Serial Killers

Cochise said:
'Life' should mean life. As in, not let out until too old to do any further harm, not 15 years or so.

Not sure about the second point. Are we really?
Click to expand...
I think that's the problem, people who call for the death penalty do so because "life" now is probably what you get for burglary fifty years ago.

Frankly if I'd been given a real life term (for something I'd done) I'd prefer to be "turned off".
 
Cochise said:
'Life' should mean life. As in, not let out until too old to do any further harm, not 15 years or so.
Click to expand...
We've had all this before.
'Life' normally means about 12-15 years or more in prison, then possible parole IF the person is considered safe to release.
The convicted person will be under supervision and certain conditions for the rest of their life. They can be recalled to prison if they misbehave. This happened to the murderer Colin Pitchfork.
 
escargot said:
We've had all this before.
'Life' normally means about 12-15 years or more in prison, then possible parole IF the person is considered safe to release.
The convicted person will be under supervision and certain conditions for the rest of their life. They can be recalled to prison if they misbehave. This happened to the murderer Colin Pitchfork.
Click to expand...
We may have had it before. My problem is, however rare it is, if you get it wrong and hang an innocent person there is no way back. The recent man who served a 17 year sentence for a rape he didn't (probably) commit is an example. But equally murder is beyond the pale , and IMHO, murderers do not deserve to ever be let out into normal society.
 
Mikefule said:
I agree in principle, but in practice, it is not always so simple. What starts as an uncomfortable feeling becomes a niggling doubt, becomes a suspicion, becomes a rumour, becomes a standing joke. There is seldom a moment when you catch someone absolutely red handed. The problem becomes a familiar background suspicion and the familiar is all too easily disregarded.

Reporting something with potentially career changing consequences for the reporter and reported requires something near to certainty and clear evidence.

Everyone knows something, but no one knows everything. Groupthink comes into play. Also, when something is everyone's responsibility, it is no one's particular responsibility, therefore it is always "someone else's responsibility".

A lot of the suspicion of Lucy Letby was based on correlations and coincidences. Just as a cricket captain can win the toss 10 times in a row (1/1028 chance) without being accused of cheating, a nurse can be on duty for 5 deaths in a row and it may simply be bad luck. Subsequence is not consequence, and many of us here will be familiar with the "margarine and serial killers" phenomenon: random correlation without causation.

Indeed, there have been cases of surgeons with a worse than average mortality rate, which has been traced to them being so good that they get a disproportionate number of high risk patients.

Add to this that Lucy Letby appeared to be a fairly normal young woman of her age and type. There are photos of her dressed up and socialising with colleagues and looking perfectly average. She was not a sinister creepy loner, she was "just Lucy".

All the weird diary entries etc. are known about now, but at the time that the murders were being committed, they were not. All that was certain was that Lucy Letby was present at the time of, or shortly before, a disproportionate number of infant deaths.

I remember decades ago working at a leisure centre where everyone "knew" that a particular colleague spent too much time alone with young children. This was the late 1970s when we were less aware of the grim reality of paedophilia. In fact, the individual actually used the name Peter Viles, which years later I realised sounded like "Paedophile(s)". Was it his real name? (Mods: I don't think there's enough here to identify the individual and he may well be dead by now anyway as he was many years older than me, and I'm now 60.)

No one thought it was their responsibility to report him, and we all bumbled along treating it as an uncomfortable joke. (In my own defence, I was a teenager with a very junior part time job, and lacking the life experience or confidence to be the one who raised the matter.)
Click to expand...


It wasn't just gossip. Letby was suspected despite being 'normal' and personable. The consultants acknowledged that she seemed an unlikely murderer, but they agreed that she seemed to be behind the incidents.

Suspicions arose because she was seen by staff and some of the babies' parents in compromising situations, e.g. standing over a baby who was clearly not breathing or was otherwise in distress, and watching rather than raising the alarm.
It was established that she was always on duty when babies' health suddenly deteriorated; nobody else's attendance record came anywhere near that match.

After the deaths of three babies, all the consultants asked for her to be moved off the ward away from patients altogether. At that stage there were certainly grounds to call in the police. Nobody did because the hospital management refused to allow it.
Letby was allowed to stay at work and more babies were maimed and killed.

Nobody dared go to the police themselves. They were afraid of the management and had too much to lose. That's a scandal which cost lives.
 
escargot said:
It wasn't just gossip. Letby was suspected despite being 'normal' and personable. The consultants acknowledged that she seemed an unlikely murderer, but they agreed that she seemed to be behind the incidents.

Suspicions arose because she was seen by staff and some of the babies' parents in compromising situations, e.g. standing over a baby who was clearly not breathing or was otherwise in distress, and watching rather than raising the alarm.
It was established that she was always on duty when babies' health suddenly deteriorated; nobody else's attendance record came anywhere near that match.

After the deaths of three babies, all the consultants asked for her to be moved off the ward away from patients altogether. At that stage there were certainly grounds to call in the police. Nobody did because the hospital management refused to allow it.
Letby was allowed to stay at work and more babies were maimed and killed.

Nobody dared go to the police themselves. They were afraid of the management and had too much to lose. That's a scandal which cost lives.
Click to expand...
Hospital management refused to allow it - sums up these issues precisely. As I've said many times it's about time these characters were given a prison sentence themselves for in effect aiding and abetting. I think I heard that the ceo at the hospital has been kicked into touch.

As far as not daring to go to the Police is concerned they could have gone to the Care Quality Commission anonymously - they have more power than the Police in these circumstances and a complaint by CQC would be taken seriously by the Police.
 
I'm going to stick my neck out here and say that had I been working on a ward where everyone believed a certain nurse was attacking patients, I'd've gone to the police myself. Cut the Gordian knot.
As I've said before, it's their job to sort it out. Murder is above even hospital managers' pay grade.

I'd go in person and ask to see a detective, showing ID to prove I wasn't a crank or a colleague with a grudge.
Could I trust them not to name me in case I lost my job? I've never held a job that was worth letting people die for.

We know that (as has been said on this very thread) NHS whistleblowers fare badly.
But this wasn't an internal matter. It was life and death. The managers were out of their depth.
 
escargot said:
We know that (as has been said on this very thread) NHS whistleblowers fare badly.
But this wasn't an internal matter. It was life and death. The managers were out of their depth.
Click to expand...
I am not sure the managers were out of their depth, more "it cant happen on my watch"
only interested in career and advancement.
 
RaM said:
I am not sure the managers were out of their depth, more "it cant happen on my watch"
only interested in career and advancement.
Click to expand...
They were out of their depth.
They thought they could cover up and 'manage' suspected murder and attempted murder. How deluded must someone be to think they can do that? They can't possibly have believed it would never come out.

The career and advancement aspects had a lot to do with it of course.
 
The proposed Independent Enquiry has no powers to compel witnesses to attend. Witnesses can only be 'invited' to participate.

The seems ironic after we saw the judge's comment and sentencing, along with the families' impact statements, delivered to an empty dock when Letby refused to attend court.

She couldn't be legally compelled to appear and neither, it seems, will the Enquiry witnesses.
You'd think someone'd put two and two together.
 
Apparently, on at least 2 occasions, she used a different method (overfeeding was one, I think?) so the baby would crash on the next shift - which shows incredible malice, as it could have cast suspicion on another nurse or doctor, and ruined their lives as well as the babies' and their families'. Maybe those were after she knew they were potentially on to her. But can you imagine getting a life sentence for someone else's murder spree? What if she'd done that from the start and worked it so they died on someone else's watch? She could have targeted a colleague. Another reason to never have the death penalty.
 
RaM said:
All this happened over 8 months, what I wonder started it off or is there more we don't yet know.

:dunno:
Click to expand...
That's being looked into. Letby worked placements at a Liverpool hospital and could possibly have started her offending there.
As I've mentioned, her training area covered my local hospital. She doesn't seem to have worked here though.

A neighbour of ours is an experience Special Care Baby Unit nurse at our hospital.
I'd like to hear what she thinks but perhaps I'll leave it a while. :thought:
 
For those who work in healthcare in the UK, does the governing body/hospital system promote a "speak up" culture? Do you have the ability to anonymously report concerns re patient safety, fraud/waste/abuse, risk issues, etc.?

I have career experience in this area in the US. It's essential that patients/families, staff, providers (basically anyone) have the ability to report concerns without retaliation. In this case, given that hospital leadership seems to have turned a blind eye, at least initially, the next step (in US) would be to contact the health agency in the state government where the hospital is physically located and/or the federal health agency (Office of Civil Rights/Inspector General). And, of course, local law enforcement in cases of physical harm. I don't have a clear understanding of the organizational structure of the UK health system.

The bit that I have read this week about this case has set my hair on fire. That the hospital leadership placed her in the Patient Safety/Risk Management department after removing her from clinical duty almost made me retch. ALL of them need to be barred from ever working in healthcare again.
 
Last edited:
pandacracker said:
I did, over the phone a couple of days ago.

I had to call a hospital and ask about someones condition and the nurse I spoke to introduced herself as Lucy.

My guess is, there are quite a few Lucys in nursing.
Click to expand...
I'd have to bite my tongue before 'Oho, Nurse Lucy, not THAT Nurse Lucy, surely!' slipped out. :evillaugh:
 
blithesprout said:
For those who work in healthcare in the UK, does the governing body/hospital system promote a "speak up" culture? Do you have the ability to anonymously report concerns re patient safety, fraud/waste/abuse, risk issues, etc.?

I have career experience in this area in the US. It's essential that patients/families, staff, providers (basically anyone) have the ability to report concerns without retaliation. In this case, given that hospital leadership seems to have turned a blind eye, at least initially, the next step (in US) would be to contact the health agency in the state government where the hospital is physically located and/or the federal health agency (Office of Inspector General). And, of course, local law enforcement in cases of physical harm. I don't have a clear understanding of the organizational structure of the UK health system.

The bit that I have read this week about this case has set my hair on fire. That the hospital leadership placed her in the Patient Safety/Risk Management department after removing her from clinical duty almost made me retch. ALL of them need to be barred from ever working in healthcare again.
Click to expand...
Scary, innit.

Yup; as has been stated on'ere, NHS whistleblowers do not fare well.

However, in this case whistleblowing did not apply. There was strong suspicion, backed up by reliable eyewitnesses and statistical evidence, that murders and serious harm were being perpetrated by a certain individual. This is a police matter.

The police should have been called at the point where the seven consultants formally approached the management and were fobbed off.

One of the consultants has said that he wishes he'd gone to the police right away.
As I've mentioned, if I'd been working there I'd have done that.

After which, every baby born there who left safely would have been named after me. :nods:
 
escargot said:
I'm going to stick my neck out here and say that had I been working on a ward where everyone believed a certain nurse was attacking patients, I'd've gone to the police myself. Cut the Gordian knot.
As I've said before, it's their job to sort it out. Murder is above even hospital managers' pay grade.

I'd go in person and ask to see a detective, showing ID to prove I wasn't a crank or a colleague with a grudge.
Could I trust them not to name me in case I lost my job? I've never held a job that was worth letting people die for.

We know that (as has been said on this very thread) NHS whistleblowers fare badly.
But this wasn't an internal matter. It was life and death. The managers were out of their depth.
Click to expand...
Very well said C. Exactly what I would have done. Unfortunately my experience is that whistle blowers are not always believed even by the Police and in my case it took years to back the Police into a corner when they admitted they were scared about what I was going to do to them. If I was to do it again I would have put so much pressure on everyone immediately that they would have been reeling.

My friend worked in the NHS and whistle blew over a very serious issue, her life subsequently being made a misery. I did it at work just before I retired, got blow back, told them to fo and left them in a real lurch. Pathetic revenge I know but they deserved it.
 
escargot said:
I'm going to stick my neck out here and say that had I been working on a ward where everyone believed a certain nurse was attacking patients, I'd've gone to the police myself. Cut the Gordian knot.
As I've said before, it's their job to sort it out. Murder is above even hospital managers' pay grade.

I'd go in person and ask to see a detective, showing ID to prove I wasn't a crank or a colleague with a grudge.
Could I trust them not to name me in case I lost my job? I've never held a job that was worth letting people die for.

We know that (as has been said on this very thread) NHS whistleblowers fare badly.
But this wasn't an internal matter. It was life and death. The managers were out of their depth.
Click to expand...
I hope you are right, and if you were to do that in real life, I would respect you for it.

Thankfully, very few of us get to find out what we would actually do in perilous circumstances. Would I throw myself into a stormy sea to save my grandson? I believe so, I hope so, but I will never know for sure unless the situation arises. (Sartre argued that we only know what we really believe is the right thing to do in a given situation when we demonstrate that fact by doing it in the situation.)

In the case of the "whistleblower", it is seldom as simple as we like to think. Humans are generally a social animal, affected by perceptions of the status of others, and our own status in the group. Groupthink is the phenomenon which results in everyone expressing agreement and conforming because no one feels confident to risk exposure and exclusion.

If you see Letby injecting insulin into a baby, you certainly report it. If you feel vaguely uncomfortable with her behaviour and explanations, and some odd statistics which could be the result of random chance, maybe it is more difficult to take the step.

(Applying Godwin's Law...) in 1930s Germany, for every individual who thought Nazi policies were a Good Thing, there were far more who went along with them and kept their heads down. What is more important, the life of strangers, or the freedom survival of your own loved ones? Most people look around them, see what everyone else is doing, and quietly blend in. It is easy to rationalise.

I am full of admiration for anyone who had the courage to speak out about Letby on the basis of strong suspicions rather than concrete evidence.

In my own small way, I was a whistle blower who lost out. I took a stand against a junior colleague who was systematically failing to do their job correctly, and I brought it to the attention of management with unequivocal evidence. I ended up being bullied and pressured into resigning. I lost a heck of a lot because I had naively assumed that my new boss wanted the team to be working well to achieve our objectives. It turned out that my newly single boss was far more interested in the hope of enjoying my junior colleague's physical attractions and affections.
 
Mikefule said:
If you see Letby injecting insulin into a baby, you certainly report it. If you feel vaguely uncomfortable with her behaviour and explanations, and some odd statistics which could be the result of random chance, maybe it is more difficult to take the step.
Click to expand...
The seven consultants had all of that sort of evidence and more. That's why the trial lasted 9 months.

Letby was proven early on to be the only staff member who was always on duty when the incidents happened. That would have been enough to call the police on. I'd've done that.
 
kesavaross said:
I don't quite know what to make of this article.
Click to expand...
I don't know what to make of it either. I wonder why Letbys defence didn't use any of the points raised in it. Or did they and got fobbed off on technicalities or were they not really valid in the face of other incriminating evidence against her?
 
kesavaross said:
I don't quite know what to make of this article. I haven't followed the trial and the news at all. All I know on the subject is what I've read on here.

https://unitynewsnetwork.co.uk/nurse-lucy-letby-premature-baby-murders-or-miscarriage-of-justice/
Click to expand...

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/unity-news-network/

QUESTIONABLE SOURCE​

A questionable source exhibits one or more of the following: extreme bias, consistent promotion of propaganda/conspiracies, poor or no sourcing of credible information, a complete lack of transparency, and/or is fake news. Fake News is the deliberate attempt to publish hoaxes and/or disinformation for profit or influence (Learn More). Sources listed in the Questionable Category may be very untrustworthy and should be fact-checked on a per-article basis. Please note sources on this list are not considered fake news unless specifically written in the reasoning section for that source. See all Questionable sources.
  • Overall, we rate Unity News Network Right Biased and questionable based on promoting conspiracy theories, propaganda, pseudoscience, and false claims.
Click to expand...
 
Sardan2 said:
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/unity-news-network/
Click to expand...

Some info about the article's author, it appears at the bottom of the article.

Dr Niall McCrae is an officer of the Workers of England Union and until recently a senior lecturer in mental health nursing at King’s College London.

He has written several books, including The Moon and Madness (2011), Echoes from the Corridors (with Peter Nolan, 2016) and Moralitis: a Cultural Virus (with Robert Oulds, 2020).

Niall writes regularly for Unity News Network, Conservative Woman, Daily Sceptic, Gateway Pundit and The Light newspaper.

https://unitynewsnetwork.co.uk/nurse-lucy-letby-premature-baby-murders-or-miscarriage-of-justice/
 
Trouble is the official stance on whistleblowers is "we welcome anyone who has serious concerns". You'll note that there's no mention of taking action, or even investigating the concerns. It boils down to 'don't tell anyone but us - leave it to us to sort out'.
The best people to investigate possible crime in any large organisation remains the police, regardless of what we might think of them. But they can be 'influenced' i.e. pressured, to drop the investigation.
Reasons?
"The person reporting it is known to us as a troublemaker." Response: "We can investigate to find out if this is, indeed, malicious."
"We are the best placed to judge what is or is not a potential crime." Response: "No. You're not."
"Any investigation might scare off backers/sponsors/investors." Response: "Right. But, then again, any future investigations which reveal a cover-up or ignoring a serious issue will damage it more!"
"This will harm the reputation of the church/hospital/organisation!" Response: "Not if it's an open investigation - it'd show the organisation to be serious and supportive."
The larger the organisation, the larger the income and influence of it, the more likely that any damaging situations will be met with damage limitation excercises. "Look, he may or may not've abused this person, but we'll handle it within the firm/organisation/church. No need for all that alarm or distrust eh?"
 
Stormkhan said:
Trouble is the official stance on whistleblowers is "we welcome anyone who has serious concerns". You'll note that there's no mention of taking action, or even investigating the concerns. It boils down to 'don't tell anyone but us - leave it to us to sort out'.
The best people to investigate possible crime in any large organisation remains the police, regardless of what we might think of them. But they can be 'influenced' i.e. pressured, to drop the investigation.
Reasons?
"The person reporting it is known to us as a troublemaker." Response: "We can investigate to find out if this is, indeed, malicious."
"We are the best placed to judge what is or is not a potential crime." Response: "No. You're not."
"Any investigation might scare off backers/sponsors/investors." Response: "Right. But, then again, any future investigations which reveal a cover-up or ignoring a serious issue will damage it more!"
"This will harm the reputation of the church/hospital/organisation!" Response: "Not if it's an open investigation - it'd show the organisation to be serious and supportive."
The larger the organisation, the larger the income and influence of it, the more likely that any damaging situations will be met with damage limitation excercises. "Look, he may or may not've abused this person, but we'll handle it within the firm/organisation/church. No need for all that alarm or distrust eh?"
Click to expand...
All good points. :twothumbs:

When you say
The best people to investigate possible crime in any large organisation remains the police
- when it's not about nicking stationery or using the company car for courting in, but people deliberately being harmed or worse, it's an emergency. Police Time. I really don't see how this is difficult for anyone to grasp.

I do really of course: it's about being afraid of standing out and having one's career suffer.

Babies' lives were at stake. Bollocks to people's careers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top