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

Status
Not open for further replies.
This is an interesting article (which is an extract from a book by Patricia Pearson called When She Was Bad: How and Why Women Get Away with Murder) talking about female serial killers working in health care settings. Briefly refers to LL, but is more general.
A good reminder that it's definitely not impossible that LL is guilty, even if it is unlikely.

When Healers Do Harm: Women Serial Killers in the Health Care Industry

That's extremely interesting. There are a lot of similarities between Wetlauffer and Beverley Allitt, I think. The striking one is that they both started killing (or at least attempting to in Wetlauffer's case) almost immediately that they started nursing. They both had unpleasant behavioural issues in their lives prior to going into nursing; Wetlauffer had a disturbing history including a domineering father, religious fundamentalism, repressed sexuality and abuse related to it ("Conversion" therapy, which is sick, quite frankly) and who knows what else. They were also similarly huge attention seekers; I don't buy her suicide attempt as being genuine as she'd experimented with how much insulin was needed to kill someone so if she was serious about doing it then she could have easily succeeded using that. Also, I find it difficult to believe that a nurse would underestimate the amount of pills to take.

Both of these people were doing more than just killing. Wetlauffer clearly enjoyed causing pain. Allitt was doing it for attention seeking reasons but she was clearly a sadist too given the she had a history of violence towards boyfriends and was known to have poisoned the family she stayed with for a time, including their dog. That's more than mere attention seeking, it's a desire to cause suffering in others.

You're right in that it's certainly not impossible that LL is guilty but for every serial killer I read about it just seems less and less likely that she is. She's nothing like any of them from what we know. Yes, there may be some unpleasant stuff about her that comes out at trial but it's not looking likely at present. The press had two and a half years to uncover any dirt they could on her and came up with the sum total of zero. If someone had said even the slightest negative thing about her we'd have known about it. As it is the most "negative" thing anyone seems to have said about her was that she was "slightly awkward" which is really completely insignificant. It's noteworthy that in the story about Wetlauffer her colleagues had serious reservations about her, one even putting in writing the comment ...why is she still here.... LL's colleagues all seem to be backing her 100%.

I'll stick my neck out here and say that I think that Lucy Letby is completely innocent of this. I don't think that she's been "set up" in the sense that people have intentionally fabricated evidence but, rather, that she's the victim of the prosecution going off down a wrong track and being unable to get off it. Perhaps it will come out at trial that she's had a horrendous background or has been abused or had drug problems or something but I seriously doubt it. We'd have some inkling of that were it the case. People who's only flaw is being "slightly awkward" (and, to be clear, I don't think it's a real flaw at all) do not turn out to be serial murderers. People often repeat the line "...normal people turn out to be serial killers all the time..., they don't though. If they did then there would be no point in the FBI, or anyone else, setting up criminal profiling departments and no one would study criminal psychology or the related subjects.
 
Really interesting article, I just don't see LL being anything like these other women killers though. Everything about LL says to me "normal", "well-adjusted", "wholesome". Well-adjusted people just don't commit crimes like this. She seems to have had a completely normal life with two loving and supportive parents that are still together, an only child so unlikely she suffered any neglect. Still seemingly very close to her parents who are supporting her completely. No we don't know much else about her life but as far as crimes and psychopathy are concerned, this says a hell of a lot about how likely it is she committed these crimes because so many murderers have had terrible home lives.

I'm with you Marantz I just can't see her doing this-and not because she's a woman or anything like that, but because she seems to have been raised in a loving family and everything else pointing to her being a totally normal young woman. The only thing that could maybe have made her do this is if she was perhaps bullied relentlessly as a child and has issues from that, or some dark family secret that hasn't come out yet. I really have to grasp here though.

This article has reminded me I have a book on my shelf called "deadlier than the male" about female serial killers, I shall have to read it again to see if there are any women in there anything like LL and not showing any obvious signs of personality disorders whilst committing their crimes.
 
If Lucy is guilty, which like the rest of you, I really can't believe, then there are going to be some truly shocking things come out. And as has been said before, surely LE must have some sort of evidence for things to have got this far? Jules suggests that she may have been bullied as a child, and yes, I can see this, but I'm not sure where that leads us, if anywhere.
 
If Lucy is guilty, which like the rest of you, I really can't believe, then there are going to be some truly shocking things come out. And as has been said before, surely LE must have some sort of evidence for things to have got this far? Jules suggests that she may have been bullied as a child, and yes, I can see this, but I'm not sure where that leads us, if anywhere.

They wouldn't have been able to charge her with multiple murders without some kind of evidence. I guess I'm one of the few here that doesn't find it hard to believe she could be guilty. I think there's a lot we don't know, obviously.
 
I’m also not in the “rest of you” who “really can’t believe” she could be guilty. I believe she is innocent until proven guilty, but I don’t see anything that would give me cause to decide the police have got it wrong. We don’t know why they have charged her so how can we feel they have that wrong? Jmo
 
They wouldn't have been able to charge her with multiple murders without some kind of evidence. I guess I'm one of the few here that doesn't find it hard to believe she could be guilty. I think there's a lot we don't know, obviously.

Admittedly, this is the kind of sensible comment which brings me back down to earth with a thump!:) People have been charged before for very serious crimes though and have subsequently been found to be entirely innocent of them - the nurse recently who's been mentioned on here (Rebecca Leighton?) being a case in point.

I think they've got this one wrong. Badly wrong. I do agree that it's not impossible that she did it - although I find it extremely unlikely. I just don't believe it. In fact I think it's so unlikely that If Lucy Letby actually did this I'll give you my house! She didn't do it.
 
I’m also not in the “rest of you” who “really can’t believe” she could be guilty. I believe she is innocent until proven guilty, but I don’t see anything that would give me cause to decide the police have got it wrong. We don’t know why they have charged her so how can we feel they have that wrong? Jmo
I think it's too early to say either way.

I don't assume, particularly in a case where it took so long to charge, automatically, that the prosecution has a strong case. It's the being open-minded as to whether they might not have, applying no weight to the fact she's been charged, which some people might struggle with.
 
Police had enough evidence to have charged her, but that doesn't mean she'll be convicted, or that she's guilty.

But we don't know what we don't know. I have no doubt there is far more to the story than what has come out in the media so far.
 
Admittedly, this is the kind of sensible comment which brings me back down to earth with a thump!:) People have been charged before for very serious crimes though and have subsequently been found to be entirely innocent of them - the nurse recently who's been mentioned on here (Rebecca Leighton?) being a case in point.

I think they've got this one wrong. Badly wrong. I do agree that it's not impossible that she did it - although I find it extremely unlikely. I just don't believe it. In fact I think it's so unlikely that If Lucy Letby actually did this I'll give you my house! She didn't do it.

BIB - I'll remember you said that :D;)

But I think we know far too little to say either way for certain at the moment.
 
They wouldn't have been able to charge her with multiple murders without some kind of evidence. I guess I'm one of the few here that doesn't find it hard to believe she could be guilty. I think there's a lot we don't know, obviously.

The bolded is why I'm so on the fence until we see just what this evidence is, as while it seems unlikely, if there's compelling evidence, then clearly they got it right! However, just because they have evidence to charge, doesn't mean it's actually cast-iron evidence... I saw this article yesterday which reminded me of this case:

Colin Norris: Serial killer nurse case referred to Court of Appeal

The CCRC said its decision followed a detailed review of what it described as a "complex and difficult case".

It noted the case against Norris, who was jailed for a minimum of 30 years, was "wholly circumstantial" and "heavily reliant on expert opinion evidence".

As a result of new expert evidence, the CCRC said: "There is a real possibility that the Court of Appeal will decide that that Mr Norris's conviction for the murder/attempted murder of one or more of the four patients is unsafe."

So another nurse, convicted based on the fact of being present at the time of or shortly before the death of a patient. That's it, so far as I can tell from the article linked within the above article: Colin Norris: Innocent serial killer?

This was a case based on science. There was no other evidence. No empty syringe, no fingerprints on a vial, no witnesses.

Suspicion fell on Norris because on the night that Ethel Hall collapsed, he had told colleagues that he thought she didn't look right and might not last the night.

Former colleagues of his would tell me that is the kind of thing heard in nurses stations up and down the country every day of the week. But it's what focused West Yorkshire's police's attention on Norris right from the off.

Ethel Hall's blood showed high levels on insulin, suggestive of poisoning. From there, the police worked backwards ... retrospectively looking for cases of unexplained hypoglycaemia while Norris had been on shift.

...They found another four cases - but the only evidence was that they'd had unexplained low blood sugar and Norris was on shift at the time. It was enough - he was convicted.

Whether or not this guy is guilty, I don't know, but it's another example (added to Rebecca Leighton, who was confirmed innocent) that it can be very hard in a busy hospital to distinguish between innocent deaths, murder, and if murder, who was responsible. And also, tunnel vision can lead to evidence that might not be actually specific to the person in the frame.
 
I suppose it's always possible that there may be something about Lucy that only her parents know, and have never told anyone. Just a thought, not even an opinion.

Absolutely. I wouldn't disagree with that at all, it's a perfectly reasonable opinion. There may be something incredibly dark in her past or in her personality. I guess we'll have to wait and see what transpires at trial. I believe it's due to start proper on Friday.
 
Obviously until the trial there is no way of knowing anything regarding her guilt..certainly she is innocent until proven otherwise...but I feel its very unlikely the cps have this wrong ..such a multifaceted emotive case ...I fully expect a case of munchousan by proxy .jmo
 
Obviously until the trial there is no way of knowing anything regarding her guilt..certainly she is innocent until proven otherwise...but I feel its very unlikely the cps have this wrong ..such a multifaceted emotive case ...I fully expect a case of munchousan by proxy .jmo

I disagree with the Munchausen thing, to be honest. I've read that it's considered to be a questionable diagnosis these days at best. People seem to be jumping to the conclusion that she must be the same s Beverly Allitt, I think because nurses killing babies is so rare that it's the only frame of reference anyone has so assume it must be the same. Even if Allitt did have that condition then it was clearly not her sole driving influence. She was clearly a sadist too as is obvious if you look at her other behaviour too.

Again, LL is nothing like BA; Allitt was a huge, huge attention seeker whereas LL seems to be the exact opposite. An attention seeking personality disorder being the driver behind these murders (if indeed they actually were murders or if she actually did them) seems extremely unlikely in LL, I think.
 
I disagree with the Munchausen thing, to be honest. I've read that it's considered to be a questionable diagnosis these days at best. People seem to be jumping to the conclusion that she must be the same s Beverly Allitt, I think because nurses killing babies is so rare that it's the only frame of reference anyone has so assume it must be the same. Even if Allitt did have that condition then it was clearly not her sole driving influence. She was clearly a sadist too as is obvious if you look at her other behaviour too.

Again, LL is nothing like BA; Allitt was a huge, huge attention seeker whereas LL seems to be the exact opposite. An attention seeking personality disorder being the driver behind these murders (if indeed they actually were murders or if she actually did them) seems extremely unlikely in LL, I think.

Would be interesting to know how many people thought Allit was an attention seeker before her case became public.
I'm not an expert in any shape or form on types of mental illness..but in these type of cases its usually down to something being missing in their lives .. they get off on tragedy and being amongst it.
Whatever the official term, imo chances are something similar will be at the root of this
 
Would be interesting to know how many people thought Allit was an attention seeker before her case became public.
I'm not an expert in any shape or form on types of mental illness..but in these type of cases its usually down to something being missing in their lives .. they get off on tragedy and being amongst it.
Whatever the official term, imo chances are something similar will be at the root of this

Allitt exhibited serious attention seeking behaviour from a very young age; she had a massive medical history involving visits to her GP and hospitals with completely invented maladies. Something like 50% of her training period was spent absent due to "illness". She was also known to have been aggressive towards people and violent towards a boyfriend. Her reputation was well known in the village in which she grew up. There was more to her than simply craving attention.

This is why I do not believe that any similarly between LL and her exists as far as their personalities go.

Coincidentally, there is actually the final episode of three part documentary about her interview tapes on TV as I type this.
 
How can LL possibly be a child killer? She is understated, apparently has a lovely personality, attractive and looks every inch the wonderful, attentive, caring, empathic and compassionate children's ITU nurse in her scrubs. She was even the angelic face of a media campaign. No one says a bad word about her. She must therefore be the angel portrayed.

I suggest that this is a perception formed by unconscious bias and the accepted stereotype of the caring professions, possibly even more so, given the amazing work of the NHS during the the present pandemic. To consider the other, far more sinister possibility is to all but destroy the image that we hold as a source of comfort and hope, particularly when we or our loved ones are in the hands of the professional carers and often when extremely vulnerable.

Even when the possible seems impossible it should not be forgotten that many serial killers are extremely manipulative, charming and engaging. Some are extremely good at hiding in plain sight, even creating a whole persona that is valued by others.

What we do know is that there has been a long and complex investigation by the police concerning a number of child deaths and other serious medical incidents. The evidence has passed the full code test of the (independent) Crown Prosecution Service. As such the CPS has authorised the police to charge LL with a number of counts of murder and attempted murder. Passing the full code test means that the evidence is such that:

1. There is a realistic prospect of conviction (primary consideration)
2. The prosecution is in the public interest (only considered if 1. is met)

Extract from the Code for Crown Prosecutors

Is there enough evidence against the defendant?

When deciding whether there is enough evidence to charge, Crown Prosecutors must consider whether evidence can be used in court and is reliable and credible, and there is no other material that might affect the sufficiency of evidence. Crown Prosecutors must be satisfied there is enough evidence to provide a "realistic prospect of conviction" against each defendant.

The Code for Crown Prosecutors | The Crown Prosecution Service

The full code test is a high bar to cross. However, it is a different test to the one applied in a criminal trial where there can only be a conviction if the court is sure of the defendant's guilt.

As with all cases in the UK, we do not know the Crowns evidence against LL. Only when it has been disclosed at trial and tested by her defence can we make an informed view as to her continued innocence or newly established guilt.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
57
Guests online
2,379
Total visitors
2,436

Forum statistics

Threads
590,011
Messages
17,928,964
Members
228,038
Latest member
shmoozie
Back
Top