter my searches to highlight more articles that support her guilt.

JMO, but at this point it doesn’t indicate anything- she hasn’t got a retrial or an appeal approved, so why would she waive privilege? If it gets to that point, it is unlikely we will be told either way until a long time after the fact, if ever.

It’s also fascinating that the people adamant she needs to waive privilege are those who also firmly believe she is guilty- if I was incarcerated for a crime and was trying to fight for my release, they probably aren’t the people I would be getting advice from.

 

[Parker Knoll]

With respect you are not making any sense with your post upthread.
Her new team would have to make the argument to the CCRC that the original trial(s) were unsafe convictions due to XYZ.
Without knowing what XYZ was and why XYZ was either put forward or not and the reasons why that decision was made is like building a house on sand.
Gathering “ experts “ en masse and announcing to the world and his dog that these “ experts “ are correct and everything that has gone before is incorrect without knowing what the original XYZ details were is laughable.

The fact she hasn’t waived privilege speaks volumes, you don’t get referred back to the COA just because the deluded Letbyists are crowing on Twitter or FB that it’s all some conspiracy … they work on facts and if the legal team haven’t even got the full facts where does that leave Letby ?
Doomed to failure is where it leaves her.

 

[Marantz4250b]

Yet the law gazette from the law society did allow comment on it, in fact they published an article stating that opinion, so it can’t be against professional ethics as you state, and if you can’t find evidence of a lawyer sharing their opinion that she should waive privilege, but other lawyers stating she shouldn’t- why can that not be accepted as the legal consensus?

The fairly obvious answer to this is that a lawyer can't ethically comment on what someone else's client should be doing but there clearly isn't an ethical issue in making the point that people (meaning lawyers) should not be giving legal advice when they aren't privy to the facts.

 

[Moll]

The fairly obvious answer to this is that a lawyer can't ethically comment on what someone else's client should be doing but there clearly isn't an ethical issue in making the point that people (meaning lawyers) should not be giving legal advice when they aren't privy to the facts.

The exact quote from Joshua Rozenberg is 'We will never know why Letby’s defence team called no expert witnesses unless she waives professional privilege. I cannot see why she would be advised to do so.'

Lucy Letby: another ‘appalling vista’?

I had originally been sceptical about Letby's denials. Who else could have harmed so many babies? But the new experts say that nobody tried to kill them.

www.lawgazette.co.uk

Joshua Rozenberg is a highly respected legal commentator (honorary KC, no less) but admits himself he doesn't know much about this case. So I would only trust him on the general principle. I wish he'd expanded on that. As I mentioned on pp 1-2 of this thread, Alan Robertshaw's podcast also deals with this issue and he says McDonald would as a matter of course have had this information from her previous defence.

Google Search

I know others here found that unlikely.
It seems clear that Letby would have to waive privilege for the appeal to go ahead, but I am not clear personally as to whether her current legal team do already know about the reasons why the original defence didn't call their own expert witnesses, whether we would necessarily know if they know but are playing that card uncharacteristically close to the chest, and whether it's damning if they don't yet know (beginning to sound like Rumsfeld and his known unknowns, etc...).

 

[Moll]

The fairly obvious answer to this is that a lawyer can't ethically comment on what someone else's client should be doing but there clearly isn't an ethical issue in making the point that people (meaning lawyers) should not be giving legal advice when they aren't privy to the facts.

I haven't been clear in my post above!

What I also want to say is, this comment of J Rozenberg's is not making that point. He feels able to say he can't see why LL would be advised to waive privilege.

So I think it's fair to ask why someone couldn't in similarly general terms say why someone in her position should do so.

 

[Parker Knoll]

Any lawyer could offer his or her opinion on how they would have run this trial on the facts that are in the public domain … it’s a free country ( ish ! ) but the crux of this is only her original legal team know the full facts.
Until privilege is waived it that’s how it will stay.
Maybe she has and MM is calling all our bluff … who knows, it’s Letby remember.

 

[May72031]

Has anybody watched that Australian 60mins documentary? I heard Neena Modi was involved with. That's a red flag.

 

[Marantz4250b]

Has anybody watched that Australian 60mins documentary? I heard Neena Modi was involved with. That's a red flag.

Noticed it suggested to me on YouTube but not watched it. Figured it would just be the usual ill-informed clickbait nonsense, tbh.

 

[marynnu]

Has anybody watched that Australian 60mins documentary? I heard Neena Modi was involved with. That's a red flag.

I watched it. It was actually quite well balanced, I thought. In my view MarkMcDonald didn't come across too well, making a few factual errors. I think it's worth watching.

 

[Parker Knoll]

I think it’s worth watching too.
McDonald comes across as a deluded snake oil salesman.
It’s bang on.

 

[Marantz4250b]

I think it’s worth watching too.
McDonald comes across as a deluded snake oil salesman.
It’s bang on.

In that case I'll definitely watch it!

 

[Marantz4250b]

So, what's noticable is that he seems to have managed to convince the reporter of the myth that LL's notes were written on the advice of a "therapist". We know that that is precisely that, a myth!

 

[Marantz4250b]

The quote from Dewi Evans I found very apt was it's not new evidence, it's new opinion. That is exactly right, everything has been heard before. Her team are even regurgitating stuff that was put to bed at the trial which the defence accepted as being true.

 

[Parker Knoll]

All that comes out of his mouth has already been debunked or is a lie.
It’s staggering !

 

[Ruthbullock]

So, what's noticable is that he seems to have managed to convince the reporter of the myth that LL's notes were written on the advice of a "therapist". We know that that is precisely that, a myth!

Do we know either way why they were written? You are very certain it’s a myth she didn’t write them on the advice of a therapist- yet it doesn’t seem to have been printed anywhere why she wrote them.

This is the second time they were discussed in court and Cheshire Standard did the most thorough coverage- there is no mention of why she did them or any insight into any questioning that happened over them.

Recap: Lucy Letby trial, Monday, April 17

The trial of Lucy Letby, who denies murdering seven babies at the Countess of Chester Hospital neonatal unit and attempting to murder 10 more, is…

www.chesterstandard.co.uk

They were also brought up in the opening statements in week 1- at this point there is no opportunity for discussion about why they were written, they were just shared with the jury.

Revealed: The 'I AM EVIL' handwritten note by Lucy Letby found at her Chester home

THIS is the note written by alleged killer nurse Lucy Letby, found at her Chester home by police at the time of her July 2018 arrest.

www.chesterstandard.co.uk

They were introduced as part of the police investigations, so there maybe mention of questioning about them in the police interviews- I haven’t seen anything that indicates why they were written, but you may be able to find something.

 

[May72031]

The excellent Deb Roberts with an interesting story. [links to X/Twitter]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1929926977038717114

 

[marynnu]

Do we know either way why they were written? You are very certain it’s a myth she didn’t write them on the advice of a therapist- yet it doesn’t seem to have been printed anywhere why she wrote them.

This is the second time they were discussed in court and Cheshire Standard did the most thorough coverage- there is no mention of why she did them or any insight into any questioning that happened over them.

Recap: Lucy Letby trial, Monday, April 17

The trial of Lucy Letby, who denies murdering seven babies at the Countess of Chester Hospital neonatal unit and attempting to murder 10 more, is…

www.chesterstandard.co.uk

They were also brought up in the opening statements in week 1- at this point there is no opportunity for discussion about why they were written, they were just shared with the jury.

Revealed: The 'I AM EVIL' handwritten note by Lucy Letby found at her Chester home

THIS is the note written by alleged killer nurse Lucy Letby, found at her Chester home by police at the time of her July 2018 arrest.

www.chesterstandard.co.uk

They were introduced as part of the police investigations, so there maybe mention of questioning about them in the police interviews- I haven’t seen anything that indicates why they were written, but you may be able to find something.

I don't think it matters if she was advised to write them or not. My personal feeling is that if the notes were written on advice they might have been less frantic, but who knows.

 

[Ruthbullock]

The excellent Deb Roberts with an interesting story. [links to X/Twitter]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1929926977038717114

This isn’t about LL, why do you think this tweet is relevant? He’s just a journalist with dubious reporting- most of us are already becoming more conscious of not just accepting media reporting on a case.

 

[Marantz4250b]

Do we know either way why they were written? You are very certain it’s a myth she didn’t write them on the advice of a therapist- yet it doesn’t seem to have been printed anywhere why she wrote them.

It was discussed at trial, if I recall. Neither she, nor her defence, claim that they were written while under therapy.

They were written prior to her first arrest. There is no evidence that she was undergoing any therapy or treatment during that time.

If they were written on the advice of a doctor, therapist or other medical professional you should be able to find evidence of same. It's impossible to prove a negative. The "written under therapy" explanation was only ever speculation as to why she wrote them after they came out at trial. Nothing more.

MM has allowed (and that's being charitable) the journalist to believe that they were written under therapy.

Edit: and the parts of your post that I cut out, kinda prove my point. No evidence of why they were written so until it's proven otherwise, there is no evidence that they were written on advice of anyone.