Lucy Letby - new thread (part 2)

[anonymousamy]

A thread for anyone who was on the last one and wanted to continue the discussion.

What I cannot wrap my head around is Letby’s seemingly completely normal upbringing. Usually serial killers have displayed some kind of markers by the time they start killing, but AFAIK she literally had none. 100% believe she is guilty BTW - just cannot begin to understand it.

"Interestingly the expert talked about statistics saying how unlikely it was that someone could have all these cot deaths"

You really don't know anything about the case, otherwise you would know all about the "expert" since you don't 👇

The prosecution presented evidence from paediatrician Roy Meadow who claimed the chance of two children from an affluent family suffering cot death was 1 in 73 million. On the second appeal that it was shown the statistics from Dr. Meadow were incorrect and this happens much more frequently than suggested by the figure. It was also revealed that medical evidence about blood tests was not disclosed, specifically that one of the babies had potentially toxic bacteria in his body

She fits only one of the criteria identified as 'red flags' of nursing serial killers as identified by David Wilson in his research of known nursing serial killers. That red flag was excess deaths on their shifts.

She didn't fit any other of the criteria. No history of mental instability, signs of personality disorder or depression. No history of difficulty forming relationships or relationship instability. Didn't move frequently from hospital to hospital or job to job. Didn't make colleagues feel anxious. No history of excessive workplace sickness. No history of complaints against her or disciplinaries. No history of being found with meds stolen from work, suspicion of stealing meds from work or forging prescriptions. No preference for nightshifts.

She is unusual.

That, as well as because Sally Clarke was ruled an unsafe conviction. I'm not sure what criteria is applied when deciding who may have a unsafe conviction though. (By the posters, not the courts)

It seems a bit far fetched to suggest she enjoyed the trial imo given she tried to leave at one point, cried at another, refused to go to the sentencing and was getting ptsd treatment from the stress of the arrest.

If she did indeed kill the babies I can see that attention seeking might have been a key driver though, moreso than sadism since she has no history of that.

Does she have a history of attention seeking does anyone know? this is what I'm struggling to reconcile the most - how could someone so extremely dysfunctional come across as normal for so long? how was she adept enough at hiding this side of herself even as a teenager when we're all a bit loopy anyway? Maybe people will come out from her past and explain that actually she did come across as a weirdo.

I have had a couple of colleagues who turned out to be wrong 'uns. I'm not some sort of mystic Meg but on both occasions I had told my DH (prior to them getting in trouble with the law) that there was something "off" about their characters and had floated the idea to him that I thought they could be psychopaths (obviously I'm not a psychologist so don't really know). I really think if someone is that dysfunctional it can't really be hidden for long. Or can it?

The logic seems to be that because Sally Clarke was wrongfully convicted so was LL.

Except the cases and evidence are entirely different. The only common theme is that they are babies.

"you believe LL is innocent"

You have a vivid imagination, try harder.

Does she have a history of attention seeking does anyone know? this is what I'm struggling to reconcile the most - how could someone so extremely dysfunctional come across as normal for so long?

What's normal?

She was good at acting.

She hid previous malicious acts well then got brave, hence picking the dates she picked, taking notes home as mementos etc.

I'd say if there were clues in her childhood her parents are not going to come out and say so.

I've had lots of friends with quirks who have not gone on to be murderers convicted after a 10 month trial based on substantial evidence!

@978q

thats what I said she was convicted with the aid of the statistics

not sure why I had to give a full breakdown of the case and the ins and outs?

I mean fine if you are trying to show that miscarriages of justice happen - of course they do!

Are you the guy from Twitter by any chance? The guy who was insisting (amongst various other things) that these babies all had infections? Like the case in the USA?

You are coming across quite aggressively- people are listening to your argument but it is not standing up to scrutiny going by some of the posts (I’ve not read them all)

Still keen to know your argument as to why she is innocent?

By all accounts she'd never dated or had a romantic relationship (which is pretty unusual), so that's "difficulty forming relationships" right there.

Her colleagues complained about her for years because they believed she was dangerous and violent, are you suggesting they weren't at all anxious about working with someone they believed was a killer? Even before that, there were colleagues who disliked her and found her presence upsetting, due to her controlling nature and the fact she would police and tell people off for very minor things. So we can definitely tick off "made colleagues feel anxious."

No history of mental instability - there's literally no way to know whether she had any history of mental instability or not. Just impossible to know.

No signs of personality disorder or depression - there are signs that she had a personality disorder and/or depression, the notes alone clearly show that.

No history of complaints against her or disciplinaries.
There were complaints about her for years!! Her colleagues were even forced to write letters apologising for making complaints about her!

So just the fact she wasn't a drug user, but clearly people who kill to fund their drug addiction (or who kill for money generally) are a completely different psychological profile than people who kill because they are psychopaths or evil.

I obviously dont blame the parents as such, but I think the way they brought her up made her feel untouchable. She was protected to the point of smothering which probably meant that she never really learned to take responsibility for her actions. This also probably made her feel trapped and resentful. I can well imagine that some one with a narcissistic personality, under these conditions, would do sneaky things to feel a sense of power and to see if they could get away with it, for the sole reason that they could.

Where are you getting that from? Was it the silly guardian article? That was a load of guff.

So why, if you do not think she is innocent, are you trying to cast doubt on her conviction?

That's quite odd behaviour.

This thread is not about miscarriages of justice. If you want a thread about Sally Clarke you can start another thread.

I really wish people would stop saying "she had no history of X" when what they mean is "there's no formal written record of her being caught doing X before."

Most of the things people are claiming she has no history of are very private things that there wouldn't be a record of. So there's it's simply not physically possible to say whether she has a history of it or not.

I have a history of severe mental illness and severe ongoing childhood abuse including sexual abuse, but I've never been arrested, never had any involvement with social services, never saw a mental health professional in my life until my 30s when I was diagnosed with psychosis. I went to university and post-grad school and on paper have a successful career. No one who abused me was ever arrested or charged. Until a few years ago there would have been absolutely no proof and no recorded history of any of that. Does that mean it didn't happen?

I want to be clear I'm not suggesting that maybe Letby was abused. Just that I know for a fact that if I'd killed someone, people would be saying "oh isn't it strange that the nice middle class girl from the affluent privileged background with no history of abuse or mental illness killed someone!" and would be saying the exact same things about me that they're saying about Letby.

You have no idea what goes on in other people's lives.

"This thread is not about miscarriages of justice"

What is it about, the proper execution of Justice, or perhaps you would rather not question anything about justice, or just this case?

Here is something for you to peruse, about the Sally Clark expert, you may not like it but there you go. Do you know dewi evans put his name to some of meadow's papers?

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1179752/

If you want a thread on Sally Clarke, start one.

This thread is about LL.

Not engaging with you anymore on this thread as I am not clear on your motives for derailing this discussion although I do have suspicions.

Thing is you’re just making this up and have nothing to back it up. I mean that politely, but it’s just making stuff up in your own head. No one knows how she was brought up other than she’s a very close relationship with her parents.

for all we know her parents have known from a very early age she doesn’t behave in a healthy manner and as such have tried to protect her and prevent her excesses.

no one knows. So making them somewhat to blame is very wrong.

@AcesBaseballbat

I totally agree with what you've posted. The jury was asked by the judge not to speculate and to convict on evidence alone. There is too much emphasis on here on trying to speculate, particularly in relation to trying to suggest that she can't have been a killer because she was normal.

It is not normal to kill babies.

You're conflating suggestions that LL was abused and the fact she displayed no signs commonly seen in nursing serial killers. They're not the same thing.

You said you have a history of severe mental illness that even if not diagnosed till your 30s, do you think someone that knew you well could at least say something about it?

There were no signs of your awful childhood that were ever observed by anyone else till you became psychotic in your 30s? No objective evidence in your life? No problems forming or maintaining relationships? no drug or alcohol abuse? No self-harm or eating disorder? Never anxious or depressed? Not one family member, friend, colleague or boyfriend in your first 30 years of life who wouldn't say "she seemed completely normal". Not one?

In that case you also are unusual.

"Not engaging with you anymore on this thread as I am not clear on your motives for derailing this discussion although I do have suspicions"

Excellent outcome, you and your suspicions have a lovely day.

LL was not normal for sure. She did a good job of acting normal though

Seeing her in the interview there was just no emotion whatsoever

I believe to harm a baby you have got to be an absolutely appalling person, to induce pain and suffering on the most vulnerable of human race. And you would certainly have to have something wrong with your psyche

Im assuming that she was assessed for mental illness but by god she has got to fall under some umbrella unless people can be plain evil without being mentally ill

It's not just the lack of formal record. It's that all the friends from her past say she kept up this consistently normal facade even when younger. She never hurt animals, for example, or abused alcohol or was promiscuous or did any of the usual things that you'd expect from a narcissist or psychopath. The only bad behaviour we can point to is her affair with a married man and the way she took confidential documents home with her.

Of course, maybe some of them did spot her dysfunctional tendencies and are keeping quiet. That is certainly possible.

Sorry to hear about your awful childhood.

@978q

you still didn’t answer me - I think that’s because you know that LL is not as innocent as you originally claimed?

"you know that LL is not as innocent as you originally claimed?

When and where was this, your imagination and need to have the last word is getting the better of you, now show me, back up your fabrication.

So many people are guilty of heinous crimes. That are not mentally ill. look at what the moors murders did or Ian Watkins. Some people are simply wired differently. Letby clearly had no empathy for those babies.

their screams left some hardened medical professionals with ptsd, having to go off work due to the trauma they witnessed. But she continued on. To kill again and again.

having a personality disorder ie pschopathic traits or whatever is wrong with her, doesn’t mean she’s mentally ill. It just means she does not behave or React as humans normally do.