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

Status
Not open for further replies.
The fact that Tony Chambers apparently wrote in a letter to consultants in 2018 that he had had to "balance the safety of babies and their families, the well-being of staff, and the reputation of the services". Just no! The safety of babies should be an absolute priority. It should never be something that you have to weigh up against the impact on the hospital's reputation FFS!

I agree about the reputation 100% he did though have a responsibility to Letby ..unfortunately he chose the wrong side ...I feel he may have done that for a few reasons

Letbys manipulation
Her Parents protests
potentially depending how "watered" down the version of events was that the Medical Director was giving him.
He was a nurse himself
Pressure from the Union

But ultimately I guess his own reputation

They were hoping the Dr's were wrong and it would all die down

Huge mistake
 
A judge should lead the inquiry into the circumstances behind Lucy Letby's attacks on babies, the health select committee chairman has told the BBC.

As it stands, the inquiry looking at the crimes will not have the power to compel witnesses to give evidence.
Conservative MP Steve Brine said some "may not be so willing" to cooperate.

 
If true, maybe it is the same kind of deep denial, which is also self-protective, that families of criminals often go through.

Surely they are all intelligent enough that in time, when they are ready to face all of the facts given during the trial, some will be able to wrap their minds around it.
JMO
TBH I'd more surprised if her mates were going "Yeah always thought she was the type to murder babies!"

Manipulative people do tend to befriend gullible types, and listening to that friend's explanation of how she and LL weren't part of the popular group, it reminded me of the text conversations between LL's and Dr Ventress, where they were joked about running away together to set up a NNU with the other "the faces that didn't fit". She seems to like being in (or creating) an "us and them" situation.
 
A judge should lead the inquiry into the circumstances behind Lucy Letby's attacks on babies, the health select committee chairman has told the BBC.

As it stands, the inquiry looking at the crimes will not have the power to compel witnesses to give evidence.
Conservative MP Steve Brine said some "may not be so willing" to cooperate.

That’s so infuriating. The ‘inquiry’ will be a meaningless exercise that makes no real difference in the long run. It’s just so the government look to be doing something. Nobody will be held accountable. It’s all just so depressing. JMO and I hope I’m wrong.
 
Have the friends said since the verdicts that they stand by her? The programme I saw where the friend said this will have been made before the verdict.
Not sure, so just went back to check.


She's interviewed at 51 minutes at this link, yes it my have been filmed prior to verdict but she says that she'll never accept that LL did it unless LL confesses* . Her justification for that is that she grew up with her & never witnessed anything to demonstrate she had the capacity for it.

She also says that LL told all her pals not to attend, which is interesting....


ETA
Re Color Purple's latest post - I agree - you'd have to be a bit gullible if you expect a serial killer to confess later!
 
Susan Ogilvy (?) was interviewed on a radio 4 news programme this week.
Hope I have the name correct - it's the woman who took over from Chambers and then started litigation for constructive dismissal.

Anyway, she said that there was a very real divide at Countess between nurses and doctors and that she felt it was one part of the reason that Chambers - and others - backed Letby.
All this hospital's filth will pour out into public space now.

What a shame!

And no plumber will help.

JMO
 
I agree about the reputation 100% he did though have a responsibility to Letby ..unfortunately he chose the wrong side ...I feel he may have done that for a few reasons

Letbys manipulation
Her Parents protests
potentially depending how "watered" down the version of events was that the Medical Director was giving him.
He was a nurse himself
Pressure from the Union

But ultimately I guess his own reputation

They were hoping the Dr's were wrong and it would all die down

Huge mistake
Add irresponsibility and a lack of curiosity into your list?


At the same time that L was murdering and poisoning tiny babies a nurse 50 miles away had just got a life sentence for murdering patients.

Chambers and the other department managers would have been well aware - was all over the national news for month ( Am assuming that LL was also familiar with the Stepping Hill murders)

I am stunned that no senior manager/exec like Chambers made the link or considered it as a possibility.


May 2015 Stepping Hill nurse Victorino Chua guilty of murdering patients

'
A nurse has been convicted of murdering two patients and poisoning 20 others at a Greater Manchester hospital.
Victorino Chua killed Tracey Arden, 44, and Derek Weaver, 83, at Stepping Hill Hospital in Stockport by injecting insulin into saline bags and ampoules.
These were then unwittingly used by other hospital nurses on Chua's victims, who were mostly elderly.
The father of two, 49, who was cleared of a third murder charge, left one patient with a serious brain injury.'


LL starts murdering in autumn 2015?
 
Last edited:
Although I didn't follow any of the trial or threads, had to come onto Websleuths to say how flabbergasted and sickened I am, having read and listened to the news coverage these last few days. The cruelty just beggars belief. So depraved and yet her oldest friend claims that all LL's Hereford friends stand by her & believe her. ( BBC Panorama interview which I watched this morning)

But it's because what she's done is so depraved and beyond belief, surely?

No wonder they're struggling, even now, post-verdict, to get their heads around the idea that their longtime friend Lucy, someone they felt they knew the bones of, could possibly be this person. That's a huge and deeply traumatic leap for them to make, psychologically and otherwise.

Let's leave them alone to process this in their own way and in their own time.
 
Last edited:
If she was to attend, I can imagine some of those watching getting whipped up into a hysterical and emotional state. Maybe it's best if she's absent.

People outside the court might get incited as well. There could even be violence. The more I think about it, the better I think it will be if she's not there. It doesn't change how she'll serve her sentence for the rest of her days.
 
People outside the court might get incited as well. There could even be violence. The more I think about it, the better I think it will be if she's not there. It doesn't affect her serving a sentence that will be for the rest of her days.

Maybe a video link? I think she should have to listen to the victim statements at the very least.
 
I just don’t think it should be her choice. If the families want to look her in the eye when their impact statements are read out, they should be able to. I think it’s cowardly and disrespectful, and she shouldn’t be allowed this last bit of control. But hey. At least she’ll be locked up for life. That’s the main thing I guess. JMO.
 
I don't think victim statements would convince her friends. They would feel empathy for the victims but deny it was anything to do with LL.

It occurred to me that the Police must have been certain about her guilt, if they informed families before the trial.'

The Criminologist on the Panorama programme though didn't seem to believe there was enough evidence and particularly felt the notes could have meant anything. ie her expressing what people were saying she had done, not some kind of confession. There must have been something about the trial process that convinced the jury.
 
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 don't think victim statements would convince her friends. They would feel empathy for the victims but deny it was anything to do with LL.

It occurred to me that the Police must have been certain about her guilt, if they informed families before the trial.'

The Criminologist on the Panorama programme though didn't seem to believe there was enough evidence and particularly felt the notes could have meant anything. ie her expressing what people were saying she had done, not some kind of confession. There must have been something about the trial process that convinced the jury.
I didn’t think much of that programme I have to say. It was clearly made a while ago and intended to be released on the day of the verdict, regardless of what it was.

Similarly, the daily mail documentary on YouTube, the opening line is ‘Lucy Letby has been found guilty of 7 murders and 10 attempted murders’. Except she wasn’t was she. There were some cases with no verdict. I think the media are so focused on being first, accuracy has gone out of the window unfortunately. I find it disrespectful to the families.

Agree the statements won’t change the friends’ minds, but LL should definitely have to hear them regardless.
 
But it's because what she's done is so depraved and beyond belief, surely?

No wonder they're struggling, even now, post-verdict, to get their heads around the idea that their longtime friend Lucy, someone they felt they knew the bones of, could possibly be this person. That's a huge and deeply traumatic leap for them to make, psychologically and otherwise.

Let's leave them alone to process this in their own way and in their own time.
which is why you don't go book yourself on BBC Panorama etc?



IME, not many friends and family of convicted ( or charged* ) serialchild killers get themselves booked on TV to refute a jury's verdict or declare in advance that they'll never accept a guilty verdict - especially not when they know scores of anguished family members and victims can hear that. To the victims it will feel like adding insult to injury.
(They usually have the sense to keep their heads down, keep their thoughts to themselves and not broadcast those beliefs cause it doesn't feel appropriate thing to do in the circumstances but different strokes for different folks.)

* Posters think the interview may have been filmed pre verdict
 
It shocks people because we are conditioned to think of a Hammer Horror monster, Hitler screaming wild-eyed hate in Nuremberg, or a creepy man in a park in a grubby overcoat with a van as what people who are capable of bad things look like. Which fails to take into consideration the banality of evil, which is, bad people just look and act like people most of the time, and when they do bad things, it's often for the most banal of reasons. They look like people you see at the supermarket, pruning their rose bushes, reading a paper on the tube, or nursing you in hospital. It's a shock when it's brought home to us that people capable of violence are just normal looking humans who watch soaps and football, who pay their taxes and drive a Mazda, who go on holidays to slightly boring places and play pub trivia. They are, on the surface, just like others who never dream of hurting someone else, even at their worst moments. And that average appearance, for such people, is the best of camouflages.

MOO
I totally get what you're saying here, truly I do, but I think that Lucy Letby is different to possibly every other serial murderer who has ever been caught to date.

Yes, I agree with the whole thing of serial killers often do not present as monsters (if they did they wouldn't have been serial killers as they'd been identified much earlier) but LL is the extreme example of that, imo. There is literally nothing in her back story which suggests that she has any proclivities towards violence, sadism, abuse or anything similar. The press have had more than five years to dig up dirt on her and anyone who knows her has had the same period to say things about her on the internet yet we have the sum total of absolutely zero as to her being nothing other than 100%, completely normal.

In literally every other serial killer story there is a prior history of abuse, harming of animals, a horribly abusive upbringing, strange sexual desires, being anti-social, being a loner, etc, etc. There is none of that as regards Lucy Letby. If there were we'd definitely have heard about it by now.

I think they may actually be struggling to fill out the usual "world's most evil killers" type documentary due to her literally having no prior issues at all.

A serial killer who was generally well liked, had an active social life and whom no one ever had a bad word to say about and had no terrible upbringing is an exceptionally rare thing. I can't think of any others.

The usual speculation as to what drove her is starting in the media and online, including here, and the usual suspects are chiming in with things like Munchausen's and suchlike. I feel that people are reaching for easy answers, though, and in her case there are no easy answers.

Human nature is very strange as to needing answers; on the one hand people crave easy answers to things like serial killers - which there rarely are, especially in this case, I think. On the other hand, the simple and often obvious answers, people refuse to accept because they can't deal with the simplicity of them and that such things can happen so easily. Look at the JFK assassination; millions of people absolutely refuse to accept the fact that a single person, acting alone could murder the most powerful man in the world with such ease and end up creating ridiculous and hugely convoluted conspiracy theories to explain it, often (always?) requiring the total disregard of the facts and, as in JFK, the bending of the laws of physics. It really is very strange.

I don't think we'll ever know what motivated Lucy Letby to do what she did. The oft repeated phrase of only she knows why she did it is making its usual appearance but I think it's a virtual certainty that she herself doesn't know why she did any of this.

Scientists for 130 years or so have wondered what condition afflicted Joseph Merrick - the so called Elephant Man. I've heard it mentioned that his condition may have been unique to him and should be named "Joseph Merrick Syndrome". Given the extreme strangeness of Lucy Letby's case perhaps she'll open a new definition in clinical/criminal psychology?

She is a genuinely very frightening person, in my opinion. Very frightening indeed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
113
Guests online
3,403
Total visitors
3,516

Forum statistics

Threads
595,738
Messages
18,032,337
Members
229,760
Latest member
Aegon_the_Conqueror
Back
Top