Lucy Letby: killer or coincidence?

[The Rookie Detective]

I do not know enough about the case to make an informed comment either way. I was surprised by the lack of 'physical evidence' in the case so just wondering why do YOU consider her to be guilty, like I said I've not a horse in the race but would love to hear your opinion on it.

I consider her guilty due to a combination of factors.

Firstly, the diary notes; they are a series of confessional notes that she wrote/scribbled in her private diary. The choice of language used and the physical writing style indicate that the notes are contextually relevant and truthful at the time she wrote them. Her private notes reflect her inner truth.

Secondly, the overwhelming coincidences that provide a clear insight and indication that IF the babies had died from foul play; then Letby is the only person who was there for all the cases involved.

Thirdly, her reaction after she arrested; her body language and response to being caught did not signify or suggest that she was an innocent woman. Her response was cold and indifferent and she presented with no emotion that could be attributed to an innocent person.

The issue with clinical psychopaths that kill; is that that think they're special and unique, but in truth they all respond and present in the exact same way.

They may be unpredictable by definition; but almost all psychopaths can be read like a book...if you know what you're looking for.


She is absolutely guilty without any doubt whatsoever.


RD

[Losmandris]

I consider her guilty due to a combination of factors.

Firstly, the diary notes; they are a series of confessional notes that she wrote/scribbled in her private diary. The choice of language used and the physical writing style indicate that the notes are contextually relevant and truthful at the time she wrote them. Her private notes reflect her inner truth.

Secondly, the overwhelming coincidences that provide a clear insight and indication that IF the babies had died from foul play; then Letby is the only person who was there for all the cases involved.

Thirdly, her reaction after she arrested; her body language and response to being caught did not signify or suggest that she was an innocent woman. Her response was cold and indifferent and she presented with no emotion that could be attributed to an innocent person.

The issue with clinical psychopaths that kill; is that that think they're special and unique, but in truth they all respond and present in the exact same way.

They may be unpredictable by definition; but almost all psychopaths can be read like a book...if you know what you're looking for.


She is absolutely guilty without any doubt whatsoever.


RD

I think that was the issue. There were deaths when she was not working as well. Could it be that she is someone suffering from severe mental health issues, hence the notes. Again, no horse in the race here. But in terms of guilty beyond all reasonable doubt? I am not so sure.

[The Rookie Detective]

I think that was the issue. There were deaths when she was not working as well. Could it be that she is someone suffering from severe mental health issues, hence the notes. Again, no horse in the race here. But in terms of guilty beyond all reasonable doubt? I am not so sure.

Great Post and I accept your point.

It is tricky in that there were indeed other deaths that occurred when Letby wasn't there; but considering it is neo-natal (NICU) department, then one would expect a certain percentage of infant mortality; because all the children in that ward required certain additional life support in varying degrees of severity.

The issue arises due the sheer numbers based on the typical percentage rate, and is clear from the data that there was a significant spike in infant mortality amongst the babies who were considered to be recovering or not in any immediate clinical danger, ergo, babies who should have been getting better suddenly deteriorated and died.

It is from those cases that Letby was present on every occasion and so by using the powers of deduction; a Sherlock Holmes technique, then we are left with Letby who stands out like a sore thumb.

Had there have been no significant spike in baby mortality and Letby has focused on the babies who were severely clinically ill, then nobody would have noticed anyway.

But like all psychopathic serial killers; they have an inert desire for their work to be known. One way or another they seek recognition for their work.

Letby knew she would be caught eventually. Otherwise she would have faded into obscurity and nobody would have known what she did.
And from the view of a psychopath like Letby; what's the point of killing all these babies and nobody notices?

That is why JTR was a clinical psychopath; he was obsessed with being known and feared; by deliberately tormenting those individuals who unlucky enough to find his victims; evicerated and displayed in all their glory.

The Ripper was eager for press attention; a narcissistic sociopath determined to strike fear into all women.

The biggest failure for the Ripper; was that nobody actually found out who he was. Which is a pathetic irony if one thinks about it.


But going across to Letby; there will always be doubts because that seed has now been planted. But is important for the authorities to follow and believe in the courage of their convictions and not be swayed by a leftist/liberalist movement that seeks to explain away and make excuses for even the most heinous of crimes.


Your point is valid and absolutely a crucial aspect to consider; but when one looks beyond self-doubt and sees the case for what it is; it is strikingly obvious that Letby is guilty.

If she was innocent; she would have been screaming and shouting and fighting like crazy to clear her name.

But she doesn't do that; she sits quietly causing chaos and simply biding her time until someone gullible comes along and chooses to acquit or release her early, after falling for her BS.


RD

[rjpalmer]

But is important for the authorities to follow and believe in the courage of their convictions and not be swayed by a leftist/liberalist movement that seeks to explain away and make excuses for even the most heinous of crimes.

This is the second time that you have injected your own political screed into what should be an objective re-examination of the facts.

Among those who published an article challenging the verdict is The National Review (founded by William F. Buckley), perhaps the most well-known conservative magazine in the United States, who just printed a piece last week titled The Disturbingly Shaky Conviction of Lucy Letby

Do you consider the National Review a leftist publication?

People have a right--even an obligation--to question criminal verdicts if they believe they are unsafe without being harangued by people who see a misguided liberal conspiracy.

And I write this even though I personally think the case against Letby is fairly damning.

[The Rookie Detective]

This is the second time that you have injected your own political screed into what should be an objective re-examination of the facts.

Among those who published an article challenging the verdict is The National Review (founded by William F. Buckley), perhaps the most well-known conservative magazine in the United States, who just printed a piece last week titled The Disturbingly Shaky Conviction of Lucy Letby

Do you consider the National Review a leftist publication?

People have a right--even an obligation--to question criminal verdicts if they believe they are unsafe without being harangued by people who see a misguided liberal conspiracy.

And I write this even though I personally think the case against Letby is fairly damning.

The right wing politicians are just as bad; if not worse than the left.

The left and right are 2 sides of the same political coin.

Go too far right and you end up on the left
Go too far left and you end up on the right

Politics is not a linear line; but rather a circle.

I consider myself more a centralist; and yet I can't tolerate the Liberals either.

IF Letby is released then you can be sure that it will be the fault of the more Liberal thinkers; who believe anyone and everyone can be saved.

No doubt the predictable use of the "Mental ill health" card will be played and used as an excuse to get her off the hook.

Murdering babies is evil regardless of why or who commits the crime...and that deserves the harshest of punishments.


But I take your point because you are one of the more credible members of this forum and your posts are always worth reading and taking into consideration.


RD

[rjpalmer]

IF Letby is released then you can be sure that it will be the fault of the more Liberal thinkers; who believe anyone and everyone can be saved.

Let me ask you this, Chris.

If it is later proven that she is entirely innocent--which I personally doubt will happen--would you similarly praise the leftists/liberals for the exoneration of a wrongful convicted person?

Those challenging the verdict do so because they think she might be innocent--not because they think 'everyone can be saved' which makes it sound like they want her released whether she is guilty or not.

If someone is innocent, they don't need to be 'saved' or rehabilitated.

Personally, from what I've read so far, I don't think Letby is innocent, but I defend the right of anyone to challenge the verdict without being accused of having a political agenda.

If we started doing that, any conviction that raises doubts in the public mind will be open to a similar accusation, yet it is an undeniable fact that innocent people have been exonerated.

The argument made in The National Review has nothing whatsoever to do with politics--it has to do with cold, hard mathematics. The criminologist for the prosecution claimed the odds of these deaths under Letby's watch happening by chance alone was millions to one, whereas statisticians have calculated it as closer to 50 to 1.

That's not a politically motivated argument. It's math.

And again, although I think the math was flawed, the fact that children were found with insulin in their system is evidence enough that there was foul play.

Let cooler heads prevail.

[caz]

But like all psychopathic serial killers; they have an inert desire for their work to be known. One way or another they seek recognition for their work.

Letby knew she would be caught eventually. Otherwise she would have faded into obscurity and nobody would have known what she did.
And from the view of a psychopath like Letby; what's the point of killing all these babies and nobody notices?

That is why JTR was a clinical psychopath; he was obsessed with being known and feared; by deliberately tormenting those individuals who unlucky enough to find his victims; evicerated and displayed in all their glory.

The Ripper was eager for press attention; a narcissistic sociopath determined to strike fear into all women.

The biggest failure for the Ripper; was that nobody actually found out who he was. Which is a pathetic irony if one thinks about it.

Hi Rookie,

Your words remind me of Dr Harold Shipman, who made sure of his own place in the annals of murder by forging the Will of one of his victims, making himself the main beneficiary and immediately raising her daughter's suspicions about him. His motive for killing hundreds of his own patients was not financial gain, so he appears to have been pushing the boundaries of his imagined invincibility to see when the penny would finally drop - which it did when the typewriter he used to forge the Will gave the game away and showed that a daughter is more likely to know her mother's mind and to inherit her money than the local GP. After that, it was inevitable that Dr Evil's back catalogue would come to light - suggesting he was conflicted between his persona as the caring family doctor and achieving immortality as the polar opposite.

If Jack the Ripper was going to feel a failure by dying a faceless, nameless nobody, it shouldn't have been that hard for him to fix it before finally shuffling off. He didn't need a Jimmy Savile to fix it for him.

Love,

Caz
X

[The Rookie Detective]

Hi Rookie,

Your words remind me of Dr Harold Shipman, who made sure of his own place in the annals of murder by forging the Will of one of his victims, making himself the main beneficiary and immediately raising her daughter's suspicions about him. His motive for killing hundreds of his own patients was not financial gain, so he appears to have been pushing the boundaries of his imagined invincibility to see when the penny would finally drop - which it did when the typewriter he used to forge the Will gave the game away and showed that a daughter is more likely to know her mother's mind and to inherit her money than the local GP. After that, it was inevitable that Dr Evil's back catalogue would come to light - suggesting he was conflicted between his persona as the caring family doctor and achieving immortality as the polar opposite.

If Jack the Ripper was going to feel a failure by dying a faceless, nameless nobody, it shouldn't have been that hard for him to fix it before finally shuffling off. He didn't need a Jimmy Savile to fix it for him.

Love,

Caz
X

Excellent post.

I agree that it shouldn't have been hard for him to make sure he was known before he died.

That would rule out the likes of Bury and Deeming, who had plenty of time to show the world who the most infamous killer truly was; but neither managed that.

It does therefore suggest that the real Ripper didn't see death coming; ergo, he died suddenly, quickly or unexpectedly.

If that's the case, then it would rule out some of the suspects for whom we know HOW they met their demise i.e. those who were hanged or died of a slow debilitating illness or disease.

It doesn't rule out one of my top 3 in Bachert; purely because nobody knows what happened to him after he appeared in the 1901 census.


RD

[barnflatwyngarde]

Excellent post.

I agree that it shouldn't have been hard for him to make sure he was known before he died.

That would rule out the likes of Bury and Deeming, who had plenty of time to show the world who the most infamous killer truly was; but neither managed that.

It does therefore suggest that the real Ripper didn't see death coming; ergo, he died suddenly, quickly or unexpectedly.

If that's the case, then it would rule out some of the suspects for whom we know HOW they met their demise i.e. those who were hanged or died of a slow debilitating illness or disease.

It doesn't rule out one of my top 3 in Bachert; purely because nobody knows what happened to him after he appeared in the 1901 census.


RD

Or a wee stout blotchy guy in declining health.

[caz]

Of course, whoever wrote Maybrick's diary for him appears to have thought as we do, that Jack the Ripper could have fixed it, if he had the opportunity before losing his faculties, to get himself identified after his death as the man who got away with murder time after time.

So assuming Maybrick didn't leave a confession of any kind when he could have done so, this alone would tend to clear him of being a narcissistic serial killer.

Catch 22 for anyone faking it, when the genuine article ought to have existed if Maybrick had been Jack?

Love,

Caz
X