Lucy Letby ( To understand)

[PassingStranger]

What made her kill these babies. Been in the news again today.

It's hard to understand?
Presume as she is in prison and not a hospital, she is not mentally ill?

Will anyone try to find out, I guess if people don't admit they are guilty it's hard too.

Instead of people saying give me 5 mins in a cell with her, surely it's better to stop this happening or maybe it's not possible?
Why does she want to be one of the most hated women in the universe and not give a shit about the babies families and even her own parents?

So much better to be known for doing something nice and have people like you?
AIBU to wonder why she took this road in life?

For many people we think of as serial killers, the act of killing is enjoyable to them, and is the main motivator for their actions, which they then try to conceal.

In LL's case I don't think she found the children's death enjoyable. She wouldn't have killed them if there was no audience to admire her coping with a medical crisis or comforting the family. The environment, her role, and people's disbelief that she could be other than what she seemed made it easier for her to go undetected.

In terms of her background, given the nature of her crimes, I think people are looking for the wrong things when they look for abuse and trauma. I think if anything she learned to feel special and approved of, at first just for being a sweet gentle little girl, then for caring for her dolls and pets, then for saying she wanted to be a nurse, then what is even more angelic than that? Paediatric nurse? Better still, neonatal intensive care. Of the most vulnerable children, and preferably in crises. And then the role of innocent persecuted victim of malice or conspiracy, which feeds the same need for support and affirmation. I think she liked the approval and attention that led her along a certain road (at any cost), rather than having a lust for blood or wish to cause pain. I wouldn't expect to find a history of those things, but I would expect some history of workplace or social niggles where her friends supported her in the role of victim.

Could someone with very disordered thinking look at tiny babies as not really human, sort of disposable in a similar way to killing small animals? And related to that if their intention was to wield power, cause pain or whatever was not on the babies but to the parents?

Interesting about the parents.

How the press reported her mum’s outburst during the verdict should also be contrasted with how they reported Thomas Cashman’s family, even though the behaviour was the same.
Can you say more? I haven't heard if this.

They couldn't accept it could be coincidence

This latest trial was horrifying. Of course my first sympathies are with those helpless babies and their grieving parents. But there is also some left for those poor, poor doctors who naturally didn't want to believe one of their own could be doing something so unthinkable, and who must now for the rest of their lives bear the guilt of not having made this a police matter when their concerns became pressing. I know how formidable a closed rank of public sector CEOs can be - they were risking their livelihoods.

It says something when one of the key arguments put forward by Letby's defence is that 'she must be innocent and obviously this doctor saw nothing worthy of concern because he did not act'.

My heart breaks for him, particularly as I know from the podcasts that this is a question these diligent professionals were also asking themselves. Of course Letby is entitled to a robust defence: that is a cornerstone of our justice system. But this defence was particularly despicable.

This man was not on trial here. She was.

Whilst I don’t dispute the ‘attractiveness’ bias, I also think it’s easier for many on this thread to think that anyone who has any doubts about this case is falling for that bias and has no legitimate basis for concern. I think the human need to ‘other’ people as monsters is very strong.

I would encourage anyone with an open mind to read Rachel Aviv's article in the New Yorker. Not freely available in the UK but Google brings up an archive link. It's good journalism.

This latest trial was horrifying. Of course my first sympathies are with those helpless babies and their grieving parents. But there is also some left for those poor, poor doctors who naturally didn't want to believe one of their own could be doing something so unthinkable, and who must now for the rest of their lives bear the guilt of not having made this a police matter when their concerns became pressing. I know how formidable a closed rank of public sector CEOs can be - they were risking their livelihoods.

In fairness to the hospital management and nursing management who defended LL after doctors raised concerns, I don't think they were covering their backs. The best way to cover their backs would have been to blame her instantly. But they could not believe that she was a mass murderer, and it took them the same amount of time to accept that which it took the doctors to go from thinking "no, that can't be true" to saying it out loud to the management. It is very difficult to believe. You only have to look at the number of people who still cannot believe it, because it is unthinkable.

Where can I download the podcast please?

It’s unbelievable someone could post this. All the evidence is there to see.

Maybe you're not the best judge of what is unbelievable

I read it. I’m not sure. It reminded me of that true crime thing on Netflix that was popular a few years ago, can’t remember its name, the one about the murders in Wisconsin, a man and his nephew. Watching it everything seemed to plausible, pointing in certain directions, making connections between all sorts of things that were suggested as contributory. But reading around later I found things that weren’t included in the films or were set together when that connection wasn’t nearly as solid as they portrayed. The desire to make an engaging true crime hooky story felt to me more important than a forensic examination of evidential facts. After getting the same vibe form that article I’m reserving scepticism.

But she wasn't a loser. She had a responsible job. She had her own home. Lots of friends, a good social life. Those things that make it even harder to understand why she killed those tiny babies.

It's on Spotify.

If any doctor has a concern about the death/s of a child/ren they are obliged immediately to report to the Child Death Overview Panel. Not to do so is negligent. If the doctors had concerns after the 1st, 2nd, 3rd deaths - that is where they should have gone. Not a whole year and 15/17 deaths later.

Excellent post. Spot on. That doctor has to live with that every day. It’s so hard to believe anyone could do something like this, he probably could not believe what he was seeing.

That is one thing that makes me uneasy about whether she is guilty or if that was identified by someone else and they saw her as the easiest option for a scapegoat.

There were a lot of excess deaths - were they all investigated or only the ones where she could have been responsible?

Whistlebowing in the NHS (and at the Post Office for another example) is a very very risky thing to do. There are plenty examples of them being vindictive bastards. Particularly if the allegation is very serious and likely to bring the board/CEO into the spotlight. Also factor in how hard it is to believe someone could do such a thing, just how bloody unlikely it is and you can’t actually say ‘I saw her do it’.

But I think his own mind rejected what he was questioning, and he probably wondered whether he was a monster for even thinking it. All along the line, everyone had trouble with this except the police, who have a different perspective.

I agree. It's not totally convincing but should be read as it gives another viewpoint. Many of the 'she's evil' camp on here don't seem to be that well informed. I don't know whether she is innocent or not but it's not clear. I also have enough experience of courts to know that once a narrative has been created about someone, it is nearly impossible to change that.

It doesn’t matter what his mind was doing - he was obliged to report those deaths if he had concerns about them. He didn’t need evidence, he simply needed to communicate his concern to the CDOP and they would take it from there.

Wow that’s dark🙁

I don’t know how that is all supposed to work and I’m not saying your wrong, I can only comment by relating to my own experiences. There was a thing in a place where I used to work, very bad misconduct by a middle level exec. A good number of people were reporting (independently, me included) using the proper channels but we were expected to provide pretty much a court approved level of evidence and were told there was not enough to take any action. Over a couple of years every one of us left that place and eventually the exec in question was ‘supported to move on’ if you know what I mean.

The thing is though she was clearly able to understand how to present as understanding right of wrong - which implies she had some kind of grasp.

They weren’t whistleblowing, they were concocting a narrative that contradicts all the available scientific evidence to save their careers.

It was the board that downgraded the unit from Level 2 to Level 1 at which point the deaths stopped. It was the board that invited the RCPCH - Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health to do a review which concluded that the unit never had the staffing levels or resources to function as a Level 2 Unit. It criticised the lack of staffing - with one consultant responsible for the paediatric ward as well as the neonate unit; no dedicated neonatologist; lack of communication between staff and reluctance to seek advice; nurses concerns about one particular locum was ignored and they were allowed to continue etc.

In other words the unit was taking babies too preterm, too sick to be able to cope with and never should have done. The result was baby deaths. How it had ever been allowed to function is a mystery. The consultants apparently didn’t notice and chose to scapegoat a nurse rather than take responsibility and risk their careers.