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?

I don't pretend an insight into this sort of mindset, thankfully, but there does seem to be a compulsive element to this sort of behaviour.

It showed with Steve Wright, who apparently didn't escalate gradually but stepped straight into a fullscale spree killing: five women across the space of two months. This behaviour according to criminologists indicated the end of a pattern rather than the start of one, and sure enough, he's now been charged and is awaiting trial for the murder of Victoria Hall.

Ted Bundy escaped from chokey, was living in hiding under a false identity, and even then he couldn't stop even though he'd moved to a death penalty state and must have known his chances of being caught and executed were high.

They seem completely unable to stop, yet some indications in their behaviour suggest they want to be stopped and the only way this can happen is if they're caught and apprehended.

I have to wonder about all the evidence and trophies found in Letby's bedroom. An intelligent killer must surely have known that despite the subtlety of her methods and meticulous efforts to cover her tracks, this would be tantamount to a smoking gun.

It's hardly surprising that the rest of us can't wrap our heads around this way of thinking, or what motivates is, and that it's so alien that in some cases the only plausible response is to disbelieve it.

But there are, unfortunately, no depths to which humans won't sink.

Yep, I saw that. And in the trial this year for Child K, she welled up when they showed a clip of Dr Jayaram describing how he came upon her in with Child K. The reporter was saying she was affected by the interview / her actions being on ITV. So crying at her own notoriety, but showed no emotion when Child K's mum read her moving statement.

Some people definitely are wired wrong and brain scans will show that. It's not a theory.

However they generally can still make choices and don't have to go down a dark and evil path.

I read an article before about a juvenile detention centre in America (I think). They had a lot of young psychopaths, but I believe they were in for minor crimes rather than anything sadistic.

The people working with them said that they're not deterred by punishment but they are motivated by reward....so I believe they were trying to work with those young offenders to try to send them down a better path.

If a psychopath can get what they crave in a good way they don't need to get it in a bad way. If they get enough status/power/admiration or whatever it is that they crave going down a good path then they don't need to go the other way.

So there definitely are choices, and despite being wired wrong they're not destined to commit sadistic acts or to be cruel to others.

But then some of them would start to commit the evil acts at a very young age so even though they had a choice to do it or to not do it, they made that choice as a child so there would be some level of diminished responsibility.

Ideally psychopaths etc need to be identified in childhood to try to prevent them going down that path, which is why the studies on brain scans or the markers of pedophiles etc I mentioned in the last post are important. But then realistically it's not like they're going to start screening everyones brains or checking the facial markers either so the kids are going to have to come to the attention of doctors/psychiatrists etc in some other way first.

Yes, that's a good point. Surely when she was put on administrative duties, that was the time to destroy all her trophies and diary and the 250+ handover sheets?

I agree that a part of her wanted to be caught. But then found not actually guilty perhaps. That would be a victory.

Does anyone know what she did after her first arrest in July 2018 until Nov 2020 when she was put in custody? Did she just stay home with her parents?

It's hardly surprising that the rest of us can't wrap our heads around this way of thinking, or what motivates is, and that it's so alien that in some cases the only plausible response is to disbelieve it.

I actually think this is one of the "better" reasons why so many victims of child sex abuse were disbelieved, especially by women.

Most women simply cannot conceive of using a child for sex, especially if you already have an adult sexual partner ....so they could not believe their husband/father/brother would do that. They therefore defaulted to explanations of misunderstandings, or fantacism,/mental illness/resentment/trouble making etc. on the part of the child.

in some cases the only plausible response is to disbelieve it.

I think this has been a big issue for people with this case.

The disbelief took a lot of reading for me to break through.

*fantasism - which I don't think is actually a word

And you strike me as a conspiracy theorist.

Some of your comments on this thread have also been deeply disrespectful and callous to the victims and victims families.

There are many forums on many types of social media where people think she is innocent. Mumsnet isn't the whole world.

I can imagine what types of forums you're referring to.

Maybe you should ask yourself why your posts keep getting deleted

Because you and your mate reported them.

I've reported some myself in the past and I know MN generally defaults to deleting posts, regardless of their point or even if they were truly unfair or offensive or not.

They always default to a generous interpretation of talk guidelines. It means nothing. I've seen lots of posts that were fair deleted on here.

to people who are simply opening up reasonable debate and discussion

It's not reasonable debate.

That's why you are irritating & frustrating people so much.

Still no answers from our 'miscarriage of justice" posters about whether they'd be happy with LL "caring" for their premature infant.

Or how these deaths on specific milestone dates were the result of doctors incompetence, negligence and understaffing.

(Or who the murderer is if it was someone else).

I understand your points and this balance becomes particularly complex when considering offenders affected by congenital conditions or severe environmental influences i guess overall the balance requires ongoing evaluation, compassionate policy-making, and a commitment to integrating mental health care within the justice system.

Yep. There’s nothing more to it than this.
Same with Harold Shipman - he just liked being the one who got to decide who lived and who died. It was a power trip.
With Letby I think it made her feel important in some way. There was another nurse serial killer who was similar a few decades ago, Beverly something.

What made them this disturbed though? If that’s what you’re really asking. Who can say?

EDIT- Beverley Allitt

Because unless there are co-occuring morbidities that affect their grasp on reality, like Schizophrenic psychosis etc, they still know it's wrong to take a life and to cause extreme pain to someone or an animal. They try to cover their crimes and to commit them in a way which lessens the risk that they will be caught. That shows premeditation and an awareness that it's wrong.

The neuroscientist James Fallon realised whilst studying brain scans of serial killers that his own brain scan was pathological and showed significantly deceased activity in areas of the frontal lobe linked to empathy, morality and self control. Just like the serial killers' scans. He discovered he was a de facto psychopath. That doesn't mean he would or could start murdering people. Psychopaths can be CEOs, politicians, surgeons, ordinary people who don't have a secret life committing murder etc.

Impaired empathy doesn't automatically mean a lust for sadistic torture. That's a choice a psychopathic killer makes. Admittedly, it's easier for them to make that choice but they are still responsible.

he just liked being the one who got to decide who lived and who died. It was a power trip.

I think he also had financial motives.

Most women simply cannot conceive of using a child for sex, especially if you already have an adult sexual partner ....so they could not believe their husband/father/brother would do that. They therefore defaulted to explanations of misunderstandings, or fantacism,/mental illness/resentment/trouble making etc. on the part of the child

It’s not that difficult a concept to understand particularly given we know it happens.

Being told that someone your close to has committed such a crime is must be horrendous though. I think a lot of people (of either gender) would just go straight into denial unfortunately.

I still find some women who can't conceive of it; they are mostly older though and of a certain mindset. The only way they "accepted" it as a possibility was if the man who committed child sex offences was partner-less and/or generally considered "odd".

Seemingly normal, well adjusted, attached men would have been discounted as child sex abusers as a default response. The kids, usually girls, were branded as some combo of crushing, attention seeking, trouble making, lying, maturing too fast, Lolita's etc.

On the attached man thing, I still had a woman at a church toddler group, only a few years ago, announce - with the attitude that that was the only explanation needed - that the man taking photographs of all the toddlers and babies closeup (with no consent form offered, until I raised it) was "That's my husband!".

As though married men were exempt from inappropriate behaviour to kids; even though the typical profile of a child sex abuser in the US for example, is a church attending, married man.
Her DH was kind of giving me the creeps incidentally, and after being made to feel like I was the odd one out the saying I'd like to opt out of the constant close up photo taking, I didn't attend really that group.

Anyway - in general, with older women I know, I think that convictions, over time, are one of the few things that convinced them. Before, when cases were not prosecuted and convictions pretty much non existent; I feel like that lack of evidence (and of corresponding legal punishment) led them to discount it happening at all, let alone being prevalent.

Absolutely - re. a man in your family or life committing child sex offences.

It's also the case that the entire family is tarred with the same brush, gossiped about etc. and people therefore don't want to admit it or for others to know about it.

I have an uncle who is a hebephile offender, possibly worse, I don't know. I mentioned this to an ex, a man from a traditional background and rural area; it was obvious that he was shocked, and also that he saw it as a mark against/reflection of the entire family. He absolutely struck me as someone who would gossip about it a great deal and that if we finished, which we obviously did, that it would form the backbone of his explanation for why I, and my family, were "no good". Not respectable, dysfunctional etc.

The feeling is mutual.

You are the one who is shouting down anyone who disagrees with you and insulting them by saying they are ridiculous and delirious.

No-one has shouted anyone down on this thread.

People have argued points, back and forward.

Given the subject matter, I actually think people have been incredibly restrained.

(And the words ridiculous or delirious (what?! Have you looked up the definition of that?) have not been used).

Definitely.

You did use those words which is why those posts of yours have now been deleted by MN. If you're not embarrassed by that then i don't know what to tell you really. You've ruined any reasonable discussion on this thread and your manner is very aggressive. Have fun in your little echo chamber just with people who agree with you.

I still find some women who can't conceive of it; they are mostly older though and of a certain mindset. The only way they "accepted" it as a possibility was if the man who committed child sex offences was partner-less and/or generally considered "odd".

Saying that I’ve just remember a bonkers thread from a while back. OP wasn’t sure if she should let her child stay over with a friend, as the friends carer was a single dad, and she wasn’t sure if it was safe if no woman around.
The fact that many children are abused with a woman in the house (either oblivious or colluding) was something she seemed to have trouble grasping.

Seemingly normal, well adjusted, attached men would have been discounted as child sex abusers as a default response. The kids, usually girls, were branded as some combo of crushing, attention seeking, trouble making, lying, maturing too fast, Lolita's etc.

These women don’t sound much better than the abusers tbh 😬

No I didn't.

You're mixing up the words delusional and delirious.

And I've addressed why any posts of mine were deleted, some of your cohorts' posts would have been deleted too if I'd bothered to report them.

I'm not that petty though.

The debate is going just fine.

No one person could ever ruin or stop a debate on this forum; it's bizarre to even suggest it.

You seem utterly fixated on me and my posts, maybe just move on, eh.