Lucy Letby guilty - part 2

[twoandcooplease]

Thread 1 Lucy Letby guilty www.mumsnet.com/Talk/_chat/4875009-lucy-letby-guilty

Just in case anyone wants to keep the conversation going

I've just read a very good article in The Mail written by Liz Hull. It's an interview with the Detective Superintendent who investigated the case. It sets out clearly how the police became involved and how they investigated the case before her arrest. It was very thorough. And it's clear that the chief exec of the hospital contacted the police for advice because they couldn't find an explanation for what was happening and were bewildered about what was going on. Which is believable - no doubt no-one could believe it possible that their pleasant and helpful colleague might be harming babies.

Completely agree with you. I find the whole narrative of this part odd.

@RadishesForYou she would have had at least one psychiatric assessment, although not necessarily a psychological assessment. All defendants in cases of murder in England are psychiatrically assessed. As her mental health was raised by neither side, the assessment was not used in the trial.

There's a very good reason for that. You can't publish anything about a defendant until the trial is over. The stories will now start to trickle in. But this defendant is remarkable for being unremarkable, she is white, young, got qualified and followed a respectable career path, appeared to get along with people superficially, and lived quietly. She appears not to have done anything remotely noteworthy until something inside her imploded and she started a killing spree. I do hope we will learn, in time, how this came to be. If ever she can admit to her crimes - and I believe she is denying them even to herself - she may be able to shed light on how she plummeted to such depravity. I imagine it would take years of unpacking. And tbh I doubt she will ever admit it. Facing the reality of her crimes would be unbearable.

I agree with this. Its one of the founding things of safeguarding that yes even nice normal sweet people could be doing bad things. So your processes and protections have to look at everyone treat everyone the same. We are told "it could happen here' on all our training and one trainer i know says 'it is happening here' . I appreciate school sadeguarding isnt hospital medical care or policing though.

I’ve just been reading about Beverley Allitt.

I think it’s worth noting that she wasn’t sentenced to go to Rampton, she was sent there after she refused to eat after a week. She was assessed as fit to be housed in a prison,and has never had an official diagnosis, it is believed that this was then Munchausens, due to the seeming lack of a motive.

She wouldn’t be the first criminal to have manipulated her way into a secure hospital rather than prison.

Maybe we will never know why LL turned into such a cold blooded killer & what her motives were. It’s not uncommon for murderers to hold back information to maintain that last element of control, for instance Ian Brady & Myra Hindley not revealing where a victim was buried.
Murderers are missing the empathy gene, regardless of whether or not they are criminally insane. The only person who can say what LL’s motives were is LL herself.

Also an odd and striking lack of empathy at times. One mum whose baby had just died said Letby offered to bath the little girl, then remarked, smiling, how much the child had enjoyed her first bath. Chilling.

It's not necessarily to get the best outcome for their client, it's to ensure they have a fair trial and to uphold the principles of the justice system which is the best outcome for them in one way as its upholding their rights, but some seem to think the number of guilty/non guilty verdicts is an indicator of how good a defence lawyer is when it isn't really.

I can't understand why there haven't been psychological reports doneI can't understand why there haven't been psychological reports done

I'm pretty sure it's been said they will have been, not least by the defence to see if she was fit to stand trial

I believe they're not obliged to share such info with the prosecution, but if there was some condition to hang the defence on I've no doubt it would have come out during the trial

This is how I feel. If a post mortem showed a natural cause of death I’m very sceptical about those cases then being relooked at . I do feel though with the evidence for the insulin cases did they just know and needed ‘more’ to ensure she was put away for as long as possible

Chilling now that we know what she did but that could also be the very innocent kind action of anyone else, to talk about a baby that way, use their name and try to give comfort etc at the worst possible time

@Puzzledandpissedoff yas I said upthread, she would have to have had at least one psychiatric assessment, as all murder defendants do, not necessarily a psychological one though. Mental state/mental health did not feature in the trial, so the report was not used.

It is very difficult to think the unthinkable of colleagues and I often wonder would I recognise it? I think we all like to assume that we are working with people who motivations are good.

But over a 30 yr career I have come across people whose intentions were bad. Not on a ll scale. And at the time they were abusing they were thought of highly and pillars of the community. Even when convicted there were people who couldn’t believe the wrongdoing and thought ot was false allegations. All I can say is that when he was convicted I understood that he had made me feel uncomfortable but o could never have identified why. I suspect there may be a few of ll colleagues who feel that way. Whether they ever go to the press is another matter.

as for the NHS. I’ve had the misfortune to work in a failing trust. When mid staffs came out I remember worrying how would I react if something like that was going on in my trust. 2 years later my trust was being folded and the subject of an enquiry. There was a general toxic leadership culture. Very difficult to put your finger on when you know no different. I suspect it’s a case of when not if for the next scandal.

in the midst of all this there is the CQC. Imo they are not fit for purpose. There is a culture of aiming to gain outstanding on cqc ( common across trusts) and it is smoke and mirrors. A trust can be rated as requires improvement in safety but rated outstanding in well led. How a trust can be well led but unsafe baffles me. Until the toxic yes culture is rooted out, nothing will improve. That goes to the heart of government and Whitehall however. So I have no hope this will ever happen. From what little I know of the details of the complaints against executives I would argue that this toxic cqc passing culture and inability to take on bad news is what blinded them from taking action.

But it’s not, though, is it? If she’d been crying, maybe, but she was calm and smiling. To remind someone how happy their newborn had been in the water a couple of days earlier as she washed their lifeless little body? The mother said she wanted to scream at Letby to shut up. I think it just shows how detached Letby was from others’ emotions, even after five years in such a sensitive job.

God I hope I don’t ever get accused of a crime I didn’t quit (I do agree Letby is guilty btw). I probably come across as odd (socially awkward and autistic), I was a ‘nerd’ at school and didn’t have tons of friends, I’m in my 30s and still have teddies in my room and so does my NT dh (I didn’t think her room was even childish tbh, looks similar to childfree friends rooms), I’m effectively an only child, my boys are both very close with me, it’s not uncommon to have emotional affairs as demonstrated by the relationships board (not that I excuse them) and nobody knew about her Facebook habits. For all intents and purposes she appeared a ‘normal’ 20 something which is why I think some people can’t accept she’s a murderer. I’m a nurse and she fits the profile of the classic young nurse, I know lots of women at work who are like her (obviously without the murdering I assume).

I'm not going to call this good news under the circumstances, but at least we're not seeing the usual tired insistence that "the culture around whistleblowing has completely changed now" - not that I'm confident anyone believed this in the first place

I realise of course that Letby's atrocities were back in 2015/16, but very much doubt that all the instances of damaged careers being mentioned on here are quite so old

In the end we can introduce guidelines/requirements until hell freezes over, but we can't change mindsets quite so easily

I suppose yes but I’ve always found it a comfort when I’ve had people talk to me about my first and remembering little things but as always it’s the context isn’t it. Knowing what we know makes LL choking and sinister but I’m seeing it from the other side from if someone has said to me for example ‘remember when he smiled at this’ or ‘look at this picture he was so happy that day’ so maybe my judgement is a bit off

*chilling (not choking)

And why did she insist on bathing the baby? I know parents who have lost little ones and they have been able to give their baby a bath after. Surely this is something which the parent should have done? It was like LL wanted to maintain control, and ownership of the baby by being the first and last person to have bathed her.

She was the only person on shift, though, when the first four children were killed or injured.

I think that the “oh no, not Lucy” is potentially being misinterpreted.

Some people seem to think that it was a consultant minimising the behaviour or the suspicion. But I think it’s equally possible that suspicion could have been raised, and a consultant could have said “no! Not Lucy,” in shock rather than minimising.

No, I can see what you’re saying, absolutely, but it’s the timing that seems so jarring - the poor mum had literally only just handed her dead baby back over and must have been reeling from the shock. Awful, just awful.

Yes it’s terrible clearly her motives weren’t innocent or kind at all 😞

To a lesser extent, this happened with a bloke I worked with. Nice guy, dead normal, got no vibes from him at all. Turned out he was grooming young girls online. I'd always been convinced I was a good judge of character etc, etc. However, the evidence was unequivocal. Made me realise how our 'instincts' aren't always right. Although maybe that's because he wasn't actually a threat to me.

I get that. I knew a murderer who committed such an abhorrent crime some of the information was out under media blackout.

I knew him in a role that is at at odds with causing death like this case.

When first attested I was completely shocked. But I also knew there was no way he would have been arrested and charged in this case unless guilty. He was.