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?

Mirabai - you are asserting that CCTV is illegal. The onus is on you to prove this, not me.

Clearly you don't have this proof but can't bring yourself to say it.

If you have time read this; https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucy_Letby

I am very pissed off with the executive decisions at the hospital. Is the corporate manslaughter case still ongoing?

There’s no onus on me to prove anything. Read the data protection act and the human rights act if you’re interested.

So you can't prove it. Just admit it.

It isn't illegal for hospitals to use CCTV, many do in certain areas, the issue is that there are multiple codes of practice and legislative acts that must be considered and satisfied before invasive CCTV is implemented.

To ask for this based on the suspicion of a baby killing nurse means that management would be forsaking plausible deniability and would be liable for some form on internal investigation, perhaps personal or/and professional liability.... maybe even prosecution themselves.

Essentially you can't just whack up a camera system on a neonatal unit willy nilly.... that absolutely would be illegal.

Context I’ve read about her:
She and her friends were not popular at school, they were nerds. She therefore likely had low self esteem regarding her social status/skills.
She was a cosseted only child. As an adult she felt pressure to holiday with her parents. Maybe she hadn’t developed a sense of accountability for her actions as they were always there to step in if things went wrong.
She is pretty dull and knows this.
Because she probably struggled socially, she will have worked out that talking with colleagues about tough situations at work was a way in to being able to converse with and be social with them.
I think her eventual actions were the result of a combination of a disorder (psychopathy?), low self esteem about her ability to function like other people do, opportunity, the thrill of the attention she received, jealousy of the families and a sense of being untouchable as people didn’t initially suspect her. Even if she wavered and decided to stop, she now had a taste for it and as each new opportunity presented itself she felt compelled to kill again.

You've articulated what I've thought very well.

I think she liked the drama and the "buzz" that came with all the upset and high emotions. I think there was also some jealousy as well, perhaps of the babies, but also the loving parents grieving at their bedsides. Something she didn't have, as she was rebuffed by the doctor she fancied.

I remember reading a case in America where a doctor had done a similar thing. I'll try and find a link.

He wasn't trying to kill anyone, instead make them ill and save them. His reasoning was to practice his skills. Although I suspect for of a god/hero complex.

Her whatsapp messages with nurses/doctors seemed to me to show this enjoyment too. There was a sort of long suffering tone to the camaraderie on how hard her job is and how no one understands their pain.

The relentless social media stalking of the victims' parents, even TWO YEARS after the death, was some sort of trophy / dopamine hit.

Even when the shit hit the fan she was writing messages to the doctor friend like 'if they have nothing or minimal on me they'll look silly, not me.'

Who writes like that? If it were me, I would want to get out of that trust asap.

It's obvious your going to get caught in the end if you keep doing it though.

You can stop if you want.
Many people would have got away with things if they'd only done it once.

I wondered whether, if she'd met a guy at the hospital who was available and liked her, which gave her attention and a bit of status, maybe, she would have done what she did. It's an awful thought, that someone could do such terrible things just for attention, but that's very much the impression I got. I listened to the court report podcasts and it did seem to be that rather than a longstanding wickedness that was driving her.

@Easipeelerie good post, i agree, the drama around the babies' needs was her way of connecting with people.

My parents simultaneously smothered me with no boundaries allowed, and yet they also neglected me. i felt like a real blank screen. I Felt uncomfortable if somebody asked me how i felt.

.Nothing reciprocal in our communication at home, just Reflect back our view of ourselves.. . I wasn't REAL, I remember once even thinking, would I like that? would i find that funny?

Now, decades later, 3 therapists later, hours of work on self-acceptance and self compassion, i can still go on a bit too long about some show on netflix somebody else mentions that they're watching it too! IMy amygdala gets activated, like ooh, an opportunity for a not very deep connection! ( A tv show!.)

I don't embarrass myself completely, just talk a minute too longer, over enthused...

In lucy letby's false reality which started out close to actual reality, real humans were reduced to parts in her play/reality. No reciprocity in the interaction with the world. She has no gentle benign influence. She's only kind of real, even to herself, Just a victim or a puppet master. If she's fictional, so is everybody else. If she's not real, nobody else is either.... the line between real and drama got blurred.

It's almost a predictable, normal behavior, apart from the murdering babies.

I am not being flippant.

Read the act. CCTV is subject to the GDPR laws.

The laws determine that footage of a person captured via CCTV that may be used to identify that person (directly or indirectly) is considered to be personal data. Article 6 GDPR sets out 6 legal bases on which personal data can be processed including consent, public interest and legitimate interest of the data controller.

In public areas including hospital communal areas, the lawful basis of CCTV is ‘legitimate interest’ and ‘public interest’. In those areas there must be signs notifying the public of its existence and a brief explanation.

But in areas where there is an expectation of privacy such as bathrooms, changing rooms and bedrooms it is currently illegal to record individuals without their consent:

“Consent should be given by a clear affirmative act establishing a freely given, specific, informed and unambiguous indication of the data subject’s agreement to the processing of personal data relating to him or her, such as by a written statement, including by electronic means, or an oral statement.”

A ward is essentially a bedroom, a changing room and a bathroom combined, but patients are not in a position to provide freely given, informed consent.

If you wanted to change that you would have to change the data protection laws as they currently stand. Or make a special case for hospitals wards.

Erm…not sure if you’re aware @Mirabai but CCTV surveillance systems have been in use is psychiatric hospitals for some time now, since 2002 in fact. Including in bathrooms and bedrooms.

“CCTV cameras have featured as a surveillance tool inside mental health hospital wards since 2002. Their initial use appears to be sanctioned by the Department of Health as part of their zero tolerance campaign in order to reduce the number of violent attacks on staff working within NHS learning disability and mental health hospitals. It is difficult to state exactly how many hospitals actually use CCTV surveillance in ward environments as there is no one body that maintains such information. A preliminary survey undertaken in July 2008 (cited in Desai, 2009) suggests that there were about 34 NHS Mental Health Trusts using CCTV in patient accessed areas during this time. This amounts to 157 wards in 85 hospitals. The cameras were located in patient bedrooms, seclusion rooms, patient accessed toilets, patient lounge areas, patient dining rooms, education rooms, activity rooms and viewing rooms. The types of mental health hospitals using CCTV included hospitals that provide secure environments, acute inpatient units, specialist eating disorder units, units that care for children and young adolescents with mental health problems, and learning disability and psychiatric intensive care units.”

https://www.crimeandjustice.org.uk/publications/cjm/article/violence-and-surveillance-mental-health-wards

The discussion was CCTV on hospital wards. The same laws apply to hospital communal areas as my other public space. But as the law stands it’s illegal to film people where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy without their free consent. Even if you could form an argument on the basis of public interest I don’t see how you could get round the consent laws.

It’s a moot point - as if you applied to put up CCTV on the basis of there being a murderer on the unit have to explain to the CDOP what the bloody hell you were playing at not suspending the unit over safety concerns.

Thing is there was not 'a murderer' on the wards and they didn't know who it was, there was a series of 14 deaths or very ill babies- none of which were reported as unusual or clinically problematic at the time. There were no 'murders' as such until they identified and found a murderer, which is why this case is much more complex than those where there's a clear abnormal death.

I do think they should have considered CCTV, but I suspect they didn't want the other problems on the wards, such as lack of supervision, not enough staff, not having the right competency for the level of sickness of the babies, plumbing and the general mismanagement to be recorded either.

The whole case is so very odd, she certainly is guilty of a lot of very odd things and behaviour, but it is also odd that there's such a lot of that type of evidence and lacking other types of evidence, even the 'evidence' of Baby K is that she was standing there, not that she was doing anything wrong, and the baby did not die then anyway but later after another transfer. I don't think the last trial was at all fair, it couldn't have been given her prior exceptionally well published guilty convictions.

Which is particular to patient and staff safety issues in psychiatric hospitals: harm to staff, harm to patients by self or other patients. Why do you think CCTV was not rolled out in general hospitals at the same time?

It’s a legal issue as there isn’t the justification to override the laws around privacy.

It's really a sad story.

She looks like such a kind person, not the type you would expect to fo something like this. I would if she had a breakdown of some sort?

Hopefully she's getting the help she needs now

Some people are just wrong'uns. Whether they're born wrong or made to be wrong through extreme childhood abuse or both.

Some people have congenital disorders that affect their physical selves and the manifestation of that is visible to the eye. Some of those defects aren't visible. They affect the brain. Psychopaths have defective empathy. That's what makes them so damned scary, imo. How can you reason with that if you encounter one? Or appeal to their empathy. They're just natural born wrong'uns.

She’s a psychopath. The way she was interested in the families and involved herself in them grieving etc. of course you don’t understand, it’s impossible for most people to understand. I feel like I hate her so much. She got a good sentence though.

@Tunnocksandtablet I’m in my 50s and clearly behind the curve. Hadn’t thought of social media etc that would of course be a rich seam for someone pursuing special interventions.

If anyone who didn't follow the trial is interested in motive, the baby E part of the trial and claim she falsified records is worth a Google, I think it points clearly that she got some thrill from people not knowing or believing it was her. She was almost caught hurting baby e and desperately tried to cover her tracks, she wasn't looking to get caught or to play saviour. If baby e's mother hadn't called the father when she did, there would have been no evidence that the baby was bleeding at 9pm not 10pm as LL put on her notes. I think it also shows she thought she was superior to, and smarter than everyone else. She thought if she said it happened at 10pm then she would be believed, no one would question her. She wouldn't have known then that she would be in the dock and caught out.

Munchausen by proxy

People trained to know the difference. But mainly, experience of what true, actute mental illness to the point the persons lacks capacity.

She does not lack capacity or come close.