I understand what you are saying there. I guess I don't really think of her as evil either, but clearly deeply deeply troubled, with personality disorders which means that she seems to crave attention and lack empathy. Sadistic possibly too? That seems very simplistic when you've killed so many of the most vulnerable newborn babies, but I guess that's why forensic psychologist's will study her for years and attempt to write books about her. A few sentences is never going to sum her up, so please don't think Im being simplistic or flippant.
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 #35
- Thread starter sleuth777
- Start date
Parker Knoll
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Nov 15, 2020
- Messages
- 1,091
- Reaction score
- 8,865
She’s evil alright, to her rotten core.
marynnu
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2023
- Messages
- 1,362
- Reaction score
- 9,655
printing
I agree with you. I don't use the word 'evil', it all sounds a bit biblical and what does it even mean? She was just born with or developed a certain mindset which she can't help. Whether she could have chosen not to act on her impulses is another question of course.
Dotta
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2021
- Messages
- 10,931
- Reaction score
- 66,294
Immoral and wicked.
Suits perfectly the murderer of innocent vulnerable Babies.
JMO
BBM
Dotta
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2021
- Messages
- 10,931
- Reaction score
- 66,294
From another perspective...
'She wasn’t aggressive, antisocial, hostile or cantankerous.
As far as we know, there is no trauma in her history.
She wasn’t, for example, a victim of abuse.
She had no criminal history or even issues relating to friends and peers.
In fact, before baby deaths started spiking,
she was seen by her colleagues as diligent and conscientious.'
........
On being asked whether Lucy may have been battling mental health issues,
Sohom said,
'It has been established that Lucy suffered from some background anxiety and depression.
However,
crucially, in my view, this did not affect her criminal culpability.
It may have given her a negative outlook on life,
but that still does not explain and certainly does not excuse what she did'.
........
Sohom said there may have been other motives,
such as power and control or
'a morbid fascination with the parents’ grieving process'.
'It is also possible that she took some perverse pleasure in deceiving parents, i.e. being the cause of their baby’s death yet also the person who comforts them.
She may have also been jealous of the ideal family unit,
perhaps as in her mind it wasn't somehow obtainable.
In her bitterness, she decided to simply annihilate what she couldn’t have'.
........
Sohom explained that all of these killers have one thing in common –
they abuse their position of authority for exposure to vulnerable victims.
'I suppose a sinister chicken and egg quandary exists;
do people with these morbid, heinous intentions drift into these roles
or do they become this way through their work?
Although we must not sympathise with these killers,
one could postulate that being exposed to trauma and death
could make them become somewhat desensitised
and thereby warp their moral boundaries'."
www-hindustantimes-com.cdn.ampproject.org
news-sky-com.cdn.ampproject.org
" 'She wasn’t aggressive or antisocial’:
Psychiatrist explains
why Lucy Letby is
‘unique’ compared to other offenders.
'She wasn’t aggressive, antisocial, hostile or cantankerous.
As far as we know, there is no trauma in her history.
She wasn’t, for example, a victim of abuse.
She had no criminal history or even issues relating to friends and peers.
In fact, before baby deaths started spiking,
she was seen by her colleagues as diligent and conscientious.'
........
On being asked whether Lucy may have been battling mental health issues,
Sohom said,
'It has been established that Lucy suffered from some background anxiety and depression.
However,
crucially, in my view, this did not affect her criminal culpability.
It may have given her a negative outlook on life,
but that still does not explain and certainly does not excuse what she did'.
........
Sohom said there may have been other motives,
such as power and control or
'a morbid fascination with the parents’ grieving process'.
'It is also possible that she took some perverse pleasure in deceiving parents, i.e. being the cause of their baby’s death yet also the person who comforts them.
She may have also been jealous of the ideal family unit,
perhaps as in her mind it wasn't somehow obtainable.
In her bitterness, she decided to simply annihilate what she couldn’t have'.
........
Sohom explained that all of these killers have one thing in common –
they abuse their position of authority for exposure to vulnerable victims.
'I suppose a sinister chicken and egg quandary exists;
do people with these morbid, heinous intentions drift into these roles
or do they become this way through their work?
Although we must not sympathise with these killers,
one could postulate that being exposed to trauma and death
could make them become somewhat desensitised
and thereby warp their moral boundaries'."
'Sadism shouldn't be conflated with mental illness': Exclusive interview on Lucy Letby with forensic psychiatrist
“Lucy is very unique compared to the rest of the offender population I have assessed,” Sohom said in an interview with Hindustan Times
Lucy Letby: Inside the mind of a serial killer - the psychology behind healthcare murderers
Former Countess of Chester hospital nurse Lucy Letby joins GP Harold Shipman and nurse Beverley Allitt on the list of UK healthcare professional serial killers. Here, Sky News speaks to psychologists about possible motivations for such horrific crimes.
Last edited:
Parker Knoll
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Nov 15, 2020
- Messages
- 1,091
- Reaction score
- 8,865
I’m not so sure these days.
Marantz4250b
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Nov 23, 2020
- Messages
- 2,540
- Reaction score
- 12,455
I doubt her parents genuinely believe in her innocence anymore, to be honest. I'm sure they are finding it incredibly hard to come to terms with but I'd be surprised if they actually thought she was innocent.
Tortoise
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 15, 2015
- Messages
- 26,247
- Reaction score
- 132,050
A roundup of today's evidence
Lucy Letby trial: Repeated intubation attempts 'would not have compromised baby'
Lucy Letby trial: Repeated intubation attempts 'would not have compromised baby'
I'm torn on this because as a parent myself, I'm sure I would still see the hard truths. But then there are tons of conspiracy theorists out there, so clearly some people just don't accept evidence. Even her best friend from school is adamant she is innocent. I guess it's very difficult to accept there is a dark side to someone you've known for years who on the face of it was 'perfect'
A second roundup. So I'm thinking this arrowe park doctor must be a witness for the defence who's been called early due to them not being available later. An actual expert for the defence!
www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/uk-news/death-premature-baby-allegedly-attacked-29376494.amp
www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/uk-news/death-premature-baby-allegedly-attacked-29376494.amp
Honeybirdette
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2022
- Messages
- 368
- Reaction score
- 2,658
Really? I thought the defence don’t call their witnesses until the prosecution has called all of theirs?
Yeah usually that is the case, but when this witness was called they explained he wasn't available later. And then Myers proceeded to ask him questions first, when usually it would be the prosecution barrister who would ask questions first. Plus his evidence related to the review he had conducted that concluded that sub optimal care at CoC had contributed to baby K's death, and that seems to be what the Letby defence is. I don't know whether he is a defence witness, but just thought he might be.
Marantz4250b
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Nov 23, 2020
- Messages
- 2,540
- Reaction score
- 12,455
This is a prosecution witness, surely, as Myers for the defence is cross-examining?
Did we hear from this witness in the original trial as I don't recall them? This evidence doesn't seem to lend itself to the prosecution case, from what I can see. The witness states that the child's death was "unavoidable" once she arrived at Arrowe Park. This, I'm surmising, is why the alternative charge of murder was not proceeded with initially as it's clear that LL wasn't present at the time of the death and hadn't been near the child for days, so it would be hard to show that anything she had allegedly done was an operating cause of the death.
I'm still not seeing anything which is markedly different from the original trial here; the evidence of her allegedly standing over the cot doing nothing, the machine not alarming, etc is just what it was previously. The charge here is one of attempted murder, as it was originally. It needs to be proven that her intent was to cause death - not to cause a risk death, or even make death very likely, but to actually bring about death.
If we accept the evidence of her standing doing nothing and the implied allegation of her switching the alarm off as being true then that's still the same evidence as last time. Evidence on which a jury failed to reach a verdict.
Now, yes, both of those things could indicate that she intended to cause death but, on the other hand, they could also perfectly reasonably indicate that she intended to cause a scene in order to generate attention and bask in the glory. Maybe the child would die, maybe not, but being reckless or indifferent to that is not an intention to cause death.
I hope they are going to produce some more evidence, things that we haven't previously heard about, because I'm not sure that what they've produced so far is sufficient to make a jury "sure" that she intended death to occur.
Did we hear from this witness in the original trial as I don't recall them? This evidence doesn't seem to lend itself to the prosecution case, from what I can see. The witness states that the child's death was "unavoidable" once she arrived at Arrowe Park. This, I'm surmising, is why the alternative charge of murder was not proceeded with initially as it's clear that LL wasn't present at the time of the death and hadn't been near the child for days, so it would be hard to show that anything she had allegedly done was an operating cause of the death.
I'm still not seeing anything which is markedly different from the original trial here; the evidence of her allegedly standing over the cot doing nothing, the machine not alarming, etc is just what it was previously. The charge here is one of attempted murder, as it was originally. It needs to be proven that her intent was to cause death - not to cause a risk death, or even make death very likely, but to actually bring about death.
If we accept the evidence of her standing doing nothing and the implied allegation of her switching the alarm off as being true then that's still the same evidence as last time. Evidence on which a jury failed to reach a verdict.
Now, yes, both of those things could indicate that she intended to cause death but, on the other hand, they could also perfectly reasonably indicate that she intended to cause a scene in order to generate attention and bask in the glory. Maybe the child would die, maybe not, but being reckless or indifferent to that is not an intention to cause death.
I hope they are going to produce some more evidence, things that we haven't previously heard about, because I'm not sure that what they've produced so far is sufficient to make a jury "sure" that she intended death to occur.
Last edited:
Parker Knoll
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Nov 15, 2020
- Messages
- 1,091
- Reaction score
- 8,865
The only thing the prosecution have added is that she WAS sedated at the time, therefore unable to dislodge her breathing tube herself.
So one correct me if I am wrong here ?
So one correct me if I am wrong here ?
marynnu
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2023
- Messages
- 1,362
- Reaction score
- 9,655
Less likely but not impossible. A morphine infusion does not prevent all movement as that isn't good for the baby.
Sweeper2000
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2022
- Messages
- 1,936
- Reaction score
- 4,868
yeh the prosecutions case is that this happened three times i think ? with LL doing it these additional times to blend the initial attempt into something more explainable as genuinely medical.
Sweeper2000
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2022
- Messages
- 1,936
- Reaction score
- 4,868
yip thats one of them definitely is baby G as well, and the "pale" looking baby which was child I i think. I actually thought the one where she said the docs just walked off leaving the baby alone was quite suspect as I just don't think two doctors would literally just walk off from a baby who is alone. Does @marynnu or any other savvy so and so know if the "silence" button would indicate if it had been pressed? or if i remember correctly the computers log would store that that button had been pressed? one might think it would be useful for staff to know to unmute the alarm if its showing red, makes sense to me.
"MURDER-ACCUSED nurse Lucy Letby said she was "very concerned" that a baby girl had been left alone in the Countess of Chester Hospital neonatal unit on a trolley behind screens, and in which the baby monitor had been switched off."
Lucy Letby 'very concerned' for baby 'left alone on trolley'
MURDER-ACCUSED nurse Lucy Letby said she was "very concerned" that a baby girl had been left alone in the Countess of Chester Hospital…
I can definitely see her silencing that alarm, just looking at her actions and being found guilty i think its very much in line with her approach.
Not sure about that. Hasn't Dr Jayaram just admitted that she wasn't sedated the first time.
Sweeper2000
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2022
- Messages
- 1,936
- Reaction score
- 4,868
the sedation thing is an issue but i think its been confirmed that the baby was sedated before or just after intubation but cant find the quotes. I still don't think it looks ok at all that she must have silenced the alarm on a baby that was premature and only a few hours after being delivered. Would any nurse be ok with that situation by themselves, one might think a call for a doctor or to leave the alarm sounding is the better option?