5 ms·

It’s a little bit terrifying that angels of death like Lucy Letby actually exist. I find the behaviour abhorrent, but the psychology of it is interesting.

jjgreen 3y ago
I've got a really bad feeling about this, the evidence against her seems to be "she was there when it happened" and a post-it note where she writes "I am evil". Hospitals are full of CCTV cameras, especially baby wards, is this all they have? We've just had Andrew Malkinson released 17 years after a wrongfully conviction, more of the same?
- Quinzel 3y ago
  To be honest, I’m not sure as I haven’t followed the case closely, nor am I aware of the evidence. If that were the case though, it would be horrible. However, angles of death are still terrifying!
  - lordfrito 3y ago
    Sounds like she was working/present for 100% of the deaths/problems. The next most present staff member was only there for 10% of the incidents. Incidents stopped after she was taken off the floor. That's plus the ramblings scrawled on various notes that were found in her house don't paint a picture of a stable mind. Troubling case, especially as she doesn't fit a classic cluster A, B, C etc personality profiles associated with this kind of malignant behavior
    - lordfrito 3y ago
      Want to correct this: she was present for 100% of the 24 incidents, the next most present staff members was only there for 10 of the 24 incidents (~40%)
      - keepamovin 3y ago
        Thanks. Just curious what is cluster A, B, C? I think women have an easier time hiding such behaviours because they are protected by cultural stereotypes of being nurturing, and people often think of women as "harmless" or even "victims". Unfortunately the malignant ones can use such generalities as shields to disguise their abuses. My instinct is that, because of their access to children, and their relative physical weakness compared to men, most victims of female abuse / homicide are children, which by virtue of the stereotypes and age of victims, historically go both uninvestigated and under-reported. Finally, my instinct is that males and females exhibit similarly violent inclinations in similar ratios, however, females, by virtue of being physically weaker in general, as well as by a survival/concealment need to fulfill social stereotypes, need to be more careful with how they choose to express such. So, they are more likely to choose younger more defenceless victims, render their victims defenceless using drugs or poison, utilize the assistance of a male to conspire with, or express their inclinations in non-"homicidal" ways, such as through emotional, verbal or sexual abuse. It may seem a chasm between a male killer and a female verbal abuser, but can you imagine the harm done to a young child subjected to years of persistent verbal/emotional abuse from a sociopathic/psychopathic female? Utterly devastating. All cases of the preceding, because of the stereotypes about women, and the generally younger or less autonomous victims, go under investigated or underreported. I don't think it's an exaggeration in fact to say that female killers and abusers are the great secret pandemic of our time, because of the opportunities afforded to those with such inclinations to misuse social stereotypes to conceal their behavior and protect themselves from scrutiny and investigation. TL;DR - female psychos can effortlessly fly beneath the radar of society, ensuring their trusted positions give them access to an endless stream of possible victims, who they can harm with impunity, knowing people are highly unlikely to suspect them of anything. And, when cornered, or threatened, they can always turn around and lie, "That man, He, He Did it! He did it all! Kill him, arrest him, not me!" and again because of the stereotypes they abuse for camouflage, they know that most people are likely to believe them. At least at first. At least for a while. But not forever. Hopefully more awareness of this epidemic comes to light and the perpetrators are justifiably punished. People should feel safe, especially from those they expect to feel safe around! Flip side is, don't just trust people you think you should because of stereotypes.
- ojhughes 3y ago
  Neonatal wards do not have CCTV cameras in the nurseries, it would be a breach of patient privacy. The evidence against her is quite damning if you care to read through it
- zaptheimpaler 3y ago
  There are literal post-its in her house where she basically wrote a confession [1]. There was an almost year long trial. There is very clear damning medical evidence. Its kind of irresponsible to throw out shit like this without even reading the article. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/aug/18/lucy-letby-how-did-a-nurse-commit-such-unthinkable-murders https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/aug/18/lucy-letby-h...
  - keepamovin 3y ago
    Yeah, I was wondering why that person seemed to be excusing or covering for her. It was pretty fucking weird, tbh. But I guess it was just: they read an article they just said post-it note, and present at the time, and didn't have priors to expect someone of her gender or appearance would do this. But someone's thoughts don't always reflect their physical appearance so obviously. There are serial killers who are actually very "good looking" physically.
  - jjgreen 3y ago
    I read the article, please keep things civil here. Take 5 minutes (maybe 10) to read the list of miscarriages of justice in the UK here [1]. Most of those would have had crowds of people banging on the sides of the van that took them to prison, to rip them to pieces if they had the chance. All entirely convinced of their guilt. I'd say that not being skeptical about murder convictions based largely on circumstantial evidence is irresponsible. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_miscarriage_of_justice_cases https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_miscarriage_of_justice...
    - zaptheimpaler 3y ago
      I did read through the few most recent murder miscarriages and still believe this is very much different. For one its a serial killing case with years of evidence piled up not an isolated murder. The bodies are clearly there unlike one of the miscarriages, there is a confession note and medical evidence of poisoning. The whole thing happened over years in a hospital with many people around and very detailed records, very unlike any of the miscarriage cases. One miscarriage had no body or timeline, one had no proof besides a few eyewitnesses, one seemed to based largely on past bad conduct with little concrete evidence of the crime he was on trial for. My point is just because the system fails occasionally shouldn't bias us to believe every conviction is wrong. But yeah you are of course free to doubt any conviction you like.

jjgreen 3y ago

I've got a really bad feeling about this, the evidence against her seems to be "she was there when it happened" and a post-it note where she writes "I am evil". Hospitals are full of CCTV cameras, especially baby wards, is this all they have? We've just had Andrew Malkinson released 17 years after a wrongfully conviction, more of the same?

Quinzel 3y ago
To be honest, I’m not sure as I haven’t followed the case closely, nor am I aware of the evidence. If that were the case though, it would be horrible. However, angles of death are still terrifying!
- lordfrito 3y ago
  Sounds like she was working/present for 100% of the deaths/problems. The next most present staff member was only there for 10% of the incidents. Incidents stopped after she was taken off the floor. That's plus the ramblings scrawled on various notes that were found in her house don't paint a picture of a stable mind. Troubling case, especially as she doesn't fit a classic cluster A, B, C etc personality profiles associated with this kind of malignant behavior
  - lordfrito 3y ago
    Want to correct this: she was present for 100% of the 24 incidents, the next most present staff members was only there for 10 of the 24 incidents (~40%)
    - keepamovin 3y ago
      Thanks. Just curious what is cluster A, B, C? I think women have an easier time hiding such behaviours because they are protected by cultural stereotypes of being nurturing, and people often think of women as "harmless" or even "victims". Unfortunately the malignant ones can use such generalities as shields to disguise their abuses. My instinct is that, because of their access to children, and their relative physical weakness compared to men, most victims of female abuse / homicide are children, which by virtue of the stereotypes and age of victims, historically go both uninvestigated and under-reported. Finally, my instinct is that males and females exhibit similarly violent inclinations in similar ratios, however, females, by virtue of being physically weaker in general, as well as by a survival/concealment need to fulfill social stereotypes, need to be more careful with how they choose to express such. So, they are more likely to choose younger more defenceless victims, render their victims defenceless using drugs or poison, utilize the assistance of a male to conspire with, or express their inclinations in non-"homicidal" ways, such as through emotional, verbal or sexual abuse. It may seem a chasm between a male killer and a female verbal abuser, but can you imagine the harm done to a young child subjected to years of persistent verbal/emotional abuse from a sociopathic/psychopathic female? Utterly devastating. All cases of the preceding, because of the stereotypes about women, and the generally younger or less autonomous victims, go under investigated or underreported. I don't think it's an exaggeration in fact to say that female killers and abusers are the great secret pandemic of our time, because of the opportunities afforded to those with such inclinations to misuse social stereotypes to conceal their behavior and protect themselves from scrutiny and investigation. TL;DR - female psychos can effortlessly fly beneath the radar of society, ensuring their trusted positions give them access to an endless stream of possible victims, who they can harm with impunity, knowing people are highly unlikely to suspect them of anything. And, when cornered, or threatened, they can always turn around and lie, "That man, He, He Did it! He did it all! Kill him, arrest him, not me!" and again because of the stereotypes they abuse for camouflage, they know that most people are likely to believe them. At least at first. At least for a while. But not forever. Hopefully more awareness of this epidemic comes to light and the perpetrators are justifiably punished. People should feel safe, especially from those they expect to feel safe around! Flip side is, don't just trust people you think you should because of stereotypes.
ojhughes 3y ago
Neonatal wards do not have CCTV cameras in the nurseries, it would be a breach of patient privacy. The evidence against her is quite damning if you care to read through it
zaptheimpaler 3y ago
There are literal post-its in her house where she basically wrote a confession [1]. There was an almost year long trial. There is very clear damning medical evidence. Its kind of irresponsible to throw out shit like this without even reading the article. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/aug/18/lucy-letby-how-did-a-nurse-commit-such-unthinkable-murders https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/aug/18/lucy-letby-h...
- keepamovin 3y ago
  Yeah, I was wondering why that person seemed to be excusing or covering for her. It was pretty fucking weird, tbh. But I guess it was just: they read an article they just said post-it note, and present at the time, and didn't have priors to expect someone of her gender or appearance would do this. But someone's thoughts don't always reflect their physical appearance so obviously. There are serial killers who are actually very "good looking" physically.
- jjgreen 3y ago
  I read the article, please keep things civil here. Take 5 minutes (maybe 10) to read the list of miscarriages of justice in the UK here [1]. Most of those would have had crowds of people banging on the sides of the van that took them to prison, to rip them to pieces if they had the chance. All entirely convinced of their guilt. I'd say that not being skeptical about murder convictions based largely on circumstantial evidence is irresponsible. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_miscarriage_of_justice_cases https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_miscarriage_of_justice...
  - zaptheimpaler 3y ago
    I did read through the few most recent murder miscarriages and still believe this is very much different. For one its a serial killing case with years of evidence piled up not an isolated murder. The bodies are clearly there unlike one of the miscarriages, there is a confession note and medical evidence of poisoning. The whole thing happened over years in a hospital with many people around and very detailed records, very unlike any of the miscarriage cases. One miscarriage had no body or timeline, one had no proof besides a few eyewitnesses, one seemed to based largely on past bad conduct with little concrete evidence of the crime he was on trial for. My point is just because the system fails occasionally shouldn't bias us to believe every conviction is wrong. But yeah you are of course free to doubt any conviction you like.