UK - Healthcare worker arrested on suspicion of murder/attempted murder of a number of babies, 2018

[Angleterre]

Even with those limitations, it still seems like there's a risk of going back to the same well, and prosecutor's fallacy as outlined by Ben Goldacre, in the following article:

Losing the lottery – Bad Science

Can I respectfully ask what your point is? I have tried my best to explain a couple of your posts now and expand upon the Police process but it seems each time that I do, you post some further information that I’m not sure what the point is/are?
I don’t mean to be snarky at all, it’s just that it’s late and I am tired and I am reading the few quoted messages from you in reply to my explanations but I’m really not sure what it is you want me to explain further or what your point is..... kind regards

 

[Angleterre]

At the moment if guilty and without any evidence available as yet obviously..I'm going for the munchausan by proxy theory ...enjoyed the drama of the collapse and involment in the parents grief ... just me pure speculation at the moment

Munchausen by proxy is generally making a child unwell so that you can then go back to the child and make them better or worse on some cases and as you say, glorify in ‘saving’ them or the attention from doing everything they can which possibly goes over and above what’s expected- attention seeking etc
So do you personally think that this was /is her motivation?

 

[Buttonspoons]

Not sure if the timeline and information of each baby has been posted, this article lists it all.

Shocks me to the core that she is accused of attempted murder of a Maddie and then 3 days later a seperate charge of murder on Maddie.

Failed the first time so did it again? That’s a whole extra degree of twisted.

In full: the murder and attempted murder charges faced by Hereford nurse Lucy Letby

 

[JosieJo]

Munchausen by proxy is generally making a child unwell so that you can then go back to the child and make them better or worse on some cases and as you say, glorify in ‘saving’ them or the attention from doing everything they can which possibly goes over and above what’s expected- attention seeking etc
So do you personally think that this was /is her motivation?

Yes thats my gut feeling

 

[Kemug]

Yes, that's my gut feeling too. And I have another - I can't help feeling that she is going to plead "guilty". However, I'll probably end up with egg on my face.

 

[Scorpiette]

I'm not sure if this has been mentioned before...is it possible these babies were very poorly, and in her head she couldn't bear them suffering and decided it would be kinder to 'euthanase' them?

 

[Angleterre]

I'm not sure if this has been mentioned before...is it possible these babies were very poorly, and in her head she couldn't bear them suffering and decided it would be kinder to 'euthanase' them?

That may well be her mitigation but unfortunately , she is not there to play God and that’s not her choice to make. She signed up to the Hippocratic Oath and thats to:

The passage from the original version of the Hippocratic Oath, “I will use my power to help the sick to the best of my ability and judgement; I will abstain from harming or wronging any man by it,” orders heathcare professionals to do their best in their job and not use their skill or knowledge to harm or kill their patients.
Therefore, irrespective of what she thought and ultimately did as a result, if in fact she did anything untoward at all as she’s presumed innocent until proven guilty, it’s still wrong and she has more than overstepped her professional boundaries. IMOO

 

[Ironside]

I'm not sure if this has been mentioned before...is it possible these babies were very poorly, and in her head she couldn't bear them suffering and decided it would be kinder to 'euthanase' them?

Premature babies can have development issues so perhaps rather than acting from kindness she was practicing eugenics.

 

[Angleterre]

Premature babies can have development issues so perhaps rather than acting from kindness she was practicing eugenics.

What does practicing eugenics mean? I am not familiar with that phrase ? Thank you in anticipation

 

[Angleterre]

Premature babies can have development issues so perhaps rather than acting from kindness she was practicing eugenics.

Oh ok , I googled it. Not a lot shocks me after my long Police career as a Detective but this is one of the few things that just has. This is abhorrent and I sincerely hope that it doesn’t take place in this day and age. I know that there’s talk about so called ‘ designer babies’ to eek out those with disabilities and illnesses and disease etc and I believe that this is becoming more prevalent amongst the wealthier amongst the population but it doesn’t make it any more palatable when they say that it’s to prevent their child dying of specific diseases. Therefore, the thought that it could be a nurturing medical professional engaging in this practice on a one person mission to rid us of such , is so abhorrent that it’s shockingly painful to think about. We are all different and it’s this diversity, wether that be skin colour, sexuality, religious beliefs, appearance, personality and yes disability, that make our world and the thought that someone again plays judge , jury and executioner to decide who should live and who should die based upon their premature illnesses, is beyond the pale!

 

[Whitehall 1212]

Oh ok , I googled it. Not a lot shocks me after my long Police career as a Detective but this is one of the few things that just has. This is abhorrent and I sincerely hope that it doesn’t take place in this day and age. I know that there’s talk about so called ‘ designer babies’ to eek out those with disabilities and illnesses and disease etc and I believe that this is becoming more prevalent amongst the wealthier amongst the population but it doesn’t make it any more palatable when they say that it’s to prevent their child dying of specific diseases. Therefore, the thought that it could be a nurturing medical professional engaging in this practice on a one person mission to rid us of such , is so abhorrent that it’s shockingly painful to think about. We are all different and it’s this diversity, wether that be skin colour, sexuality, religious beliefs, appearance, personality and yes disability, that make our world and the thought that someone again plays judge , jury and executioner to decide who should live and who should die based upon their premature illnesses, is beyond the pale!

Hi Angleterre,

It is a shocking concept and one that I fear is far more prevalent throughout the world than acknowledged. Man's inhumanity knows no bounds, it seems.

The history of Josef Mengele demonstrates how a sense of absolute entitlement together with an absence of any compassion, empathy or medical integrity can result in wicked atrocities.

I do think that most people are inherently good and kind though though and it is often most visible in the worst of times, when their humanity gets a jolt.

 

[MsBetsy]

Munchausen by proxy is generally making a child unwell so that you can then go back to the child and make them better or worse on some cases and as you say, glorify in ‘saving’ them or the attention from doing everything they can which possibly goes over and above what’s expected- attention seeking etc
So do you personally think that this was /is her motivation?

I don't believe that was her motivation. Munchausen by Proxy perpetrators generally do not intend for their patients to die. The satisfaction comes from the attention and praise given to them as the hero, in my opinion.

Since there were eight deaths, it seems to me that she acted with an intent to kill.

It's more believable to me that the attempted murders weren't successful because Doctors were able to save them, then the eight murdered babies were "mistakes" because she didn't mean for them to die.

IMO

 

[Vevvie]

Pretty damning list of charges. I’d like to know why nothing was noticed at the time on the ward. Hope she isn’t being made a scapegoat for the unit/hospital failing. Those poor parents, including LL’s.

 

[Slixcon]

I don't believe that was her motivation. Munchausen by Proxy perpetrators generally do not intend for their patients to die. The satisfaction comes from the attention and praise given to them as the hero, in my opinion.

Since there were eight deaths, it seems to me that she acted with an intent to kill.

It's more believable to me that the attempted murders weren't successful because Doctors were able to save them, then the eight murdered babies were "mistakes" because she didn't mean for them to die.

IMO

Another consideration is that MSBP, as a "mental disorder", is presumably quite difficult for the subject to regulate or control. Yet there was a four year gap between her starting work as a nurse at the hospital and the first attempted murder. If she truly has MSBP, how did she manage to refrain from inducing illness in her patients for such an extended period of time?

 

[MsBetsy]

Another consideration is that MSBP, as a "mental disorder", is presumably quite difficult for the subject to regulate or control. Yet there was a four year gap between her starting work as a nurse at the hospital and the first attempted murder. If she truly has MSBP, how did she manage to refrain from inducing illness in her patients for such an extended period of time?

Maybe it had to do with opportunity. She may not have MSBP, but other mental health disorders may play a role.

It's also not uncommon for serial killers to resist urges or compulsions for long periods of time. At other times they may be out of control. Sometimes once they start, they can't stop and will adjust or perfect their "technique" as they continue so as not to leave evidence behind and to avoid getting caught.

This is all my opinion, since we don't know what evidence LE has or anything about the suspects history of mental health. If she truly is a serial killer, then I would imagine there would be something in her past, such as trauma, abuse, or a mental health disorder that led to her actions.

I'm curious to know what method was used to kill them, since it seems it was very difficult to establish the COD in the infants who died, or what caused the symptoms in those who survived.

 

[Supernovae]

Can I respectfully ask what your point is? I have tried my best to explain a couple of your posts now and expand upon the Police process but it seems each time that I do, you post some further information that I’m not sure what the point is/are?
I don’t mean to be snarky at all, it’s just that it’s late and I am tired and I am reading the few quoted messages from you in reply to my explanations but I’m really not sure what it is you want me to explain further or what your point is..... kind regards

My underlying point, which I've been making on and off since the third page of this thread, is that this is a fact pattern that has produced miscarriages of justice in the past and it troubles me that people have moved on to speculating what motive/personality disorders she may have.

Of course it's possible they've got something rather more concrete than that in relation to one or more of the deaths, but in terms of what that could be nothing really makes sense in my mind. If she'd been virtually caught in the act then I feel like they would have done more than move her to administrative duties and only have her arrested two years after the alleged killings. The other possibility would be that they had evidence of her misappropriating drugs, but if that was in play, I would have thought it would be its own charge on the indictment. Beyond that what else could there be? There were a lot of deaths, she was around for a lot of them, the deaths seemed odd, she was a bit weird, but that's exactly the sought of circumstances and reasoning that has lead to those miscarriages of justice.

 

[JosieJo]

That may well be her mitigation but unfortunately , she is not there to play God and that’s not her choice to make. She signed up to the Hippocratic Oath and thats to:

The passage from the original version of the Hippocratic Oath, “I will use my power to help the sick to the best of my ability and judgement; I will abstain from harming or wronging any man by it,” orders heathcare professionals to do their best in their job and not use their skill or knowledge to harm or kill their patients.
Therefore, irrespective of what she thought and ultimately did as a result, if in fact she did anything untoward at all as she’s presumed innocent until proven guilty, it’s still wrong and she has more than overstepped her professional boundaries. IMOO

Nurses do not take the hippocratic oath ...it is for Drs ...and not many medical schools use it even for Drs these days .
Nurse are governed the NMC code of practice....which of course also doesn't allow giving harm

 

[meanmaryjean]

Nurses do not take the hippocratic oath ...it is for Drs ...and not many medical schools use it even for Drs these days .
Nurse are governed the NMC code of practice....which of course also doesn't allow giving harm

We nurses take the Nightingale Pledge. Among its provisions are to administer 'no harmful substances'.

 

[MsBetsy]

My underlying point, which I've been making on and off since the third page of this thread, is that this is a fact pattern that has produced miscarriages of justice in the past and it troubles me that people have moved on to speculating what motive/personality disorders she may have.

Of course it's possible they've got something rather more concrete than that in relation to one or more of the deaths, but in terms of what that could be nothing really makes sense in my mind. If she'd been virtually caught in the act then I feel like they would have done more than move her to administrative duties and only have her arrested two years after the alleged killings. The other possibility would be that they had evidence of her misappropriating drugs, but if that was in play, I would have thought it would be its own charge on the indictment. Beyond that what else could there be? There were a lot of deaths, she was around for a lot of them, the deaths seemed odd, she was a bit weird, but that's exactly the sought of circumstances and reasoning that has lead to those miscarriages of justice.

Wouldn't investigators have to have solid evidence that connects her to the crimes in order to ensure a conviction? Why risk a trial if they don't have sufficient evidence to support the charges?

 

[Whitehall 1212]

My underlying point, which I've been making on and off since the third page of this thread, is that this is a fact pattern that has produced miscarriages of justice in the past and it troubles me that people have moved on to speculating what motive/personality disorders she may have.

Of course it's possible they've got something rather more concrete than that in relation to one or more of the deaths, but in terms of what that could be nothing really makes sense in my mind. If she'd been virtually caught in the act then I feel like they would have done more than move her to administrative duties and only have her arrested two years after the alleged killings. The other possibility would be that they had evidence of her misappropriating drugs, but if that was in play, I would have thought it would be its own charge on the indictment. Beyond that what else could there be? There were a lot of deaths, she was around for a lot of them, the deaths seemed odd, she was a bit weird, but that's exactly the sought of circumstances and reasoning that has lead to those miscarriages of justice.

The conduct of all criminal investigations and in the UK is driven by two key pieces of legislation:

1. The Criminal Procedue and Investigations Act 1996

2. The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984

There is other legislation that needs to be followed but the above are the two key protagonists.

It has previously been explained why, in such a complex investigations, it may be necessary for suspects to be arrested and released on bail or 'under investigation' more than once. This may sometimes be for extended periods of time.

The legislation is applied in all criminal investigations in England and Wales, irrespective of their seriousness.

It is not possible to comment on the veracity of the evidence against LL because it is not in the public domain, at present.

A clearer picture of the reasons for the initial concerns, the dates of concern and timelines of NHS action, prior to the police commencing enquiries, can be found in the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health Service Review.

To save me from having to copy and paste random sections, the entire document can be viewed at the link below. I would recommend the first part of the Excutive Summary form p.4 - p.8, inclusive.

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&s...FjABegQIDBAH&usg=AOvVaw2a7opvtcQ1pga-pMXzgmlB

As regards the speculation of motive/mental health/personality disorders, I think that is just human nature to speculate in such cases. Because the allegation is so disturbing we need to make sense of the 'how' and 'why'?

It must remain uppermost in our minds that LL is presumed innocent until guilt is proven, following a fair and equitable trial.