Lucy Letby - have you changed your mind thread 4

[MistressoftheDarkSide]

With thanks to the original poster @kittybythelighthouse and @Tidalwave for continuing the discussion.

Yes why?

It really dies.

You claimed that LL has a personality disorder.

On the basis of nothing but your own degree in Armchair Psychiatry

Why should I? Each case is unique. Some have a history of trauma, some don't. There's lists of traits all over the Internet.

What i can confirm is that nothing i have seen reported about Lucy Letby objectively gives enough information to say she "obviously" has a personality disorder. Particularly during the trial. The stress and trauma of what, 8 years under suspicion and then the trial could induce all sorts of symptoms in a person, guilty or not.

What I will say is that being closely involved with a person with diagnosed BPD is challenging and exhausting, depending on what problems manifest. Attachment disorder for example. Or limerance. Or attention seeking in various ways, including self garm and suicidal ideation. These people live in hell in their own heads, and can rarely maintain a "normal" life to the degree Lucy Letby did for a prolonged or consistent period of time without extensive support. And nobody has talked about Lucy Letby demonstrating anything beyond the usual variations in personality we all have.

And I will also say I have experience of 3 friends, all diagnosed, all functioning in different ways, for whom I have immense sympathy, even though their behaviour has been extremely hurtful and challenging on occasion.

I ask again, where are the psychological reports that support your assertions?

Hint - there are none.

And some of you guys have proclaimed her innocent based on what? Oh the 14 self-professed world leading experts led by Mark Mcdonald who also thinks Ben Geen is innocent and is friends with Michael Stone.

Oh you sweet summer child.

Self professed? SELF PROFESSED?

I can't breathe for laughing.

And it absolutely confirms you're just trolling now.

Is this all you’ve got?

You stated as fact that LL has a personality disorder.

Questioning the safety of a conviction is nothing like stating facts that are untrue.

Oh, and the definition of self-professed expert goes to.....

Drum roll....

Dewi Evans.

At least the 14 have their own defined specialities beyond "I've never lost a case".

I'm talking about her behaviour long before the trial. People with BPD have empathy, they are not like narcissists or people with ASPD. I have OCD which is technically a personality disorder as well, and it wouldn't at all surprise me if I also have BPD. Think they call it EUPD nowadays actually. They're not all the same, I'm not saying they are. I think you need to ask someone who has been the victim of narcissistic abuse and see what they say...

As you well know, there was a lot of doubt before long before those 14 experts did the press conference.

OCD is not classified as a personality disorder in the ICD 10 nor the DSM IV. It is a mental health disorder abx sits within the Obsessive-Compulsive and other related disorders section in the DSM IV

Anyhoo

Has anyone had a chance to take a look at this PowerPoint, uploaded onto Thirlwall today?

https://thirlwall.public-inquiry.uk/wp-content/uploads/thirlwall-evidence/INQ0002837.pdf

There's obsessive compulsive disorder, and also obsessive compulsive personality disorder.

They're not the same, although someone could have both.

Oh right, I didn't think it was until recently. Apparently there is something called OCPD which is different. You can see the confusion. My mistake.

Yes. OCPD is classed as a personality disorder.

Look, nobody is planning to go to HMP Bronzefield with a set of bolt cutters tomorrow. If you paid attention at all you’d know that what we are actually saying is that we want the case to be reviewed. We don’t trust the verdicts because ALL of the medical evidence that there were any murders at all has been entirely dismantled by much superior experts.

The lead “expert” witness is on his way to being a more famous charlatan than his old mate Roy Meadow. He’s embarrassed everyone from the Cheshire Police to the judiciary. He’s been told to STFU by the CPS. He’s rewritten his reports after she’s already been convicted for using methods he has now retracted. It’s completely unprecedented. This alone should be enough to make anyone want the case to be reviewed.

Even if she is actually guilty this needs to be proven properly for all our sakes and it’s simply very foolish to insist otherwise.

You are agitating against a review of the case. There are no logical arguments for that at all. Thus far you haven’t even attempted to make a logical argument and you’ve said that you don’t care to look into the medical evidence or understand whether or not there were any actual murders!

You just want to get straight into the ghoulish fun of rubbernecking at these “crimes” as entertainment, or possibly worse, psychoanalysing LL as if you know the first thing about human behaviour, which you quite clearly do not. You get all your info from a rather stupid bloke who has no experience or knowledge about anything, but he does have an ambulance chasing YouTube account which he uses to profit off the pain of others. You’re not arguing in good faith. You refuse to engage with any sources that challenge your chosen narrative. What’s the point of engaging here at all?

I have been v busy today so haven’t had a chance to do much else. Just going to have a look now when I get a chance. Thoughts?

Every situation is different, you have no idea what anyone here has experienced beyond what they choose to share.

Everything you have gleaned about Lucy Letby comes from the prosecutions insinuation, and the way it has been reported for lurid headline chasers. It is pure speculation.

So respectfully, lay off will you? Your flogging of her "weirdness" is becoming tedious, and I suspect it's designed to derail and detract from discussion of issues in the justice process and the medical evidence, which is what this case should have been about from the start, and it wasn't.

It Just adds more weight to the reasons the unit saw an increase in deaths - hint: it wasn’t because they had a serial killer in their midst.

OR they could have, and the killer took the opportunity to strike because it could all easily be explained away by a poorly staffed, under resourced unit headed by consultants who dropped in occasionally and ran by junior Drs out of their depth with nursing staff run off their feet and generally under-qualified tgat suddenly had more infants that were sicker during 2015/16 - you decide 😉

Firefly, you can’t just take in one side of things and act like you’re equipped to make any judgements here. It’s no good just repeating the same stuff over and over again and only engaging with biased sources that reinforce this desire for pearl clutching outrage that you appear to have.

You have to engage with content that challenges your position if you want to engage in the conversation in an informed way and in good faith.

None of us are impressed by the constant prurient reassertions of “ooh she was a bad one!” when you openly admitted that you don’t know anything about the actual evidence and don’t care to. You just want to experience a voyeuristic thrill over and over again whether or not it’s based on reality. Trying to have a conversation with you under those circumstances is just absurd.

I was originally responding to a new poster who was asking about her behaviour. They haven't been back since (probably realised most posters here are pro-letby) no one is forcing someone to have a discussion about her behaviour if they don't think it's relevant. I'm just responding. I think it's up to the people who ran the trial to determine what it should've been about. And unfortunately for you guys, the way she acted was a big part of it. If you're determined to ignore all this and never look at the big picture then you'll continue to not understand why she's sitting in jail with multiple WLOs. But yeah am sure you would've ran the trial much better!

You mean the judge?

If so, judges are public servants, that may give you some clue as to why it’s a public interest matter that they do their jobs correctly and why we have various remedies available when they err in law and procedure.

How are you any different? How can you look at only half the case and dismiss the rest of the evidence? Both as bad as each other then aren't we.
Besides, you are listening only to people's theories-most of which as stated by Dr Hall was already brought up at trial or didn't even apply to the babies in question.

You just want to experience a voyeuristic thrill over and over again whether or not it’s based on reality. Trying to have a conversation with you under those circumstances is just absurd.

Probably the most ironic thing I've ever heard. I'm being a voyeur but Lucy wasn't when she was facebooking parents literally days or even HOURS after their child had died to see if they'd put anything on social media about it?

Look, nobody is planning to go to HMP Bronzefield with a set of bolt cutters tomorrow. If you paid attention at all you’d know that what we are actually saying is that we want the case to be reviewed. We don’t trust the verdicts because ALL of the medical evidence that there were any murders at all has been entirely dismantled by much superior experts.

What would make you satisfied though? A new trial? Superior experts FFS it's nothing more than a PR campaign by that snake of a lawyer and you've fallen for it hook line and sinker. Do you believe everything Mark Mcdonald says?

“Because they've been profiled by professionals who have investigated serial killers and interviewed them. They know how they think and act. It's textbook.”

There is nothing “textbook” about Lucy Letby when it comes to serial killer profiling/psychology. Quite the opposite. Multiple psychiatrists have said so and she was not clinically diagnosed with anything except ptsd and anxiety which is to be expected. She does not fit the clinical profile of a psychopath, particularly not in a “textbook” way at all whatsoever.

“But presumably it's fine to compound people's misery by claiming a serial killer is innocent and the victim in all this?!”

Its fine to calmly discuss whether or not something is a miscarriage of justice as adults in a democratic society. Will you please give the pearl clutching a break. It isn’t working.

“I understand how trials work FGS 😆it's like a PP said-you're just stating the obvious and then saying stuff like "it's wild how you don't understand this" when I actually do”

I have to state the obvious because you keep saying silly things like “how can you disagree with something said in court?!”

You also continue to confuse prosecution assertions with facts.

“It's wild you fail to understand that I just think the prosecution case was far more compelling.”

Based on what? You haven’t engaged with the other side of the argument at all. You literally have no idea what the other side is saying. Not one single clue.

“She lied her way through her entire time on the stand”

Please list these “lies”. Let’s go through them one by one.

“the defence isn't the "facts" either.”

Who is this aimed at? Who said this?

“Most of what you are consuming is defence stuff because we've established you "can't stand" to listen to all the people who happen to think she's guilty.”

Ffs. I have consumed everything that matters on both sides. I don’t need to consume some idiot YouTuber’s “analysis” that he pulls straight out of his arse (although I have actually listened to some of it!). Why are you giving this fool precedence as if he offers anything of value? It’s pathetic, frankly.

I have read the transcripts. The Thirlwall documents and reports. All of the post trial articles presenting arguments for each side (I’m pretty sure I’ve read all of them even the tabloid ones). I’m really well informed on both sides and the various arguments. You are not and for some reason you’re proud of it. It’s crazy. You completely refuse to even read one single thing that might challenge your views. I’m not asking you to take in crap like CS2C. I’m offering you actual sensible adult content but you just want to keep performing outrage for kicks while you remain ignorant. Fgs. I’m begging you to read something that challenges you. One thing! Ffs.

“How are you any different? How can you look at only half the case and dismiss the rest of the evidence?”

For gods sake. I haven’t only looked at half the evidence. I know it very thoroughly on both sides! That’s the flipping point!

You know, the vast majority of people speaking out against the result of the trial started out like i did.

"Gosh, sounds terrible, how on earth did she get away with that for so long, still, they've stopped her now, and she'll get the punishment she deserves, after all, they must have pretty damning evidence, after all thos MOJs this will have to be watertight , poor babies, poor parents"

(Yes, even me, with my bad experience of the family courts and shoddy medical evidence. After all, if a case like mine didn't get to court, which was also "watertight", then hers must be bulletproof, surely.)

Then when the details started coming out of all the various methods, I think alot of people went "Eh? That doesn't sound plausible. I'm just going to Google the dimensions of babies, NG tubes etc etc". And it wasn't just us lay people, it was doctors and other HCPs.

My dog whistle? The phrase "force of a car crash" in relation to the liver injury. Took me right back, that did, and off came the scab.

All the character analysis / assassination is irrelevant if the methods of murder don't add up to murder, no matter how hard one Meadows acolyte would like to insist it does.

Talking of "the big picture" when all you really mean is the varnish is utterly nonsensical.