GUILTY 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 #32

[Sjöberg]

I've been wondering. Did LL set out on her career with good intentions?
I wonder if she was inadvertently negligent over one infant (maybe towards the start of her career), and rather than speak up and admit her mistake, she panicked and could see her career and reputation going down the pan so kept quiet.
But then when she may have experienced sympathy and attention etc over the loss of a baby, she experienced an unexpected thrill? This could have been a trigger for her?
Gave her a sense of power, which she may not have experienced before to that degree.

Somehow, I had that exact same idea and came here to share it - no need to re-type, I see

 

[esther43]

The scary part is, IMO, she might enjoy hearing from the families about how devastating her actions were. Like music to her ears?

The part on the panorama video where LL washes the baby in front of the Mum. It's just the darkest thing. That poor, poor family.

 

[Marantz4250b]

I think her friend Dawn was interviewed 3 months into the trial so by that time she would of heard a great deal of evidence by then but she’s clearly in denial big time.
The thing with this utterly abhorrent case is that it WILL happen again, it may not be for years or even decades but it will in some form or another by someone.
I am heartily sick of “ lessons will be learned “ because they never are. This simply cannot be allowed to happen again and the ripple effects will go on and on.
This case must be the tipping point for accountability. You simply cannot be allowed to resign and saunter off to France with a nice big pension pot. All the management surrounding this case and how it was fudged, covered up and enabled need to face criminal proceedings, enough has to be enough now.
JMO.

I simply cannot express to you how much I agree with everything you say here!

There is pretty much zero chance that anything will change or that any any lessons will be learned.

It's a total *advertiser censored* of .

Too many public servants are protected by the fact that they know that nothing will ever be done in response to their disgraceful dereliction of duty. The protection given public employees needs to end forthwith!

 

[Dotta]

Somehow, I had that exact same idea and came here to share it - no need to re-type, I see

And I have also a feeling

Maybe she chose one of parents' "dream job"?

Did she live her own life?
Or did fulfill somebody else's ambition?

JMO

 

[Tortoise]

I don't even like the sound of corporate manslaughter. Presumably that would not lead to personal accountability. I think people at the top, if they failed to do what was reasonably expected of them to protect lives, should lose the protection of the corporation and be personally held to account, in a court of criminal law.

 

[iamshadow21]

The part on the panorama video where LL washes the baby in front of the Mum. It's just the darkest thing. That poor, poor family.

I'm just going to go on a little tangent, so bear with me. Those of you who have seen me on the threads know I like to infodump most about two things - forensic science and serial offenders. I'm going to talk a little about the latter.

When talking about serial offenders, we talk about signature behaviours, things that aren't 'necessary' to commit the crime, but fulfill some need for the perpetrator. We know most about behaviours of men in sexually motivated homicides, because those are the ones who have sat down with profilers. I think it is important to note that this kind of postmortem washing/grooming is a known behaviour. Bundy's probably one of the most well-known to have engaged in it - even shampooing victims' hair and doing makeup - but he's far from the only one. Postmortem handling and engaging with the body doesn't have to be overtly sexual or violent to meet a desire in the offender. It's all about having total control. Dahmer did it, Nilsen did it, and probably dozens of others less well known.

Engaging with grieving loved ones and prolonging their pain is also a known behaviour. LISK (RH), Joseph DeAngelo, and Larry Gene Bell all rang their victims or their families. Other murderers have happily been the 'strongest support' for shattered parents or loved ones, holding hands, arranging funerals, soaking up the fallout of their actions like sponges. I've seen this especially with some sexually motivated child killers who chose to attack children in their social circle.

I would say that in this scenario - if guilty - there really are strong parallels to other serial offenders in her need to control and intrude on postmortem ritual and, in particular, handling of the body (bathing, dressing, posing for photographs, taking hand and footprints, cutting locks of hair).

MOO

 

[ColourPurple]

I don't even like the sound of corporate manslaughter. Presumably that would not lead to personal accountability. I think people at the top, if they failed to do what was reasonably expected of them to protect lives, should lose the protection of the corporation and be personally held to account, in a court of criminal law.

I do think senior management need to be held accountable for putting the hospital's (and their own) reputation before babies' safety BUT...legally, can a person/trust be found guilty of the manslaughter of a person when somebody else has already been convicted of that person's murder?

 

[cottonweaver]

I'm just going to go on a little tangent, so bear with me. Those of you who have seen me on the threads know I like to infodump most about two things - forensic science and serial offenders. I'm going to talk a little about the latter.

When talking about serial offenders, we talk about signature behaviours, things that aren't 'necessary' to commit the crime, but fulfill some need for the perpetrator. We know most about behaviours of men in sexually motivated homicides, because those are the ones who have sat down with profilers. I think it is important to note that this kind of postmortem washing/grooming is a known behaviour. Bundy's probably one of the most well-known to have engaged in it - even shampooing victims' hair and doing makeup - but he's far from the only one. Postmortem handling and engaging with the body doesn't have to be overtly sexual or violent to meet a desire in the offender. It's all about having total control. Dahmer did it, Nilsen did it, and probably dozens of others less well known.

Engaging with grieving loved ones and prolonging their pain is also a known behaviour. LISK (RH), Joseph DeAngelo, and Larry Gene Bell all rang their victims or their families. Other murderers have happily been the 'strongest support' for shattered parents or loved ones, holding hands, arranging funerals, soaking up the fallout of their actions like sponges. I've seen this especially with some sexually motivated child killers.

I would say that in this scenario - if guilty - there really are strong parallels to other serial offenders in her need to control and intrude on postmortem ritual and, in particular, handling of the body (bathing, dressing, posing for photographs, taking hand and footprints, cutting locks of hair).

MOO

Top post. Very interesting albeit very disturbing.
I hadn't interpreted her morbid actions in that way but it resonates.

edited to add
I just can't get over the sadism & mercilessness of her actions against the most vulnerable and I have only managed a couple of podcasts of maybe three weeks of the trial, trying to get a handle on it since verdict. She had the clinical knowledge to appreciate the physical pain she was causing by each method she used and she knew enough about each case to know how these babies ( & their parents) had struggled to enter this world.

 

[Tortoise]

I do think senior management need to be held accountable for putting the hospital's (and their own) reputation before babies' safety BUT...legally, can a person/company be found guilty of the manslaughter of a person when somebody else has already been convicted of that person's murder?

I don't see why not. You could have a wife who plotted to kill her husband and hired someone to do it. They would both be culpable for different crimes.

The case that is up for sentencing in September is another one - four people found guilty of the murders of two young lads forced off the road in Leicestershire, and the car passengers found guilty of manslaughter.

 

[kittythehare]

I don't even like the sound of corporate manslaughter. Presumably that would not lead to personal accountability. I think people at the top, if they failed to do what was reasonably expected of them to protect lives, should lose the protection of the corporation and be personally held to account, in a court of criminal law.

Corporate Manslaughter | The Crown Prosecution Service

www.cps.gov.uk

 

[May72031]

Things are starting to happen. Alison Kelly, who moved from director of nursing at COCH to a new NHS Trust, has been suspended from the latter role...

NHS manager who ‘ignored serious concerns’ about Lucy Letby suspended

 

[iamshadow21]

Top post. Very interesting albeit very disturbing.
I hadn't interpreted her morbid actions in that way but it resonates.

Thank you.

I think there's a lot of talk about LL, if guilty, being some kind of unicorn. Like a new, never seen before kind of offender.

I think that's a bit of nonsense, trying to extend the 'nice Lucy, normal Lucy' illusion we've all been dazzled with.

If guilty, then she is a serial offender, and will share traits and motivations with other serial offenders, including drives, desires, and signature behaviours.

You just have to look at the case and her actions from that angle, and you'll see what I mean.

MOO

 

[Tortoise]

Corporate Manslaughter | The Crown Prosecution Service

www.cps.gov.uk

From your link -

When it is appropriate to charge both corporate and individual gross negligence manslaughter​

Decisions on charge are fact-specific and none of the above precludes a prosecution involving charges of both Corporate Manslaughter and individual gross negligence manslaughter if it is merited on the evidence in a particular case.

The evidence may clearly show gross failings on the part of individuals within the company as well overall failings of the organisation including its senior management.

 

[Marantz4250b]

I think if she had any kind of autism or similar diagnosis she would have made sure everybody knew about it and tried to use it to her advantage in any way she could.

And this is the point! Did she?

 

[Parker Knoll]

I would of thought Gross negligence manslaughter would apply in this case.

 

[esther43]

I'm just going to go on a little tangent, so bear with me. Those of you who have seen me on the threads know I like to infodump most about two things - forensic science and serial offenders. I'm going to talk a little about the latter.

When talking about serial offenders, we talk about signature behaviours, things that aren't 'necessary' to commit the crime, but fulfill some need for the perpetrator. We know most about behaviours of men in sexually motivated homicides, because those are the ones who have sat down with profilers. I think it is important to note that this kind of postmortem washing/grooming is a known behaviour. Bundy's probably one of the most well-known to have engaged in it - even shampooing victims' hair and doing makeup - but he's far from the only one. Postmortem handling and engaging with the body doesn't have to be overtly sexual or violent to meet a desire in the offender. It's all about having total control. Dahmer did it, Nilsen did it, and probably dozens of others less well known.

Engaging with grieving loved ones and prolonging their pain is also a known behaviour. LISK (RH), Joseph DeAngelo, and Larry Gene Bell all rang their victims or their families. Other murderers have happily been the 'strongest support' for shattered parents or loved ones, holding hands, arranging funerals, soaking up the fallout of their actions like sponges. I've seen this especially with some sexually motivated child killers who chose to attack children in their social circle.

I would say that in this scenario - if guilty - there really are strong parallels to other serial offenders in her need to control and intrude on postmortem ritual and, in particular, handling of the body (bathing, dressing, posing for photographs, taking hand and footprints, cutting locks of hair).

MOO

I think the wanting to intrude rang particularly true in the case of child C.
I know it is normal practice to bath a baby after it passed (it's usually asked if parents want to) it's just I struggle that it was her who had this memory with them.
I have to say I saw a report earlier on the lock of hair - it had been deemed a trophy but again, that would be a part of the bereavement process, for the parents to have a lock of hair to keep in the memory box.
When parents are that vulnerable, they think everything you do for them is amazing. It's sickening that LL participated in any of this when she was the person responsible.
As if it's not enough to take the baby, she soiled those last moments too. Unforgivable..

 

[Parker Knoll]

Sentence at 2pm tomorrow according to Sky. The morning will be taken up with house keeping and mitigation no doubt.

 

[ColourPurple]

I don't see why not. You could have a wife who plotted to kill her husband and hired someone to do it. They would both be culpable for different crimes.

The case that is up for sentencing in September is another one - four people found guilty of the murders of two young lads forced off the road in Leicestershire, and the car passengers found guilty of manslaughter.

I was wondering how it would work alongside the judge's directions that you must be sure that the act or acts of the defendant, whatever they were, caused the child’s death in that it was more than a minimal cause.

I suppose it would be similar to joint enterprise, and Nathan Matthews being found guilty of murder and Shauna Hoare of manslaughter of the same person:

 

[Marantz4250b]

I doubt that very much JMO

Nah, I'm betting that he does. Well, perhaps not a string of them but she definitely won't have been the first!

 

[kittythehare]

I do think senior management need to be held accountable for putting the hospital's (and their own) reputation before babies' safety BUT...legally, can a person/trust be found guilty of the manslaughter of a person when somebody else has already been convicted of that person's murder?

hell yes, if it is proven that you failed to stop it when alerted.