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

@Firefly1987 Her barrister probably does know! She doesn't need to waive privilege (to the world) for her barrister to speak to her old barrister or get the files etc.

This an innocent person would do this and a guilty person would do that is just opinion.

Also important to note that that mother in the new documentary said that she goes back and forward from guilty to not guilty.

@Firefly1987 when you say;

“It would answer a hell of a lot of questions though wouldn't it. Surely her new barrister would quite like to know as well.”

what do you mean by the words in bold? Are you assuming that LL’s old team is keeping something from her new team?

@Firefly1987 This is a very naive and unimaginative view (which is curious, as many of your other assertions are quite creative):

Well it does because someone innocent would want to call as many experts as possible because they're secure in the fact they're innocent. Someone guilty wouldn't.

Evans stated absolute certainty. I’ve recently listened to his interview with John Sweeney and the hubris is quite astonishing.

Putting up a defence expert who would deal with nuance and uncertainty may well have harmed her defence i.e. the jury may have believed the supremely confident Evans over the “reasonable doubt” position of Hall et al.

The defence may have believed at the time that their questioning of Evans would more effectively show the jury that there was reasonable doubt.

Clearly that backfired, but you can’t just blithely say that not calling witnesses points to her guilt.

And yet they still chose to tell their child that a nurse had tried to kill them?

‘Shades of Shoo Lee’

@Firefly1987- are you trying to say Shoo Lee is jealous/envious that a Dr from a hospital in Wales, who now keeps his daughter in horses and his son in cars by being an ‘expert witness’ in criminal and family court trials, used his paper and then didn’t bother to call him to let him know?

Sharing for those who seem to think being unable to completely rule something out (because it’s basically impossible to prove or disprove) means Jim Taggart has entered the scene

https://x.com/triedbystats/status/1969278849314930973?s=46

That's exactly what she thinks.

This comes from the DM podcast where one of them asked Mark McDonald had she waived privilege and he said no and she was trying to tell him that that meant he couldn't talk to her old defence team or something like that and he was trying to nicely explain to her that she didn't know what waiving privilege meant but that of course LL hadn't waived privilege.....and then they cut back to the studio where the 2 of them tried to make out that McDonald was stupid, and of course they knew what waiving privilege meant, it meant he couldn't talk to her old legal team 😂

And knowing that, and that LL didn't necessarily administer the "spiked" bags presumably the other nurses involved were either complicit or so grossly negligent they didn't bother to carry out the required checks.....

I can’t belueve people Actuallg think that you have to ‘waive privilege’ to your legal representative after you’ve hired them - what the heck do people think one does when one hires a legal representative? ‘I’m hiring you to represent me but you can’t have any info so just pull a bunny out of your hat.’ People can’t this daft. Can they?

Didn't one of the nurses testify something about how they co-signed for medication before they left to go home and then they'd message that night to make sure it was done.
They said it could then be taken off the system so that it wasn't at risk of being administered twice, which made no sense because surely signing earlier would mean it's at risk of not being administered at all, not twice.

I have to go out in a few minutes so may not be able to find before then but maybe someone else knows what I'm talking about.

Yes they can unfortunately, because it said so on the podcast 😂 ..........
And it's been cleared up several times now but they still won't accept it and continue to go on about how she hasn't waived privilege so McDonald doesn't know what he's working with.

Well maybe they don't necessarily think it, but instead are just willingly choosing to spread the misinformation despite knowing now that it's not true.

Intransigence is so frustrating

Yes, but then I wouldn't judge them for it because perhaps they couldn't hide their distress from the child and thought it was best to be honest about what was going on.

I can't remember where I heard it but MM said he doesn't know why no experts were called.

I was under the impression that MM doesn't know why certain decisions were made by the defence because legally Myers can't tell him unless she waives privilege.

I doubt that's where I heard it. I'm unsure if I've even listened to that one.

You would be wrong, I’m afraid. McDonald cant say why Mike Hall wasnt called because he doesn’t have permission to tell the World and his wife - he did try to explain in the podcast, but of course, yhd hosts knew better than him…

That's where this whole idea came from.

She said something like 'can you just confirm that she hasn't waived legal privilege so you haven't seen the defence reports' and he interrupts 'I haven't....?' or something like that, repeating the question back out loud while realising she didn't have a clue what she was talking about which is when he told her she didn't seem to know what it means and tried to explain to her what he meant...

Which then got quoted on tattle and the reddit sub etc as him saying he hasn't seen the reports.

I have also heard him say this at least once in an interview (but also can’t remember which one/s).

Ah thank you-I knew I wasn't imagining it! Maybe it was in the Panorama doc?

@Firefly1987 and @rubbishatballet
I asked chatgpt to find references and there was several references to him not knowing for certain and being puzzled by it,.which to me doesn't suggest he hasn't been told or doesn't know anything about it, but more that to him the strategy wasn't comprehensible and not what he would have done. He might not agree with it, and as of yet they're not going down the inadequate defence route so he's not going to say that publicly unless necessary, so instead he remains vague.

But you’re wrong. There’s no need for a defendant to waive privilege to be able to share all information with a new legal team. You should look it up yourself, rather than assume the DM podcasters have any idea what they are talking about.

It's from his own mouth, I don't think I've even listened to that podcast. Why all the assumptions on where I'm getting the info from?

Mark McDonald has said that he doesn’t have information because LL hasn’t waived privilege? Can you provide a link?

I’m almost certain you’ve said repeatedly that you’ve listened to the DM Trials of Lucy Letby podcast. Maybe I’m mistaken.