Tortoise
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 15, 2015
- Messages
- 26,650
- Reaction score
- 134,715
The most interesting part of her trial for me was her demonstration of how a psychopath/sociopath operates right under the noses of the people who will decide her fate.
She should be being studied by esteemed psychologists for her giveaways, but I am afraid they are just the same old same old tired and frankly boring and uninformed TV personalities doing the rounds, parroting that she is just ordinary and appears to have had an ordinary beige life. I mean for goodness sake, her police interviews and her testimony was gold, and it's absolutely no wonder to me that she lived in a beige house with teddies on her bed, and not a sewer or a dungeon with pictures of Hannibal Lecter on her walls. She put on a nurse's uniform every day - there is no higher level of deceit than that. They need to be able to look past the 'show' and pull out all the tells for those who would want to learn something from this most heinous rampage of terror. They weren't bothered to get themselves into a hotel, and park their bottoms in court every day for just a few weeks of her testimony, content instead to rely on the journos to give them a few soundbites, journos who are trained to be balanced and non-inflammatory so as to not prejudice a trial.
How Letby operates is how psychopaths/sociopaths manipulate people into refusing to "think the unthinkable", even when babies are dying and natural causes can't be found.
However, what I wanted to say was that she did not fool the jury who studied her. That is not to say that it made their task any easier, for although they decided unequivocally that she was lying, they then had the difficult task of having to discern whether they could convict her across the board merely on the basis that they could disregard her testimony.
I would suggest that part of deciding that Letby was deceptive, apart from the more obvious instances of her dubious narratives such as wearing pyjamas and saying she didn't have a shredder, was that she did not comport herself in court in the way of an innocent person being accused of a litany of murders of babies. Would an innocent person feel quietly sad, and view cross-examination as a sort of game of pitting of intellects, or would they be a tad or even mightily angry that they were being falsely accused of all manner of outrageous acts and had lost everything they worked for? The jury might just have assimilated that she believed, and was very well-practiced at, being smart or clever with her replies, verbalising strings of nonsense, or that sometimes even just her superior demeanor alone if she couldn't recall anything, was sufficient to get her out of any situation, and she would be acquitted because she was superior to those she was always fooling. She thinks like the person she was, an arrogant, 'successful', omnipotent serial-killer, who had everyone blindsided. I dare say she worked to hide her anger, for she did have some in her personal notes, because she thought it would be used in court to show she was an out of control enraged killer. Secondly, there is more arrogance on display to think people will just accept her defence of a massive conspiracy of reputable medics, parents, extending to police, experts and the CPS.
Letby would have done well to follow Ben Myers KC's lead. He displayed the levels of outrage on her behalf in his speeches that at times made me think might confuse the jury into thinking it was her emotion. But it needed to come from her, and I think she had already planned ahead of her trial to do what she is a master at. Cool and calculated deception.
As an aside, for anyone interested there was a recent televised trial in America (Law & Crime Youtube channel), where Robert Telles, a businessman/public official, was convicted of the murder of an investigative journalist. He also took the witness stand and the similarities with Letby (IMO) are just jaw-dropping. He sobbed like Letby did when they showed photos of the mess police left in his house after conducting their search, he was calm and cocky with his replies to the prosecutor on the stand, his defence was based on a conspiracy against him as large as Letby's and also involving the DNA lab planting his DNA under the fingernails of his victim and elsewhere, and planting photos on his phone. But there were many other tells in his demeanour, just like Letby. He also said 'I'm not the type of person who would murder', just like Letby said 'I'm not the sort of person that kills babies', and was having an extramarital affair with a co-worker at the time he murdered. I don't know which one wrote the playbook. The Behavior Panel (also on YT) has also done a video on him, and I think there must be very many similarities in personalities between Telles and Letby, from a behavioural analysis point of view, even though he only committed one murder.
MOO
She should be being studied by esteemed psychologists for her giveaways, but I am afraid they are just the same old same old tired and frankly boring and uninformed TV personalities doing the rounds, parroting that she is just ordinary and appears to have had an ordinary beige life. I mean for goodness sake, her police interviews and her testimony was gold, and it's absolutely no wonder to me that she lived in a beige house with teddies on her bed, and not a sewer or a dungeon with pictures of Hannibal Lecter on her walls. She put on a nurse's uniform every day - there is no higher level of deceit than that. They need to be able to look past the 'show' and pull out all the tells for those who would want to learn something from this most heinous rampage of terror. They weren't bothered to get themselves into a hotel, and park their bottoms in court every day for just a few weeks of her testimony, content instead to rely on the journos to give them a few soundbites, journos who are trained to be balanced and non-inflammatory so as to not prejudice a trial.
How Letby operates is how psychopaths/sociopaths manipulate people into refusing to "think the unthinkable", even when babies are dying and natural causes can't be found.
However, what I wanted to say was that she did not fool the jury who studied her. That is not to say that it made their task any easier, for although they decided unequivocally that she was lying, they then had the difficult task of having to discern whether they could convict her across the board merely on the basis that they could disregard her testimony.
I would suggest that part of deciding that Letby was deceptive, apart from the more obvious instances of her dubious narratives such as wearing pyjamas and saying she didn't have a shredder, was that she did not comport herself in court in the way of an innocent person being accused of a litany of murders of babies. Would an innocent person feel quietly sad, and view cross-examination as a sort of game of pitting of intellects, or would they be a tad or even mightily angry that they were being falsely accused of all manner of outrageous acts and had lost everything they worked for? The jury might just have assimilated that she believed, and was very well-practiced at, being smart or clever with her replies, verbalising strings of nonsense, or that sometimes even just her superior demeanor alone if she couldn't recall anything, was sufficient to get her out of any situation, and she would be acquitted because she was superior to those she was always fooling. She thinks like the person she was, an arrogant, 'successful', omnipotent serial-killer, who had everyone blindsided. I dare say she worked to hide her anger, for she did have some in her personal notes, because she thought it would be used in court to show she was an out of control enraged killer. Secondly, there is more arrogance on display to think people will just accept her defence of a massive conspiracy of reputable medics, parents, extending to police, experts and the CPS.
Letby would have done well to follow Ben Myers KC's lead. He displayed the levels of outrage on her behalf in his speeches that at times made me think might confuse the jury into thinking it was her emotion. But it needed to come from her, and I think she had already planned ahead of her trial to do what she is a master at. Cool and calculated deception.
As an aside, for anyone interested there was a recent televised trial in America (Law & Crime Youtube channel), where Robert Telles, a businessman/public official, was convicted of the murder of an investigative journalist. He also took the witness stand and the similarities with Letby (IMO) are just jaw-dropping. He sobbed like Letby did when they showed photos of the mess police left in his house after conducting their search, he was calm and cocky with his replies to the prosecutor on the stand, his defence was based on a conspiracy against him as large as Letby's and also involving the DNA lab planting his DNA under the fingernails of his victim and elsewhere, and planting photos on his phone. But there were many other tells in his demeanour, just like Letby. He also said 'I'm not the type of person who would murder', just like Letby said 'I'm not the sort of person that kills babies', and was having an extramarital affair with a co-worker at the time he murdered. I don't know which one wrote the playbook. The Behavior Panel (also on YT) has also done a video on him, and I think there must be very many similarities in personalities between Telles and Letby, from a behavioural analysis point of view, even though he only committed one murder.
MOO
Last edited:
