UK - Nurse Lucy Letby, murder of babies, 7 Guilty of murder verdicts; 7 Guilty of attempted murder; 2 Not Guilty of attempted; 6 hung re attempted #34

Status
Not open for further replies.
I can see one result from that enquiry and potentially a flaw in the current system. I have absolutely no idea of the guidelines on conducting an internal investigation within the nhs but if under employee rights it is mentioned that there must be “strong evidence of foul play/malpractice etc to investigate” then how does that pan out? This is the flaw, if a prerequisite of an investigation is that there must be “strong evidence“ then what do you do if a killer should choose a method that isn’t easy to detect or leaves little evidence or perhaps a method that wouldn’t leave evidence under routine autopsy ?

im very interested to see what the managers say, the strongest bit in their favour is that they really didn’t have much evidence of anything suspect I think bolstered by the second investigation once ll was on clerical that didn’t get anything either. Two sets of highly qualif professionals each coming back in the clear if I remember correctly. Their weakest point is that they argued so much with the consultants. wasnt i5 dr evans that found the insulin cases as well?

am I right in thinking that there are a few examples within the cases in evidence that slipped under the radar as well? I remember the insulin was initially missed I think due to delays in the results or something and yes baby E was missed due to no PM.
I'm not sure if it does say that but if it does then that is a ridiculous way of wording it. I mean, a major purpose of an investigation is to find evidence, surely? Requiring strong evidence to begin with seems an unreasonable requirement.

The fact is that - evidence or not - when you have multiple senior medical staff coming to you with repeated warnings relating to the same person you need to do something. That, in itself, constitutes "strong evidence" to any rational mode of thought!
 
I'm not sure if it does say that but if it does then that is a ridiculous way of wording it. I mean, a major purpose of an investigation is to find evidence, surely? Requiring strong evidence to begin with seems an unreasonable requirement.

The fact is that - evidence or not - when you have multiple senior medical staff coming to you with repeated warnings relating to the same person you need to do something. That, in itself, constitutes "strong evidence" to any rational mode of thought!
I’m not sure I worded it right. So if under employee rights A review would need strong evidence to turn into a investigation otherwise you may put staff through so much stress and strain for no good reason.

i really do think it stands in their favour that they couldn’t find anything suspicious with the first two rounds of reviews/investigations. It really would seem that they could think in that situation “we only have doctors saying they think she is suspicious“ these same doctors trained in diagnosing couldn’t bring forward a single thing to bolster “the accusations“. from my POV and imo the managers could easily think they are between a rock and a hard place. I would say the manner of the deaths being sudden and unexpected might be good cause to believe the senior docs but another senior doc ie the pathologist said no cause for concern. I really would like to know why the docs didn’t go to him and say that pm needs extensive and thorough tests because we thik it may be murder. I’m sure the pathologist would have looked at the pm differently.
 
I'm not sure if it does say that but if it does then that is a ridiculous way of wording it. I mean, a major purpose of an investigation is to find evidence, surely? Requiring strong evidence to begin with seems an unreasonable requirement.
I fully agree. If there is strong suspicion then it should be investigated. Strong suspicion not strong evidence required.
The fact is that - evidence or not - when you have multiple senior medical staff coming to you with repeated warnings relating to the same person you need to do something. That, in itself, constitutes "strong evidence" to any rational mode of thought!
I think they should put cctv in the corridors only. Not in the rooms, I can see that as too intrusive.

'But if we had the corridor footage, Lucy would have been shut down very early on. It would have been very obvious who was going in and out of the victim's rooms right before they coded.

You'd see her sliding in right after the designated nurses went on break and right after the parents went home.
 
I fully agree. If there is strong suspicion then it should be investigated. Strong suspicion not strong evidence required.

I think they should put cctv in the corridors only. Not in the rooms, I can see that as too intrusive.

'But if we had the corridor footage, Lucy would have been shut down very early on. It would have been very obvious who was going in and out of the victim's rooms right before they coded.

You'd see her sliding in right after the designated nurses went on break and right after the parents went home.
I tend to agree but I think that anyone like her, who is devious and determined to do what they decided they were going to do would find a way round it. She'd have managed to make herself look non-suspicious if she knew there was CCTV outside the rooms. I'm sure she'd have managed to "find a reason" why she needed to be in a particular room or suchlike. Yes, it would have made it a tad harder and maybe more likely to slip up but I don't think it would have stopped her, in all honesty. It might have got her caught after the first few, I guess.
 
you know what was one of the most interesting things i have ever done was follow this case. massive thanks to all who contributed.

Apparently a few pro's think its likely munchausens.

"A former detective superintendent, the lead detective on the Beverley Allitt case of the 1990s, said that the amount of parallels between the cases made him think that "it's almost as if somebody's read the Allitt book" and that Letby's crimes may have been copycats.[75]: 17:30  Allitt had attacked over a dozen infants in her care while working as a nurse in Grantham, England, and the methods used in the cases were apparently identical, with Allitt having also injected some victims with air and insulin and physically assaulting them.[75]: 17:30  It was believed that Allitt may have been motivated by what was then called Munchausen's by proxy, in which she harmed others to gain attention for herself and it may be that this also explains Letby's attacks.[75]: 18:00  Criminal psychologist Dominic Wilmott subscribes to this theory, commenting: "She wants to be involved in this case. She actually has the perfect opportunity not to be, right? So we expect most offenders to not want to get caught and to distance themselves from their offending behaviour. Beverley Allitt and Lucy Letby seemed to be injecting themselves into the inquiry, into the circumstances, so it shows that there's something else going on here."[75]: 18:10  Just like in Letby's case, the hospital in Allitt's case was criticised for its slow speed of response.[124] Fellow criminal psychologist Dr David Holmes agrees that Letby was motivated by Munchausen's.[95]31:15 Criminologist David Wilson agrees that in Letby's case, Letby seemed to have a "hero complex".[124] A senior nurse testified on 21 March 2023 that Letby had told her before June 2016 that she, Letby, found non-intensive care of babies "boring" and had always wanted to be allocated to the intensive care unit, notwithstanding concerns among nursing staff that working long periods in intensive care would place a high burden on the mental health of nurses.[11]

According to Wilson, healthcare killers like Letby "[have] already developed the desire to kill before they join the healthcare setting".[124] Speaking on Newsnight, he said: "If you want to kill, of course you are going to identify people who are vulnerable. People whose deaths won't be noticed. And so guess what? The people that serial killers target, by and large, are older people, or they target very very young people, specifically in a neonatal unit in this case, where again small babies with chronic underlying healthcare where their deaths won't be commented upon or seen as being suspicious".[124] "


And some pro's remain unconvinced

Amongst this, statistician Richard D. Gill and lawyer Neil Mackenzie KC, who co-authored a work with others on the use of statistics in court cases, have also cast doubt on the outcome.[145][147


Neil mackenzie kc is high profile especially on medical cases.

Neil specialises in the areas of professional negligence and industrial disease, and is predominantly instructed in complex, high value medical negligence actions. He acts for both pursuers and defenders across a range of subject matter that includes neurosurgery, general surgery, obstetrics and orthopaedics. Neil also deals with a large volume of other reparation claims. He is regularly instructed in industrial disease actions, in particular concerning asbestos. His experience of solicitor's negligence cases is extensive. In medical negligence and industrial disease actions, Neil must often deal with complex and difficult issues of causation. Neil regularly appears in Court in various different forums, with extensive experience of the Outer and Inner Houses of the Court of Session and a recent appearance in the UK Supreme Court.


me, I think she did it.
 
The majority of media outlets and the vast majority of talking-heads on the internet forums are very quick to arrive at the conclusion of well, she's just another Allit, obvs. Personally, I think that that's lazy thinking designed for easy headlines and compartmentalising in order to provide easy answers for something so very aberrant. Humans tend to want easy answers when the true causes are many faceted and require lots of thought, IMO.

Having followed this case from her final arrest and charging in November 2020 it's very clear that LL is nothing like Allitt. Yes, there may be some similarities - and facticious disorder may be in there somewhere - but I don't accept that that was the main driver. LL was a pretty decent nurse who was very hard working, studious doing all manner of additional training, highly social and had a lot of friends. She was generally very highly thought of. Allitt was the total opposite of all of that.

Yes, there was certainly an element of her causing these injuries and deaths in order to bring attention to herself but, IMO, that was only one part of her motivation/psychological makeup. I think that Allitt knew she was a terrible nurse, along with being terrible at most things, and not very well liked by anyone but that LL did it for different reasons.

Yes, it was ultimately to bring attention to herself but for different reasons, as her note said, she killed them because I'm not good enough to care for them. I take that as meaning I killed them because these deluded fools didn't realise what an amazing nurse I am and relegated me feeding babies when I should have been saving lives, it was a revenge thing, ultimately. Allitt did what she did because she knew that everyone thought little of her and was trying to get people to like her. Subtly different reasonings but significant, IMO.

In actual fact, I'm still not entirely convinced that LL (or Allitt, for that matter, but it's a while since I've read the details) actually intended to kill anyone. She was certainly extremely reckless as to whether they died, and perhaps didn't care if they did, but my feeling is that her ultimate motive was to be the "hero" and save them, something she would have been in a better position to do than most as she knew what was wrong with them. This is why I'm a bit surprised as to why she wasn't charged with assault/wounding or similar as she was clearly guilty of them and the murders she was convicted of would have got her whole life orders anyway. IMO, obvs.

Allitt had been attention seeking (not to mention violent and aggressive) for most of her life. LL seems to have been the total opposite being the seemingly perfect child and young woman from what we know. That last part is perhaps important because there is still a lot we don't know about her earlier life. I'll try to find the post but I'm sure I said threads and threads ago that after the trial we'd likely see some significantly traumatic or unusual event or series of events in her life come out. I'm still of that opinion but, of course, there is still a retrial on one count pending so whatever the press may know they can't publish. If there is something earth-shatteringly significant to come out then I think that the press either know or have a very strong inclinations as to what it is. It just seems so bizarre that a seemingly perfectly normal 25 year-old woman would suddenly start harming babies for what seems like no reason.
 
Last edited:
The majority of media outlets and the vast majority of talking-heads on the internet forums are very quick to arrive at the conclusion of well, she's just another Allit, obvs. Personally, I think that that's lazy thinking designed for easy headlines and compartmentalising in order to provide easy answers for something so very aberrant. Humans tend to want easy answers when the true causes are many faceted and require lots of thought, IMO.

Having followed this case from her final arrest and charging in November 2020 it's very clear that LL is nothing like Allitt. Yes, there may be some similarities - and facticious disorder may be in there somewhere - but I don't accept that that was the main driver. LL was a pretty decent nurse who was very hard working, studious doing all manner of additional training, highly social and had a lot of friends. She was generally very highly thought of. Allitt was the total opposite of all of that.

Yes, there was certainly an element of her causing these injuries and deaths in order to bring attention to herself but, IMO, that was only one part of her motivation/psychological makeup. I think that Allitt knew she was a terrible nurse, along with being terrible at most things, and not very well liked by anyone but that LL did it for different reasons.

Yes, it was ultimately to bring attention to herself but for different reasons, as her note said, she killed them because I'm not good enough to care for them. I take that as meaning I killed them because these deluded fools didn't realise what an amazing nurse I am and relegated me feeding babies when I should have been saving lives, it was a revenge thing, ultimately. Allitt did what she did because she knew that everyone thought little of her and was trying to get people to like her. Subtly different reasonings but significant, IMO.

In actual fact, I'm still not entirely convinced that LL (or Allitt, for that matter, but it's a while since I've read the details) actually intended to kill anyone. She was certainly extremely reckless as to whether they died, and perhaps didn't care if they did, but my feeling is that her ultimate motive was to be the "hero" and save them, something she would have been in a better position to do than most as she knew what was wrong with them. This is why I'm a bit surprised as to why she wasn't charged with assault/wounding or similar as she was clearly guilty of them and the murders she was convicted of would have got her whole life orders anyway. IMO, obvs.

Allitt had been attention seeking (not to mention violent and aggressive) for most of her life. LL seems to have been the total opposite being the seemingly perfect child and young woman from what we know. That last part is perhaps important because there is still a lot we don't know about her earlier life. I'll try to find the post but I'm sure I said threads and threads ago that after the trial we'd likely see some significantly traumatic or unusual event or series of events in her life come out. I'm still of that opinion but, of course, there is still a retrial on one count pending so whatever the press may know they can't publish. If there is something earth-shatteringly significant to come out then I think that the press either know or have a very strong inclinations as to what it is. It just seems so bizarre that a seemingly perfectly normal 25 year-old woman would suddenly start harming babies for what seems like no reason.
LL, IMO, has a sadistic streak.

Terrible crying of Babies, crying of devastated parents, left her cold.

Some of those whom she didn't manage to murder, are left brain damaged, unable to lead normal lives.

Not to mention her morbid excitement while dealing with bodies of dead Babies.

IMO, anger or wanting attention were only a fraction of her motive.

Oh, and let's not forget about the "special view" from a window of her house.

JMO
 
Last edited:
LL, IMO, has a sadistic streak.

Terrible crying of Babies, crying of devastated parents, left her cold.

Some of those whom she didn't manage to murder, are left brain damaged, unable to lead normal lives.

IMO, anger or wanting attention were only a fraction of her motive.

JMO
Possibly. Sadism, though, as I understand it, is inflicting pain and suffering on another for your own personal gratification. It's enjoyment of the pain and suffering.

It may be, however, that she was simply indifferent to the pain and suffering and saw it as a consequence of her other needs such as attention and that others appreciate her as heing so good at her job as to be indispensable and shouldn't have been relegated to merely feeding babies like a nursey nurse.

I think you're correct when you say it "left her cold". I think it did which isn't my understanding of sadism.
 
Possibly. Sadism, though, as I understand it, is inflicting pain and suffering on another for your own personal gratification. It's enjoyment of the pain and suffering.

It may be, however, that she was simply indifferent to the pain and suffering and saw it as a consequence of her other needs such as attention and that others appreciate her as heing so good at her job as to be indispensable and shouldn't have been relegated to merely feeding babies like a nursey nurse.
Hmmm...
So it might indicate psychopathy.

JMO
 
As I say, I don't think there are easy answers to her here. I think LL is one of the most complicated and nuanced murerers/serial killers we've ever seen.

She is far from straightforward.
And better not to look too closely into this abyss - for fear of being sucked into it.

One has to take care of mental wellbeing ;)

Let the specialists scratch their heads :)

JMO
 
Very simple theory I know ..I'm no expert..but I still think she was more interested in being seen as an outstanding nurse than actually caring about the babies ..they were just a "tool" for her ... when she was angry / jealous/ not getting her own way she used the poor babies
 
Very simple theory I know ..I'm no expert..but I still think she was more interested in being seen as an outstanding nurse than actually caring about the babies ..they were just a "tool" for her ... when she was angry / jealous/ not getting her own way she used the poor babies
I agree. I think that whatever profession/career she chose she'd have a need to be the best or, at the very least, be part of the circle of the "best" in whatever scenario she was in. If she were a firefighter she'd be setting fires in order to notice them first or be able to extinguish them quickly; if she were a cop she'd probably be fitting up suspects, and so on. Death or suffering, I don't think, were her primary motivations. They were a means to an end.

There are, I think, a lot more significant underlying reasons for her being like that, though. She's deeply troubled in one way, maybe it's just her personality from birth or maybe there's something more recent that's caused it. My reasoning is that a lot more is going to come out after the final trial is concluded.

All MOO, obvs.
 
Very simple theory I know ..I'm no expert..but I still think she was more interested in being seen as an outstanding nurse than actually caring about the babies ..they were just a "tool" for her ... when she was angry / jealous/ not getting her own way she used the poor babies
I agree with this, its a hard push for me to believe that she displayed the same loving and nurturing feelings and disposition towards the babs as a normal person would. The video of her on the ward cooing to the baby in the cot made her sound cold to me.

I agree with marantz as well. there is no comparison to allitt and the only link is tenuous at best. It being there are no other cases comparable so the two are in reality disparate but so extraordinary as to be two islands on opposite sides of a globe of water.

<modsnip - not an approved source>
 
Last edited by a moderator:
This thread is closed. Please continue discussion here:

 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
117
Guests online
4,280
Total visitors
4,397

Forum statistics

Threads
593,682
Messages
17,990,728
Members
229,210
Latest member
Rockymountaingirl
Back
Top