Do you really think that the defendant allegedly started to kill out of the blue???
That her mental state was never noticed as strange?
No. I'm suggesting that it's very easy to identify red flags after someone has been convicted. Putting it crudely; you can say essentially anything you want after someone has been convicted of a series of horrendous murders because who is going to challenge you? Certainly not the convicted person.
There are an endless number of murder documentaries on TV these days about serial murderers with the usual talking-heads giving their opinion on what drove the criminals in question to do what they did. It's all, IMO, largely pseudo-science, though. There is no scientifically rigorous way in which to test it so it's mostly just speculation and opinion - helped in no insignificant part by the fact that a good living can be made from it.
IF LL is convicted, I'm sure we will have thousands of hours of TV documentaries and Internet videos to rake through filled with people picking over the minutiae of her life since birth claiming to be able to identify particular points or acts as "red flags" leading up to the crimes she was convicted of. Very easy to do after the fact.
Edit: to answer your last question, from the evidence so far presented (which is what this thread is about), no, I don't. There is nothing to suggest that she was anything other than pretty normal, even boringly normal, as far as I can see. One consultant even said "...not nice Lucy
..." when she was suggested as potentially being involved.