UK - Nurse Lucy Letby, murder of babies, 7 Guilty of murder verdicts; 8 Guilty of attempted murder; 2 Not Guilty of attempted; 5 hung re attempted #37

[Sweeper2000]

For real. Doing the job depends on an immense amount of trust. And it's not like any other workplace where pretty much any death is an automatic red flag without regard to circumstance. The attacks were carried out in the guise of routine care. If Letby had not gone on these sprees of attacks, she might have gotten away with it for years.

i was thinking that. Dr brearey may have just put baby A away as an anomaly and not pursued it but whatever was driving lucy must have kept prompting it along with his pondering thinking and big question mark over Baby A's head. i genuinely think she could have murdered dozens over a career.

 

[Tortoise]

It feels to me very much like part of this was deep issues of outsmarting and winning. Like she just had to prove to herself she was smarter than everyone, even though no one else knew they were playing against her, it was secret triumphs. I think that's mirrored in her giving evidence too - thinking she can beat the experts and win over the juries, just like she won her grievance. She loves fooling and gaslighting people IMO. I think that's part of her psychological makeup.

Obviously doesn't explain motive for murder though.

 

[Anxala]

RSBM

I have not a shred of doubt she is guilty. I'd have found her guilty of most of the not-guilty and hung counts too, based on the similarities, like parents being cotside all day and then the baby collapsing as soon as they'd gone, or as soon as the nurses had popped out, false entries in the nursing notes, the bafflement of the consultants, and strange things like the baby improving immediately after transfer - hallmarks of Letby, which the jury obviously didn't unanimously agree to utilise.

^ I honestly would too, now that we know what we know. As you say, the hallmarks tell the story.

I can understand the jury's wariness though: the huge responsibility on their shoulders, the effort involved, the pressure on them to get it right, but their need and possibly collective decision, in the end, to detach themselves from that and just focus on the evidence of the babies' deaths (murders) that was put in front of them that left them in no doubt that there was no room for doubt.

Another reason why it really angers me to see the jury's verdicts dismissed so casually and so ignorantly by those who didn't follow the trial - and yet still think they have a better perspective on it than those who gave up and dedicated 10+ harrowing months of their lives to it.

 

[Furore]

The sheer amount of depth and cross examination and volume of evidence presented over nearly a year of trial is phenomenal and to be honest answers a lot of questions and conflicts raised here - thank you tortoise and others for due diligence to this evidence and patience.

IMO the presented Thirlwell evidence suggests no one was looking for a murderer initially. But that looking at staff on, for the unexplained collapses, there was a common denominator.

It kind of goes without saying for me, if there had ever been hard evidence of her causing death (such as witnessed lethal injection etc) it would immediately have been brought to attention. It’s the fact that the deaths, collapses etc had to be scrutinised by people who lived and worked in this world and their immediate unit regularly and across years, for foul play to be slowly suspected - that level of knowledge, insight and neonatal/frontline expertise is just not going to be present in the general population reading journal articles and blogs written second or third hand (again often without the authors referring to trial evidence or I suspect having read it either).

Many, many murders are not witnessed. Murders in adults receive forensic post mortems. Etc it is not IMO, a conspiracy to convict a murderer without them being witnessed doing it….CCTV of murder is not particularly common!

 

[marynnu]

It’s the fact that the deaths, collapses etc had to be scrutinised by people who lived and worked in this world and their immediate unit regularly and across years, for foul play to be slowly suspected - that level of knowledge, insight and neonatal/frontline expertise is just not going to be present in the general population reading journal articles and blogs written second or third hand (again often without the authors referring to trial evidence or I suspect having read it either).

It's true. And so hard to explain without sounding like a pompous know all! It isn't like that, neonates do not behave that way etc. etc. But it's no different to someone like me trying to comment on a case involving something like finance or whatever, which I know nothing about.

 

[magikarpmagikarp]

A couple posters hqve expressed that they don't know "which" experts to listen to.

But the court admitted expert testimony from the appropriate experts. Hematologists testified about hematology. Endocrinologists testified about endocrinology. A pathologist testified about pathology. Pediatricians and neonatal experts testified. And so on. That is wisdom - knowing which or whose body of knowledge to apply to answering a question. It wasn't one expert, but many experts who all supported *the jury* to understand the evidence, including the medical evidence. The court also has collective knowledge about what kinds of expert testimony are valid and when the testimony should be weighed by the jury. Tortoise posted a great excerpt up thread about the judge's reasoning around the expert testimony, which I found very educational.

There really isn't or shouldn't be confusion about which experts to listen to. That's not an appeal to authority but a recognition of how different domains of knowledge can contribute to understanding a question.

 

[magikarpmagikarp]

It's true. And so hard to explain without sounding like a pompous know all! It isn't like that, neonates do not behave that way etc. etc. But it's no different to someone like me trying to comment on a case involving something like finance or whatever, which I know nothing about.

I can't help but think that so much of expertise includes implicit knowledge. The knowledge you've gained over decades of experience allowed you to recognize how bizarre the situation was as you followed the trial because of all those little details that just don't make sense. No amount of article reading can substitute for that real world experience.

 

[marynnu]

I can't help but think that so much of expertise includes implicit knowledge. The knowledge you've gained over decades of experience allowed you to recognize how bizarre the situation was as you followed the trial because of all those little details that just don't make sense. No amount of article reading can substitute for that real world experience.

The much maligned 'gut feeling' is often the start of unmasking crimes. Harold Shipman is a good example. The undertakers knew something was off, as did other GPs.

 

[katydid23]

It feels to me very much like part of this was deep issues of outsmarting and winning. Like she just had to prove to herself she was smarter than everyone, even though no one else knew they were playing against her, it was secret triumphs. I think that's mirrored in her giving evidence too - thinking she can beat the experts and win over the juries, just like she won her grievance. She loves fooling and gaslighting people IMO. I think that's part of her psychological makeup.

Obviously doesn't explain motive for murder though.

What you describe above---'deep issues of outsmarting and winning'----those are motivations behind FDIA [Factitious Disorder Imposed on Another]

I think LL fits very well into the description of FDIA. [formerly known as Munchausen By Proxy]

Specifically, it is sometimes medical caretakers that intentionally harm patients and then 'save' them in order to receive attention and praise. And also they love to 'battle' and outsmart their superiors and others, in their cat and mouse games.

Munchausen syndrome by proxy: MedlinePlus Medical Encyclopedia

Munchausen syndrome by proxy is a mental illness and a form of child abuse. The caretaker of a child, most often a mother, either makes up fake symptoms or causes real symptoms to make it look like the

medlineplus.gov

Learn more

Factitious disorder imposed on another, formerly known as Munchausen syndrome by proxy, is diagnosed in the DSM-5 when a caregiver intentionally falsifies or induces physical or psychological symptoms in another person, typically a child, to deceive others. The caregiver presents the other person as ill, impaired, or injured, and this deceptive behavior occurs even without obvious external rewards. The behavior cannot be explained by another mental disorder.


What are the signs in a caretaker?

• Most people with this problem are mothers with small children. Some are adult children taking care of an older parent.
• The caretakers often work in health care and know a lot about medical care. They can describe the child's symptoms in great medical detail. They like to be very involved with the health care team and are liked by the staff for the care they give the child.
• These caretakers are very involved with their children. They seem devoted to the child. This makes it hard for health professionals to see a diagnosis of Munchausen syndrome by proxy.

Source: Wikipedia

Symptoms
Variable
Treatment
Removal of the child, therapy
Diagnostic method: Removing the child from the caregiver results in improvement, video surveillance without the knowledge of the caregiver
Differential diagnosis: Medical disorder, other forms of child abuse, delusional disorder
Frequency: Estimated 1 to 30 occurrences per 1,000,000 children
Risk factors: Complications of pregnancy, caregiver who was abused as a child or has factitious disorder imposed on self

 

[CatsnChickens]

Occams Razor. The simplist explanation no matter how unlikely is probably correct.

People don't want to imagine that a quiet pretty girl could be so monstrous. Personally I think she is.

 

[Tortoise]

What you describe above---'deep issues of outsmarting and winning'----those are motivations behind FDIA [Factitious Disorder Imposed on Another]

I think LL fits very well into the description of FDIA. [formerly known as Munchausen By Proxy]

Specifically, it is sometimes medical caretakers that intentionally harm patients and then 'save' them in order to receive attention and praise. And also they love to 'battle' and outsmart their superiors and others, in their cat and mouse games.

Munchausen syndrome by proxy: MedlinePlus Medical Encyclopedia

Munchausen syndrome by proxy is a mental illness and a form of child abuse. The caretaker of a child, most often a mother, either makes up fake symptoms or causes real symptoms to make it look like the

medlineplus.gov

Learn more

Factitious disorder imposed on another, formerly known as Munchausen syndrome by proxy, is diagnosed in the DSM-5 when a caregiver intentionally falsifies or induces physical or psychological symptoms in another person, typically a child, to deceive others. The caregiver presents the other person as ill, impaired, or injured, and this deceptive behavior occurs even without obvious external rewards. The behavior cannot be explained by another mental disorder.


What are the signs in a caretaker?

• Most people with this problem are mothers with small children. Some are adult children taking care of an older parent.
• The caretakers often work in health care and know a lot about medical care. They can describe the child's symptoms in great medical detail. They like to be very involved with the health care team and are liked by the staff for the care they give the child.
• These caretakers are very involved with their children. They seem devoted to the child. This makes it hard for health professionals to see a diagnosis of Munchausen syndrome by proxy.

Source: Wikipedia

Symptoms
Variable
Treatment
Removal of the child, therapy
Diagnostic method: Removing the child from the caregiver results in improvement, video surveillance without the knowledge of the caregiver
Differential diagnosis: Medical disorder, other forms of child abuse, delusional disorder
Frequency: Estimated 1 to 30 occurrences per 1,000,000 children
Risk factors: Complications of pregnancy, caregiver who was abused as a child or has factitious disorder imposed on self

Yeah, the 'saving' part of that disorder doesn't fit for me.

There are the two poisonings which she set to continue in her absence. Then there was her comment to the consultant that baby P 'is not leaving here alive is he?'. Then there was her method of repeat attacks which she knew had already killed other babies, and where it was the consultants, not her, battling to save the babies, and she actively hid baby E's bleed from medics. And not helping baby K after dislodging her breathing tube and pausing the alarm.

I think the eight attempted murder convictions are positive proof that she intended death, as opposed to harm to save and be seen as the miracle nurse.

IMO she's just a serial killer who intended to kill.

As to her motivations, I'm still not sure who were her intended victims. It sounds a strange thing to say, when we know the babies were her murdered and harmed victims, but I think there was something more going on in her head, with her almost targeted, stalking like behaviour of the doctors and nurses, and of course the babies' parents, and then there was her targeting of twins and triplets. It almost feels to me as if the babies were dispensable, but she wanted equally to harm the living people associated with the babies. I also think the attention she got from some people, like dr choc, was just her way of surviving another day to kill, because he would tell everyone she was great, so it wasn't just for the attention per se.

 

[Knitty]

This thread is closed. Please continue at Thread #38