Lucy Letby - have you changed your mind pt. 5

[Typicalwave]

New thread

Part 4 here - https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/_chat/5400564-lucy-letby-have-you-changed-your-mind-thread-4?utm_campaign=thread&utm_medium=app_share

Originally started by @kittybythelighthouse

Ahh ok that makes sense. I know it wasn't you but this implied on thread before and firefly mocked when she looks like to be have been correct here.

It possibly was me 😅 Firefly was claiming that without waiving privilege that her new legal team couldn't speak to her old legal team, which isn't true.

Gatecrasher here; I never thought she was guilty. With all the maternity and neonatal scandals which are a hallmark of the NHS? No way. She was collateral damage for continuous failings.

Ah ok. Lost the place it was so confused now. Was liz Hull wrong? It seems not according to double jeopardy. Though they did say she may have by now but we maybe not be privvy to it.

I am fairly opened minded on both sides. I listen to both arguments. However the scapegoat theory doesn't ring true. Nobody was under any accountability. It could have just been left and nobody would have been blamed.

Doctors genuinely thinking was harm but may have been wrong possibly. Scapegoat theory makes no sense. Especially since she was well protected if look at thirwall.

Yes Liz Hull was wrong.

She does not need to 'waive privilege' in the general sense for Mark McDonald to talk to her old legal team, it may be considered a 'limited' waiver when it's just authorised between legal teams so maybe that's where the confusion started..... because Mark McDonald seemed to believe that she meant the general waive of privilege meaning that other people could see the information and that's something that wouldn't normally be waived unless necessary...... and it's kind of a stupid question to ask him about if it she just meant have you got to speak to her legal team......I'd say there's zero chance he's going into this case blind and that she absolutely authorised him to speak to her legal team.

But she would have to , to apply to CRCC? According to double jeopardy?

I am not sure Liz didn't mean it this way and its all become confused.

Shes Applied to the CCRC - her barrister was filmed dropping off the files at the CCRC offices - unless I’ve misunderstood

I don’t think it started out tgat way, but I think it could well have ended up that way after the RCPC did their review.

Is that from the 'trial strategy' episode of the podcast?

I don't think so, I believe she can apply without waiving privilege, but they may ask her to do so it's necessary for them to assess the case. I'm trying to find information to confirm this now.

I don't think she did mean it that way going by the exchange that they had.
But if she did mean it that way it should have been clear from his answer that he was talking about the general waiver to the court.

It is from the podcast 9th July.

Yes she did. Maybe it is if a person is claiming bad defence.

Listening now, they're saying a waiver must be lodged at the same time but that is the procedure when it's lodged with the court of appeal.
This is with the CRCC so it doesn't apply.

@H202too
I found the info...
16 Waiver of Legal Professional Privilege (LPP)

16.1 Communications and documents between lawyer and client are "once privileged, always privileged" and the principle that a client should be free to consult their legal advisers without fear of disclosure is a fundamental one.

16.2 If the CCRC wishes to obtain documents or discuss the way in which the applicant’s case was prepared or conducted at trial with the applicant’s legal advisers, a specific waiver of legal professional privilege will first be obtained from the applicant. A request for a waiver of privilege will only be sought when it is necessary, and not on a general or speculative basis.

https://cloud-platform-e218f50a4812967ba1215eaecede923f.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/sites/5/2025/04/CW-POL-19-Disclosure-by-the-CCRC-v2.0.pdf

That's right - there is a good article on this by the Jolly Contrarian. And you are right too that she doesn't need to waive privilege for McDonald, just (probably) for the court of appeal eventually. And no reason to think she won't do so when the time comes.

https://jollycontrarian.com/index.php/Lucy_Letby:_waiver_of_privilege%3F

Thanks that makes a bit more sense.
Interesting to see if she does.

Link not working for me.

It could have just been left and nobody would have been blamed.

Perhaps not criminally blamed but I thought some parents were about to start legal action for medical malpractice but that was put to one side once the criminal investigation started.

Does anyone know?

Here is an archived version:

https://archive.is/uVMjK

Two or four coroner's inquests were pending - Child C, Child D, and the coroner had agreed to wait for the outcome of the RCPCH review before deciding if children O and P should have them too.

The RCPCH review (via Jane Hawdon) determined that children O and P suffered failings in care that had likely contributed to their deaths, so presumably the coroner would have granted this.

There were clear failings in care for child D and her mother, and the hospital later received legal advice that they would not be able to defend their care in this case. But by then the coroner's inquest was suspended and it never happened.

Jane Hawdon had identified significant failings in care for child C too, as has the expert panel for all four children.

So the consultants would have been in trouble if Lucy hadn't been blamed.

And they couldn't blame nurses for failures in medical care so it had to be malfeasance.

Yes. Though I doubt they consciously decided to make her the scapegoat. It's just difficult to face up to this kind of situation and they had a lot to lose, so finding someone to blame must have been a relief.

She admitted it when she realised they had high-def CCTV of her doing it, not before. She didn't really have much choice. Lucy was just lucky they didn't have CCTV on her unit. This woman claimed she was a weed addict and it changed her behaviour-many people are addicts, it doesn't make them do that. Does everyone have to admit it to the police until you will believe it? It was still happening for months before anyone knew about it.

Lucy didn't even have the guts to admit what she did to the police, she wrote it all down in her note though.

It doesn't specify between babies in the source, it says it's rare for living infants. Do you have another source? Or am I supposed to scour all over the internet for something that probably doesn't exist?

The witch hunt accusations are getting very boring. Why is it I'm being accused of just "not accepting other people don't agree" when everyone else is doing the same and acting like it's a forgone conclusion she's innocent? The circumstantial evidence+insulin tests showed babies were being harmed. If I don't poison people I'm probably going to stay out of jail. Have YOU ever thought what it'd be like to let someone who harmed and killed babies go free?