This case had been absolutely harrowing for all involved.
Those poor babies and their families.
Words cannot describe the depths of cruelty at present here. My first child was born 6 weeks early. They are so delicate and helpless.
This vermin Lucy Letby deserves to rot
exactly what they said to Chris Mullin. well done.
but you don't even know what kind of killer Lethby is? we don't know what, if any type of psychiatric condition she has. is she schizophrenic, deluded, or just alienated? so how can you say there is nothing to learn? she has a mind does she not?
quite simply we wont know if we don't enquire, or should we not try cos it's too difficult?
The 'human mind' is a different matter
What insight have we gained into killers like letby
In this case it was a systems failure which doesn't require any great insight only use of stats to trigger investigation
Doesn't seem to be any profiling available to identify potential killers on a job application
Stop trying to make out that this was some kind of inept and biased kangaroo court that just had to convict. You’re going down conspiracy hole nonsense here.
What is your point? She was found guilty after a long trial, unanimously..and you’re asking about facts?
It’s a fact that she was tried and found guilty. They got it right. Do you believe/think they got it right (without 100 percent knowing)?
Your querying here could be used against every single convicted person who claims innocence. It’s a silly assertion /query.
yes i agree. it's called scientific enquiry, and it helps advance our understanding of mankind and our place in the universe. it's slow, it's imperfect but that goes for most worthwhile pursuits, eg philosophy, physics, psychiatry, psychology, biology, astronomy.
but i disagree with your contention that we have learnt nothing in the past. yes it's slow & tedious but our understanding of the human mind has advanced hugely over the past 100 years.
or we could just give up and go back to the dark ages because it's too slow, too tedious, too difficult ....
It isn't about some belief in a mythical infallibility. It's looking at the evidence presented in the case, looking at the defence, and seeing if there is anything that stands out.
Could she be proved innocent in future? Of course there is that possibility. But atm that is all it is. Its based on nothing.
She could also be found guilty of many other deaths in the future, but again that is not based on anything.
This wasn't some kangaroo court. It wasn't a speedy investigation or a speedy trial. Seems that everything was done properly and in depth.
So, as of now, there is no reason to think that something has been done. Certainly there was no political pressure to find her guilty, the police were not under undue pressure to find a scapegoat.
The courts were not under pressure to land a verdict.
So hypothesising that it is some miscarriage of justice is simply a conspiracy that goes against all known facts
On the face of it she appears guilty and I believe she is guilty . There's a slim doubt there for me pending an appeal or any further revelations in time.
The way the prosecution presented the evidence on the confession notes and the facebook searches was less then satisfactory
The confession was dismissed by a well renowned expert as no proof of anything except stress
Indeed there appears to be a mythical infallibility ascribed to "British justice". It is in no way deserved.
the media whip the public into a frenzy, then pressure is put on the politicians, and from them onto the police/judiciary. we've seen it all before, and if you dare question it you will be called a blasphemer, a nutjob. i recall Chris Mullin being vilified & receiving death threats for daring question the Birmingham 6 convictions.
Your middle paragraph seems mostly irrelevant
If there's insight to be gained that could prevent further cases then it's worthwhile and parents would likely agree to it
I don't think there's much useful insight been gained from these killers in the past , has there ?
How can you possibly state as fact that she wasn't wrongly convicted?
I certainly believe that it's possible. I don't believe that baying witch mobs do anything for the administration of justice. I have concerns about the circumstantial nature of the evidence against her and the shoe-horning of this into the official theory of what happened.
She wasn’t wrongly convicted. Found unanimously guilty… but of course, because she didn’t admit to it and there is no video evidence, we’ll have some trying to cast doubt on her guilt
do you feel she may have been wrongly convicted? the British Justice system has form when it comes to these matters, especially where the media whips joe public into a mob like frenzy. we Irish have sadly an acute appreciation of this.
Either that or she's someone who has been wrongly convicted. There's not only one possibility as you seek to imply.
oh yes i see that was dbas. perhaps he has some insight into her condition. i would like to see it if he has.
I didn't mention any psychosis at all, you're referring to a completely different poster.
yes i would like to see a psychiatrist examine her and try to determine her motives. personally i think you have been watching too much of Silence of the Lambs. you haven't said which particular psychosis you were referring to, or as i suspect you really have no idea.
Am I reading your posts right or are you suggesting that people who commit particularly heinous crimes should be treated differently to 'regular murderers' so that we can probe their motives?
Do you not think that would feed into their ego, piss off the victims and just overall be a really crappy thing to do?
There have been instances before where serial killers string along investigators looking into cold cases and crimes that might potentially be linked to them as an ego boost or to try to obtain a more favorable situation for themselves.
i agree, but it's unlikely if you sit her down with a cuppa she's gonna open up straight away. it could well take years. on the other hand she may feel the need to 'unburden' herself and might open up fairly quickly, although i doubt it.. i suppose you never know which way or how long these things take. one thing i do know is it's not gonna happen in a prison yard.
btw which "particular psychosis" are you referring to?
She's not being executed you know.
The state now has the rest of her life to probe into her reasons via psychology if they so wish to do so, it's not like she's going anywhere.
No mention of any long term partner.
Just friends and her two rescue cats.
It's been discussed
The time to investigate her disorder or whatever it is is only beginning
History probably shows that it likely won't reveal much of use
what do you want society to do? She pleaded not guilty… as in she did not kill the babies. In other words, she’s a killer who is simply lying.
A psychiatrist or psychologist would be best placed to do so, for the benefit of us all to have a crack at her to understand her particular psychosis as you put it.
While that would be great, I strongly doubt she would engage appropriately due to her particular psychosis
you clearly do not understand the difference between a prison & a high security mental hospital. i mean who's gonna have a "crack at her"? the prison guards, the governor? her fellow inmates?
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/read-the-king-v-lucy-letby-sentencing-remarks-in-full/ That's is the judges sumation. It's very upsetting. The sorrow and heartbrake of the families.
Who says she won't be interviewed or analyzed in prison?
She is still denying her crimes and won't give away any insights into her crimes because she still states she didn't commit them.
How does one learn anything from her 'psychosis' if she doesn't talk.
Maybe they'll try have another crack at her after her parents die. She might talk more then, but now, they're at nothing
The media are full of useless commentary about Lucy Letby’s motive, usually by psychologists who were not involved in the case and can only say she “doesn’t fit the usual pattern”.
But the prosecution had a theory and it was the focus for their cross examination of Letby. She had an affair with a Dr A who was called to the neonatal unit when the babies grew suddenly ill. She denied this affair, of course, but the messages between them shows that she is clearly lying about her relationship with Dr A. The only time she appeared upset at the trial was during his testimony. He also defended her performance after some babies died.
Obviously, only a deranged mind could murder babies for such an egocentric motive and it would tend to aggravate her offence, if that’s possible, but it may be the kernel of this baffling and horrifying case.
This is the best report of the trial in respect of motive.
It is time for Dr A to come clean. Here’s a scary comment he made to Letby
: "You are one of a few nurses in the region (I've worked pretty much everywhere) that I would trust with my own children."
So an experienced neonatal doctor would not trust most NHS nurses with his own child. Thanks for the tip, Doc! Why should anyone?
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w1.vanillicon.com/v2/19a7a778b727ad07a3bbcea8101c61b3.svg)
