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

[WaneLyrical]

Please look up thread or google it.
It’s been explained so many times.

She doesn’t need to waive privilege for a new lawyer to discuss matters with an old lawyer. If that was true, nobody in their right mind would ever instruct a new lawyer.

 

[marynnu]

She doesn’t need to waive privilege for a new lawyer to discuss matters with an old lawyer. If that was true, nobody in their right mind would ever instruct a new lawyer.

You need to tell McDonald then. He doesn't know why she hasn't done this.

 

[joltz]

She doesn’t need to waive privilege for a new lawyer to discuss matters with an old lawyer. If that was true, nobody in their right mind would ever instruct a new lawyer.

Go do 10 minutes of research on the subject and you will find yourself better informed on the matter. The waiving of privilege is a huge issue for Letby.

 

[Deleted member 367982]

I get your point, but instead of sitting in their offices coming up with charts and debating about how difficult the whole process was to be listened to, why weren’t they creating the evidence to back up their suspicions. Why weren’t they logging all the suspicious deaths, why weren’t they encouraging parents to get post mortems? There’s a few reasons I can think of that made them not follow the proper protocol- were they genuinely poor at their roles (really doubtful), or was there some sort of hero mentality going on and point scoring where they wanted the management to fail, so were not ensuring all the paperwork was complete and submitted, whilst doing their own secretive background investigations in order to make their point to management that they were right and management were wrong. Sadly I think the latter approach is what caused such a delay in thorough investigations. What we don’t know is the state of relationships between the doctors and the management prior to all of this and that would be interesting background- we only know about the one doctor who was found to have caused the death of baby <modsnip - name of minor is under seal>. The articles keep getting deleted on here as it’s a different unit and keeps being reported as irrelevant (so you will have to search yourselves), but it is relevant as we know the doctors had to flex and work on both the units, we know the same doctor was also involved in the trial testimony (although protected)- but this happened shortly before Letby and gives some context perhaps, as to why management were dubious about these new allegations and also attempted to focus on the doctors failings as well- which didn’t go down well. If the doctors had been more transparent, instead of defensive and logged officially every concern they had- would things have been different- who knows, we will never know- but I suspect something prior to this being investigated had already broken trust between the doctors and management.

This is just musings, as it’s not really relevant to Letby, but will probably become more relevant to charges brought against the COCH or the senior management team, but if evidence of this happening does come out in the wash, it will fan the flames a little more.

I understand what you and WaneLyrical say. I don't know what evidence the doctors had in suspecting LL was involved in multiple deaths before going to management but it must have been something to result in this when police got involved:
"Three former senior leaders at the NHS hospital where the neonatal nurse Lucy Letby worked have been arrested on suspicion of gross negligence manslaughter.
The three, who have not been named, have been arrested as part of the continuing police investigation into events surrounding the deaths of newborns at the Countess of Chester Hospital in 2015 and 2016, when they were in senior leadership roles.1 They have been bailed pending further inquiries." Lucy Letby: Three senior hospital bosses arrested on suspicion of gross negligence manslaughter

 

[katydid23]

Yes but when you look into all that evidence closely, you see none of it stacks up.

I disagree. It is perfect the way th evidence against her stacks up. IMO

Before so much of the transcript and evidence had come to light and been analysed after the trial, there were very credible people with statistical knowledge saying that she was really unlucky to have been on shift for so many of these cases.

NO, this was not based upon her being 'unlucky' enough to be in those nurseries ---she put herself there... Purposely, cunningly.

And it wasn't 'for so many' of the collapse cases--- it was for ALL of them.

There would be a death on a Friday afternoon. Lucy and her parents would go away for 2 weeks.
There would be ZERO unexplained collapses during her time away.
On the first day of her return, BAM, another sudden inexplicable collapse would happen. Sometimes 2 or 3 in the first day of her return.

That happened twice that I know of. No babies collapsed while she is away, but collapses and deaths on the day she leaves and on the very day she returns.

That is not her being 'unlucky'---that is her being intentional.

But given what we now know, none of these people think there is anything improbable at all. The whole thing was one huge error of confirmation bias.

Bull. If anyone is suffering from 'confirmation bias' it's those who believe she is an innocent angel.

There is strong evidence of her lies, subterfuge, falsified medical logs, and physical attacks on babies. It is not confirmation bias-- it is reality.

The jury weren’t told of the deaths of other babies who died during this period, babies who were in much better health, for instance.

You are mistaken. The only deaths not discussed were ones that did not fit the unique pattern of the inexplicable collapses----where babies could not be revived in the usual manner and who had unique symptoms and injuries inconsistent with their previous conditions.

The idea that there is a statistically significant pattern here is completely fake. Yet the entire case was constructed around this idea. The idea of her manipulation being one part of it. If you look into it, the prosecution tried to argue on one occasion that Lucy was being manipulative by texting to others that baby E had haemophilia and it was a complex case even though the baby wasn’t strictly under her care. They take her behaviour in texting friends and looking up the condition etc and try to paint it in some kind of sinister light. But it’s actually just a perfectly normal thing for a nurse to do.

Baby E is one of the most incriminating cases against her. She got caught lying in that case for sure.

I believe the testimony of the mother and father of those 2 babies because they had the phone logs proving their timeline. Lucy lied to protect herself but the jury saw the testimony of the parents, who were much more believable. That mother came to feed her baby and found him screaming, with blood coming from his mouth. Lucy LIED and denied that even happened. Lucy told the mom to leave and said she'd ALREADY called the doctor. THAT WAS A LIE.

People who watched her in court could see she was lying.

Just like ‘I carry a lot of babies round in my head’ is a perfectly normal thing for a nurse who works day in day out with sick babies to do and think and say.

There’s tons of this stuff. And as evidence it’s all unfounded assertions

If it was 'all unfounded assertions' she'd be walking free.

and less than negligible.

When babies starting dying under her care, repeatedly, her co-workers were concerned for her. They wanted her to take a break from the more vulnerable babies for a week or so, to get some rest.

She got angry and refused and began insisting upon being in the most critical units. As more and more collapses happened around her, people began to get suspicious.

If I was innocent but creating suspicion, I'd step back a bit----so if the collapses continued, it would not be blamed on me anymore.

But Lucy kept doing the opposite. A nurse would go on her meal break and ask Lucy to keep an eye on her sleeping baby. The baby was happily resting---had eaten well, vitals were all very good.

When that nurse returned, her patient was non-responsive, and the crash cart code was underway. A child had died unexpectedly, once again.

This type of thing was a blatant pattern. Just like the triplets at the end of her nursing career. The doctors were literally doing a walkout in protest after the first triplet died unexpectedly, the very day Lucy returned from her vacation.

They demanded Lucy be taken off the floor while that death was investigated. The Nurse's Union blocked them, and while everyone argued about it----the 2nd triplet collapsed and died that next morning. FINALLY she was taken off duty and the collapses stopped.

 

[katydid23]

I get your point, but instead of sitting in their offices coming up with charts and debating about how difficult the whole process was to be listened to, why weren’t they creating the evidence to back up their suspicions.

You don't think they were trying to obtain evidence? Why do you think that? Do you believe they were not trying to STOP the gruesome deaths?

Why weren’t they logging all the suspicious deaths, why weren’t they encouraging parents to get post mortems? There’s a few reasons I can think of that made them not follow the proper protocol- were they genuinely poor at their roles (really doubtful), or was there some sort of hero mentality going on and point scoring where they wanted the management to fail, so were not ensuring all the paperwork was complete and submitted, whilst doing their own secretive background investigations in order to make their point to management that they were right and management were wrong.

I'm sorry, but this is just going off the deep end, imo. These were doctors, working daily or nightly shifts. They were not homicide detectives or investigators. They were dealing with an appallingly shocking and confusing situation, and when they followed PROTOCOL, they hit dead ends.

Do you think they want to have power struggles with management?

You say it so simply---Why didn't they do this? Or try that?

You accuse them of having a 'hero mentality, blah blah blah.' Why don't you imagine yourself in a stressful, high profile job, where babies are suddenly dying in unexpected, inexplicable ways---and you have to continue doing YOUR JOB DAILY to keep them alive and well.

Are you going to know how to proceed? If you go to your superiors with your suspicions and they pushback and threaten you and yours---threaten to fire you, so then you cannot try and protect the others, then what?

It is frustrating to see the responses that vilify them, while also minimising the convicted killer's actions. I need my blood pressure tablets ...

Sadly I think the latter approach is what caused such a delay in thorough investigations. What we don’t know is the state of relationships between the doctors and the management prior to all of this and that would be interesting background- we only know about the one doctor who was found to have caused the death of baby <modsnip - name of minor is under seal>. The articles keep getting deleted on here as it’s a different unit and keeps being reported as irrelevant (so you will have to search yourselves), but it is relevant as we know the doctors had to flex and work on both the units, we know the same doctor was also involved in the trial testimony (although protected)- but this happened shortly before Letby and gives some context perhaps, as to why management were dubious about these new allegations and also attempted to focus on the doctors failings as well- which didn’t go down well. If the doctors had been more transparent, instead of defensive and logged officially every concern they had- would things have been different- who knows, we will never know- but I suspect something prior to this being investigated had already broken trust between the doctors and management.

THIS is off base. <modsnip - quoted post was snipped>
Second, the doctor did not cause his death. The child had already coded and was unresponsive BECAUSE OF LUCY'S VILE ACTIONS.

This is just musings, as it’s not really relevant to Letby, but will probably become more relevant to charges brought against the COCH or the senior management team, but if evidence of this happening does come out in the wash, it will fan the flames a little more.

No one is ever going to say that things with management and doctors and nurses was always in perfect harmony. But that tension was NOT the cause of these gruesome deaths. A sick, twisted serial killer is the source of this chaos and confusion. Blaming it on the doctors for not figuring out how to stop a cunning, secretive psychopath is ridiculous , IMO.

 

[Tortoise]

Has this other nurse’s case just blown Lucy Letby’s bid for freedom out of the water?

A nurse found guilty 17 years ago of murdering four patients has just lost an appeal against his convictions, and it could have a significant consequence for Lucy Letby, writes David James Smith, who used to work for the Criminal Cases Review Commission

www.independent.co.uk

Article written by David James Smith, former commissioner at the CCRC, discussing Letby's prospects after Colin Campbell Norris's recent failed appeal

"The court was emphatic in its rejection of the new evidence. It also rejected any attempt to base the appeal on statistics. As it said, the prosecution was not permitted to make claims based on the rarity of such events to support its case for guilt – and the appellants could not claim that there were other deaths in which Campbell was not involved to support its own argument that he was innocent."

[...]

"...contrary to the claims of many, her case does not appear to hinge on statistics."

"Her appeal will be determined instead by the strength of the new medical evidence – from the so-called international expert panel and others – and the extent to which it undermines the case that was put at trial, when, it should be noted, many alternate explanations for the baby deaths were canvassed."

"You must have new evidence for an appeal. It must be capable of belief, it must be significant enough to have made a difference to the outcome and there must be a good reason why it was not called at the original trial."

more at link

 

[Tortoise]

Double Jeopardy - UK Law and Politics

Politics Podcast · Updated Weekly · Covering the critical intersections of law and politics in the UK with expert commentary on high-profile legal cases, political controversies, prisons and sentencing, human rights law, current politic…

podcasts.apple.com

Lucy Letby: Will She Waive Privilege as UK Prosecutors Widen the Net?​

"Double Jeopardy is presented by Ken Macdonald KC, former Director of Public Prosecutions, and Tim Owen KC, as they break down the legal and political issues in Britain. From high-profile legal cases to the evolving state of British democracy, Double Jeopardy offers expert legal commentary on the most pressing topics in UK law, politics, and human rights.

Ken Macdonald KC served as Director of Public Prosecutions from 2003-2008, shaping modern prosecutorial policy and advocating for the rule of law. He is a former Warden of Wadham College, Oxford, a crossbench member of the House of Lords, and a leading writer, commentator and broadcaster on politics and the rule of law.

Tim Owen KC has been involved in many of the most significant public, criminal and human rights law cases over the past four decades. "

 

[Marantz4250b]

This whole waiving privilege thing - surely must have done it? How can MM represent her, or any lawyer represent anyone, if they aren't privy to all the facts?

Also, I'm sure I read somewhere that Ben Myers was still technically her KC and that MM was some sort of junior or helper/hanger-on or somesuch? If that's the case then he'll know all the details anyway, surely?

 

[Marantz4250b]

Another thing I've been meaning to mention; many moons ago, during the trial, I think, a report about the investigation of her from the hospital was released. It didn't mention her by name but it said something along the lines of ...the nurse under investigation was a single mother... which we know (?) that LL isn't. Did we ever get a conclusion as to why that mistake occurred?

And, yes, I can see exactly where the conspiraloons will go with this so profuse apologies in advance to the rational minded among us!

 

[marynnu]

This whole waiving privilege thing - surely must have done it? How can MM represent her, or any lawyer represent anyone, if they aren't privy to all the facts?

Also, I'm sure I read somewhere that Ben Myers was still technically her KC and that MM was some sort of junior or helper/hanger-on or somesuch? If that's the case then he'll know all the details anyway, surely?

I think McDonald confirmed she hadn't.

 

[Marantz4250b]

I think McDonald confirmed she hadn't.

I don't get that at all, tbh. How can a barrister represent someone who isn't telling them the full story? Surely there's some ethical rule against that? I mean it's not just that the client is keeping something to themselves that the barrister can't know about, she's deliberately telling her counsel that he can't have access to potentially very important material. It's completely bizarre to me.

 

[marynnu]

I don't get that at all, tbh. How can a barrister represent someone who isn't telling them the full story? Surely there's some ethical rule against that? I mean it's not just that the client is keeping something to themselves that the barrister can't know about, she's deliberately telling her counsel that he can't have access to potentially very important material. It's completely bizarre to me.

I can't locate the clip, and have no idea when this took place, but I do recall seeing it.

 

[WaneLyrical]

I can't locate the clip, and have no idea when this took place, but I do recall seeing it.

It was when (I think) Liz hull was interviewing McDonald outside the CCRC office after he put the application in. She asked if Letby had waived privilege and he replied of course not. That’s not the same as saying Letby had not consented to McDonald assessing any prior legal advice.

There’s nothing I’m aware of that suggests Letby has been asked to waive privilege and has refused, or has refused to disclose important information after being asked to. Happy to be corrected though as it may help me understand why this matter of legal privilege is even being discussed.

 

[Tortoise]

I think McDonald confirmed she hadn't.

Well McDonald is still saying he doesn't know why she didn't call any experts (at her trials) in 60 Minutes Australia last month.

At 21.17

Q. Can you explain why at the original trial there were no defence witnesses, expert witnesses?

MM: I'm a new team, I took over in September, and it would be pure speculation on my part for me to say why they weren't called, but they were not called, and I have to deal with it, it's just a fact they were not called.

 

[Tortoise]

It was when (I think) Liz hull was interviewing McDonald outside the CCRC office after he put the application in. She asked if Letby had waived privilege and he replied of course not. That’s not the same as saying Letby had not consented to McDonald assessing any prior legal advice.

There’s nothing I’m aware of that suggests Letby has been asked to waive privilege and has refused, or has refused to disclose important information after being asked to. Happy to be corrected though as it may help me understand why this matter of legal privilege is even being discussed.

The reason it's being discussed is explained in the latest Double Jeopardy podcast I linked above. McDonald will need to know why she didn't call expert evidence, as it is a requirement in the submission of an appeal based on new evidence.

It's a reasonable assumption he would want to know why, before making a CCRC application that is going to stall without it, and that he would already know why, if she had waived.

 

[Parker Knoll]

Once new legal teams are instructed it’s not a case of being “ asked “ to waive privilege - it’s FUNDAMENTAL to the whole proceedings going forward and they all know that.
It’s far too hot for this endless loop.

 

[Marantz4250b]

Well McDonald is still saying he doesn't know why she didn't call any experts (at her trials) in 60 Minutes Australia last month.

At 21.17

I haven't watched the documentary but that sounds like a strange thing to say. That type of question would require an answer which would require him to breech privilege so why didn't he just say that?

 

[Tortoise]

I haven't watched the documentary but that sounds like a strange thing to say. That type of question would require an answer which would require him to breech privilege so why didn't he just say that?

I don't think it would be a breach to disclose the reasons once she had waived privileged confidentiality. It's not legally privileged conversation with her new team, it was trial strategy with her old team. IMO

 

[marynnu]

It was when (I think) Liz hull was interviewing McDonald outside the CCRC office after he put the application in. She asked if Letby had waived privilege and he replied of course not. That’s not the same as saying Letby had not consented to McDonald assessing any prior legal advice.

There’s nothing I’m aware of that suggests Letby has been asked to waive privilege and has refused, or has refused to disclose important information after being asked to. Happy to be corrected though as it may help me understand why this matter of legal privilege is even being discussed.

Someone found this podcast for me. If you listen from about 20 minutes it becomes obvious that Mr. Myers cannot share anything without permission. It was in April so obviously sonething might have changed.

30: The Inquiry: Over to the CCRC | The Trial of Lucy Letby: The Inquiry

Listen to 30: The Inquiry: Over to the CCRC from The Trial of Lucy Letby: The Inquiry. In this episode Caroline and Liz have the latest on Lucy Letby’s defence case after her barrister Mark McDonald hand delivered the evidence which he says proves her convictions are unsafe, to the Criminal...

shows.acast.com