Lucy Letby Case #15

Status
Thread locked. We start a new thread when they have over 1000 posts, click the blue button to see all threads for this topic and find the latest open thread.
New to Tattle Life? Click "Order Thread by Most Liked Posts" button below to get an idea of what the site is about:
hiya Fella, firstly this case is not built on Letby’s weird behaviour or being a bit odd. The case comes after two independent reviews concluding that the significant rise is deaths and crashes was not the result of failings. It also comes as a result of multiple consultants being concerned with the correlation of Letby being there for the unexplained events. This is typical of this crime. I imagine we are going to see a similar statistical picture as there are in many other healthcare serial killer cases - eg you become statistically a high percentage more likely to die or nearly die whenever Letby is on shift. Then you can see clearly that not only is she on shift but for multiple multiple charges, she is there at the time of the collapse or has recently administered/given “care” within the last 15 minutes or so. Again, that is a familiar picture for this type of crime. You cannot be that unlucky.
We are of course looking at every baby’s case in intense detail- do I think every detail of the care given has been perfect? No some has been poor. Most I feel has been more than ok. Sometimes they’re busy. Sometimes they’re not. Sometimes the babies are in worse shape. Sometimes they’re clearly doing well. Do I think this will have been the picture every year for this unit? Yes. Then why did they sometimes lose one baby a year? 2. 3. They’re losing this many a month with Letby the last to intervene every time. I’ve heard from a huge varied amount of staff that were there- do I think everyone of them are misremembering or deceiving the jury. No I don’t, I have no evidence for that or logical reason for it whatsoever. Many of them will be parents themselves and they’d be almost as evil as Letby to not give the truth and breaking serious laws. Some of the nurses and staff had worked in this unit for decades and some for much less than that. If they are all so hopeless and missed so much then why haven’t they been doing that for years on end? Why weren’t 4 babies dying every month or so with this team every year? But it’s only one person that’s there every time isn’t it! The junior doctors have become consultants, they are working for the WHO, they have nursed for 20+ years, why is it more believable that alllll these people got it wrong on these babies. Then you have the fact there are at times multiple hospitals involved who must have also been hopeless or bad at their jobs.
Why do the babies with air by their spines all have different reasons for it getting there when it is most likely air administered? The kind of air in volume and placement that they’ve never seen before from trauma? They had different conditions and different awful treatment and yet their presentation was the same in the way they collapsed and they have huge amounts of air. So this is just a coincidence and combination of varying poor care yet it produces the same conclusions for these babies . When the only person that’s stayed the same is Letby.
When we talk about Letby being weird, it’s not oh she dips her chips in chocolate or even she shops at bonmarche as a 25yr old weird that matters- not knowing what an air embolism as a level 6 nurse- more than weird. Standing in the dark watching a baby desaturate is the kind of weird I’m concerned with. Predicting babies that others thought were doing well wouldn’t leave alive weird. Searching families of multiple babies in this case before any link can be found to a supposedly innocent person weird - but they are linked. Some have air by their spines. That’s a big link. Some had insulin poisoning. That’s a big link. That’s some bad luck again for Letby that before all this comes out she’s linked them. It’s bad luck she got so anguished she wrote that she’s evil and killed on purpose despite also presumably thinking there would be nothing that could link her to these babies and nothing that could show she ever harmed them.
I do not believe these babies would have died had it not been for Letby sabotaging them and no accidental phone call, writing on a paper towel, dodgy note keeping is going to convince me otherwise. Yes in theory it makes the case look weaker to some but it doesn’t for me because therr Is far too much to say it cannot have been anything other than sabotage. There is no mistake in the insulin. There has to be another murderous nurse. Or is it more likely that she did that and she put air and milk and breathing tubes with force and venom because in her words ‘she’s evil. She did this. She killed them on purpose’.
Thanks for your reply fella - I do feel some is really quite simplified though, but I do agree about the insulin - I can't figure out anything other than intent with that.

I really do think the defence case will either be hugely enlightening or hugely disappointing - and that's when I'll make my final decision I reckon.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 14
A genuine query for the 'definitely guilty' posters - I know we talk a lot about the 'overall picture' bringing you to the conclusion that she is guilty - but I wonder about the 'overall picture' of the failings of this unit, and how that presents in any other conclusions? I feel like the Dr's and witnesses constantly talk about how in context all of these concerns are minimised, but to me that feels dismissive of clinical failures.
Ok Fella I’ll bite. I have said in my posts about a million times. Even with all the negligence on that unit, it is still not enough to explain all these sudden collapses/deaths. If for whatever reason one example of negligence caused a collapse, then the treatment administered to counter act that particular problem (from the alledhed negligence) would reverse it. These babies did not respond clinically how they should have done, like the resuscitation attempts did not have the normal affect they should have. I’m explaining badly but even if a collapse was due negligence, the baby should still respond to any treatment given to counter act, and they didn’t. There’s loads of doctors and nurses and experts dismissing BMs defence theory on negligence being the cause, and then proving why said negligence couldn’t have been the cause. I also found Bohin so credible today because she acknowledged all the medical issues on the unit, as did the experts acknowledge underlying conditions in all babies we’ve heard so far and why they couldn’t have enough alone be the cause. Then when you add of all the circumstantial evidence that has been discussed in depth the last pages and last thread it’s a slam dunk for me. Just out of interest have you re read the wiki on babies E-Q? It seems those that have re read ahead have much different views to those following in real time and only looking at A-D and considering them as stand alone events, not looking at the bigger picture

hiya Fella, firstly this case is not built on Letby’s weird behaviour or being a bit odd. The case comes after two independent reviews concluding that the significant rise is deaths and crashes was not the result of failings. It also comes as a result of multiple consultants being concerned with the correlation of Letby being there for the unexplained events. This is typical of this crime. I imagine we are going to see a similar statistical picture as there are in many other healthcare serial killer cases - eg you become statistically a high percentage more likely to die or nearly die whenever Letby is on shift. Then you can see clearly that not only is she on shift but for multiple multiple charges, she is there at the time of the collapse or has recently administered/given “care” within the last 15 minutes or so. Again, that is a familiar picture for this type of crime. You cannot be that unlucky.
We are of course looking at every baby’s case in intense detail- do I think every detail of the care given has been perfect? No some has been poor. Most I feel has been more than ok. Sometimes they’re busy. Sometimes they’re not. Sometimes the babies are in worse shape. Sometimes they’re clearly doing well. Do I think this will have been the picture every year for this unit? Yes. Then why did they sometimes lose one baby a year? 2. 3. They’re losing this many a month with Letby the last to intervene every time. I’ve heard from a huge varied amount of staff that were there- do I think everyone of them are misremembering or deceiving the jury. No I don’t, I have no evidence for that or logical reason for it whatsoever. Many of them will be parents themselves and they’d be almost as evil as Letby to not give the truth and breaking serious laws. Some of the nurses and staff had worked in this unit for decades and some for much less than that. If they are all so hopeless and missed so much then why haven’t they been doing that for years on end? Why weren’t 4 babies dying every month or so with this team every year? But it’s only one person that’s there every time isn’t it! The junior doctors have become consultants, they are working for the WHO, they have nursed for 20+ years, why is it more believable that alllll these people got it wrong on these babies. Then you have the fact there are at times multiple hospitals involved who must have also been hopeless or bad at their jobs.
Why do the babies with air by their spines all have different reasons for it getting there when it is most likely air administered? The kind of air in volume and placement that they’ve never seen before from trauma? They had different conditions and different awful treatment and yet their presentation was the same in the way they collapsed and they have huge amounts of air. So this is just a coincidence and combination of varying poor care yet it produces the same conclusions for these babies . When the only person that’s stayed the same is Letby.
When we talk about Letby being weird, it’s not oh she dips her chips in chocolate or even she shops at bonmarche as a 25yr old weird that matters- not knowing what an air embolism as a level 6 nurse- more than weird. Standing in the dark watching a baby desaturate is the kind of weird I’m concerned with. Predicting babies that others thought were doing well wouldn’t leave alive weird. Searching families of multiple babies in this case before any link can be found to a supposedly innocent person weird - but they are linked. Some have air by their spines. That’s a big link. Some had insulin poisoning. That’s a big link. That’s some bad luck again for Letby that before all this comes out she’s linked them. It’s bad luck she got so anguished she wrote that she’s evil and killed on purpose despite also presumably thinking there would be nothing that could link her to these babies and nothing that could show she ever harmed them.
I do not believe these babies would have died had it not been for Letby sabotaging them and no accidental phone call, writing on a paper towel, dodgy note keeping is going to convince me otherwise. Yes in theory it makes the case look weaker to some but it doesn’t for me because therr Is far too much to say it cannot have been anything other than sabotage. There is no mistake in the insulin. There has to be another murderous nurse. Or is it more likely that she did that and she put air and milk and breathing tubes with force and venom because in her words ‘she’s evil. She did this. She killed them on purpose’.
What you said ❤
I’m also at the point where I give up trying to explain why I think the way I do, people just seem to not actually read the posts. I spent ages copying and pasting so much from wiki and articles to back up every point I’ve made, to show how her behaviour is sinister, I’ve shown examples from further cases where you can’t make excuses anymore. And still some just refuse to read what’s been written. This is not aimed at anyone, but I feel like I’m repeating myself and no one is taking anything on board or actually reading what’s been written. Perfect example of how your view may change if you actually read page 4 of wiki before dismissing what we are trying to say regarding what we know now and using the rest of the cases e-q, @Weeder was on the fence, but was completely open to LL being guilty or not guilty. We’d discussed yesterday various reasons LLs behaviour became sinister. It was suggested Weeder re read page of the wiki. Suddenly lots of things that some of us keep repeating made complete sense, and swung weeder to probably guilty. She’s not completely there yet with all the medical evidence which is fair enough with weeder’s medical background. But the view on the circumstantial changed and all the points we had been making weeder could now see too. Sorry weeder just using you as an example of someone that actually went and read page 4 of the wiki. This is why I think some of us are at a cross roads. Many following this in real time are obvs only going on A-D which is all we’ve heard so far. But please before you keep dismissing our ideas just go and read page 4 of the wiki first. Anyone that has actually done that I think will understand our points a lot more clearly than anyone that hasn’t, and hopefully see why the overall bigger picture of all these cases put together is so important
 
Last edited:
  • Like
  • Heart
  • Wow
Reactions: 24
Ok Fella I’ll bite. I have said in my posts about a million times. Even with all the negligence on that unit, it is still not enough to explain all these sudden collapses/deaths. If for whatever reason one example of negligence caused a collapse, then the treatment administered to counter act that particular problem (from the alledhed negligence) would reverse it. These babies did not respond clinically how they should have done, like the resuscitation attempts did not have the normal affect they should have. I’m explaining badly but even if a collapse was due negligence, the baby should still respond to any treatment given to counter act, and they didn’t. There’s loads of doctors and nurses and experts dismissing BMs defence theory on negligence being the cause, and then proving why said negligence couldn’t have been the cause. I also found Bohin so credible today because she acknowledged all the medical issues on the unit, as did the experts acknowledge underlying conditions in all babies we’ve heard so far and why they couldn’t have enough alone be the cause. Then when you add of all the circumstantial evidence that has been discussed in depth the last pages and last thread it’s a slam dunk for me. Just out of interest have you re read the wiki on babies E-Q? It seems those that have re read ahead have much different views to those following in real time and only looking at A-D and considering them as stand alone events, not looking at the bigger picture
It wasn't about 'biting' at all - we've had our fair share of arguments on here that the last thing I want to do is start another riot. What I don't/can't understand is the 'slam dunk' at this part of the trial - it's the prosecutions case at the moment so everything they present will be to that narrative. Their witnesses will back up the picture they want to paint. It's all neat and tidy at the moment. Who knows what the defence will bring?

I guess I'm just of the belief that just because it got this far to trial, or just because some witnesses say x,y and z, that that's that. The Dr today blamed a parent on the first collapse of the baby. I was really shocked at that.

As for not responding to how they should be - I have seen lots of talk about how sats went down etc, but were 'not a concern' because of the overall picture. If these babies conditions were declining over a period of time, they may not respond to intervention because it's too late? Maybe that's simplifying it a little.

Maybe I"m not explaining it very well. I feel like I'm listening to a very one sided story at the moment and it would be easy to get caught up in the typical response, there's just something niggling at me that I can't shake. Maybe time will tell either way for me.
 
  • Like
  • Heart
Reactions: 9
I do find it interesting how we all see it so differently.

some people can’t believe that someone would deliberately hurt these babies, whereas I 100% believe that people are capable of it, including LL.

Maybe it’s different life experiences, but I’ve never struggled to believe that such evil acts could be carried out.

evil comes in all different forms and acts in all different ways.
Only on page 2 of the thread, but wanted to weigh in on this.

I don't find it hard to believe someone could deliberately hurt babies. I believe these crimes are possible because they've happened before. Bev Allitt's case was slightly before my time, but I do remember the news about Harold Shipman. It's a terrible fact that some doctors/nurses are killers. Having said that, I'd assume (& hope!) it's extremely rare. The number of 'good' nurses will always outweigh the number of bad. It'll always be more common for a patient to die due to medical negligence than murder. From this perspective, it's still shocking because of the rarity of these crimes. I didn't expect to see another trial like Harold Shipman's in my lifetime, so I do understand why people have expressed shock.

When people talk about disbelief, I also think they're referring to their total incomprehension of the psychology behind these crimes. ''How could anyone hurt a baby?'' is a reasonable question and it's not one I can answer. It goes against all instincts.

To condense this waffle into a few sentences: I believe the crime is possible because it's happened before. That's a fact. But I'm still shocked that this nurse, with her girl-next-door energy, is accused of murdering newborn babies. I think both of those feelings can coexist.
 
  • Like
  • Heart
Reactions: 12
It wasn't about 'biting' at all - we've had our fair share of arguments on here that the last thing I want to do is start another riot. What I don't/can't understand is the 'slam dunk' at this part of the trial - it's the prosecutions case at the moment so everything they present will be to that narrative. Their witnesses will back up the picture they want to paint. It's all neat and tidy at the moment. Who knows what the defence will bring?

I guess I'm just of the belief that just because it got this far to trial, or just because some witnesses say x,y and z, that that's that. The Dr today blamed a parent on the first collapse of the baby. I was really shocked at that.

As for not responding to how they should be - I have seen lots of talk about how sats went down etc, but were 'not a concern' because of the overall picture. If these babies conditions were declining over a period of time, they may not respond to intervention because it's too late? Maybe that's simplifying it a little.

Maybe I"m not explaining it very well. I feel like I'm listening to a very one sided story at the moment and it would be easy to get caught up in the typical response, there's just something niggling at me that I can't shake. Maybe time will tell either way for me.
I’m rushing to work and I’m really late, so will reply to everything when I get home in the early hours. But quickly just to say, I thought the use of Fella about biting would mean you knew it was a light hearted reply with the biting bit. Just don’t want you thinking I was being cheeky or trying to start. And haven’t even had time to read your reply just saw the first line and quickly typed this. But soz if the biting bit came out wrong
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: 8
I’m rushing to work and I’m really late, so will reply to everything when I get home in the early hours. But quickly just to say, I thought the use of Fella about biting would mean you knew it was a light hearted reply with the biting bit. Just don’t want you thinking I was being cheeky or trying to start. And haven’t even had time to read your reply just saw the first line and quickly typed this. But soz if the biting bit came out wrong
Thanks fella, maybe I’m extra sensitive tonight, I’m tired 🤣
 
  • Like
  • Heart
Reactions: 5
I know she said it 🤦🏼‍♀️ It’s the way he then implied that she was trying to blame the father, Bohin then has to clarify that she was not blaming the father

Today this is the second witness that has to clarify they work for the court

View attachment 1722491

Also I’m glad to see the jury have an kind of wiki like bit on their iPads so they can referback to things/look over things. Still won’t be anywhere as good as the wiki we have here though 🤣

View attachment 1722494
All witnesses have a duty to the court, Defence, prosecution doesn't matter.
It doesn't mean that they are biased automatically, doesn't mean that they definitely aren't either

BMs concern is that the reports are biased, he's making his steps to prove his argument.

I don't know if there is genuine substance behind it at the moment, but it is what any barrister would do even if there was the slightest niggle.

And unfortunately biased reports and witnesses can and do happen, I am not saying I think this is the case more just explaining why it's being pointed at so heavily.
Hope work goes well for you fella
 
  • Like
  • Heart
Reactions: 8
All witnesses have a duty to the court, Defence, prosecution doesn't matter.
It doesn't mean that they are biased automatically, doesn't mean that they definitely aren't either

BMs concern is that the reports are biased, he's making his steps to prove his argument.

I don't know if there is genuine substance behind it at the moment, but it is what any barrister would do even if there was the slightest niggle.

And unfortunately biased reports and witnesses can and do happen, I am not saying I think this is the case more just explaining why it's being pointed at so heavily.
Hope work goes well for you fella
Thanks for this. It’s pretty shoddy to question it as if they’re biased when the air is there imaged and then he has to rely on other causes which are all incredibly flimsy. He can try all he wants though. Literally his job and as much as I couldn’t do it, somebody has to! I’m not a fan of his by any stretch but he is just doing his job at the end of the day.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 9
I wonder if she deliberately went into nursing with a plan all along to harm others or if it came later. It was said to be her dream job.
This is actually one of the details that makes me question her guilt. She came across as so studious and driven in her training. I'd have expected to see a more problematic record from when she was a student, i.e. struggling, slacking off, disciplinary issues, but so far it seems like the opposite.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 6
BM is most definitely not a nice Fella. I honestly can’t believe he has just implied in court in front of the poor parents, that Bohin had blamed D’s father for that floppy incident after her birth😮 and she actually has to clarify what she actually said about it. I’m sorry but that’s just cruel these parents have suffered enough

Not a nice fella at all

Honestly can’t believe he’s done this, I think he’s going on like this, and being particularly hard on Bohin cos he really knows how strong Bohin’s evidence today is, in relation to D (sorry know other disagree)

View attachment 1722344
But she did say this basically! I found this part of her evidence to be ridiculous today. She was basically denying the tit care poor baby d had pre and post birth. She also said the dads perception was that she went floppy and lifeless and it could be a blocked airway from how he was holding her. No one I know who's had a newborn baby has had that happen to their baby from holding them! I genuinely feel like this discredits her. Total denial of the poor care the baby had and suggesting dad's way of holding her could contribute.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 9
This is actually one of the details that makes me question her guilt. She came across as so studious and driven in her training. I'd have expected to see a more problematic record from when she was a student, i.e. struggling, slacking off, disciplinary issues, but so far it seems like the opposite.
This is the sort of thing that led me to think she was innocent at the beginning. I think maybe something changed for her. Could it just have been moving to live alone? Or maybe all the attention from being the face of the fundraising?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3
This is the sort of thing that led me to think she was innocent at the beginning. I think maybe something changed for her. Could it just have been moving to live alone? Or maybe all the attention from being the face of the fundraising?
Some fellas have speculated that she felt under-appreciated and became bitter. Lots of people feel undervalued at work and it doesn't lead them to murder babies, so if true, there must've been something majorly wrong with her to begin with.

Edit: Deleted a me-rail bc it wasn't that relelvant to the thread.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 8
I don’t think Dr Bohin was blaming the dad of baby D. I think she was raising what could realistically be only one of various possibilities. I’ve no idea how common it is but she said she’d observed it before.
Dr Bohin did say there was evidence of pneumonia so, if breathing was compromised further, say by positioning of the baby, then that would exacerbate the already less efficient lungs, more so than in a baby with completely healthy lungs.
This event with Baby D was not a collapse as we’ve come to know them.

But she did say this basically! I found this part of her evidence to be ridiculous today. She was basically denying the tit care poor baby d had pre and post birth. She also said the dads perception was that she went floppy and lifeless and it could be a blocked airway from how he was holding her. No one I know who's had a newborn baby has had that happen to their baby from holding them! I genuinely feel like this discredits her. Total denial of the poor care the baby had and suggesting dad's way of holding her could contribute.
I don’t see where she totally denied it, or denied it at all. I don’t think this is the first time she’s given evidence about Baby D either.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
  • Heart
Reactions: 8
Ok Fella I’ll bite. I have said in my posts about a million times. Even with all the negligence on that unit, it is still not enough to explain all these sudden collapses/deaths. If for whatever reason one example of negligence caused a collapse, then the treatment administered to counter act that particular problem (from the alledhed negligence) would reverse it. These babies did not respond clinically how they should have done, like the resuscitation attempts did not have the normal affect they should have. I’m explaining badly but even if a collapse was due negligence, the baby should still respond to any treatment given to counter act, and they didn’t. There’s loads of doctors and nurses and experts dismissing BMs defence theory on negligence being the cause, and then proving why said negligence couldn’t have been the cause. I also found Bohin so credible today because she acknowledged all the medical issues on the unit, as did the experts acknowledge underlying conditions in all babies we’ve heard so far and why they couldn’t have enough alone be the cause. Then when you add of all the circumstantial evidence that has been discussed in depth the last pages and last thread it’s a slam dunk for me. Just out of interest have you re read the wiki on babies E-Q? It seems those that have re read ahead have much different views to those following in real time and only looking at A-D and considering them as stand alone events, not looking at the bigger picture


What you said ❤
I’m also at the point where I give up trying to explain why I think the way I do, people just seem to not actually read the posts. I spent ages copying and pasting so much from wiki and articles to back up every point I’ve made, to show how her behaviour is sinister, I’ve shown examples from further cases where you can’t make excuses anymore. And still some just refuse to read what’s been written. This is not aimed at anyone, but I feel like I’m repeating myself and no one is taking anything on board or actually reading what’s been written. Perfect example of how your view may change if you actually read page 4 of wiki before dismissing what we are trying to say regarding what we know now and using the rest of the cases e-q, @Weeder was on the fence, but was completely open to LL being guilty or not guilty. We’d discussed yesterday various reasons LLs behaviour became sinister. It was suggested Weeder re read page of the wiki. Suddenly lots of things that some of us keep repeating made complete sense, and swung weeder to probably guilty. She’s not completely there yet with all the medical evidence which is fair enough with weeder’s medical background. But the view on the circumstantial changed and all the points we had been making weeder could now see too. Sorry weeder just using you as an example of someone that actually went and read page 4 of the wiki. This is why I think some of us are at a cross roads. Many following this in real time are obvs only going on A-D which is all we’ve heard so far. But please before you keep dismissing our ideas just go and read page 4 of the wiki first. Anyone that has actually done that I think will understand our points a lot more clearly than anyone that hasn’t, and hopefully see why the overall bigger picture of all these cases put together is so important
To be fair Page 4 of the wiki is only part of my reasons, but yes, it did partially change my mind. I think looking at the way evidence was compiled for BA did a lot of it as well.
That's not to say I agree with some of the medical evidence presentation as you all know.
I'm also not ready to call out people on the fence, because I understand their reasons.
I found it difficult to change my mind. Firstly I don't have much time to read up, I haven't read all of today's reporting, for example. Secondly my processing speed is down and my bandwith needs increasing...Privately I have lots going on ..it's difficult to take on all the info.
I still feel like I want to pick holes in the prosecution. I'm sure I'll feel the same way about the defence when we hear it.
 
  • Like
  • Heart
Reactions: 7
08A7E514-6E6D-4475-BA7C-5F61EA45CB8A.jpeg

I might be wrong but for one of the other babies didn’t the doctor at the time say the line was too high? But then when giving evidence he said now he has experience and after looking at the X-rays he says there was no issue with the placement? Surely this contradicts that as this witness is saying you can’t just base it on X-rays and have to look at the baby in front of you. And when that doctor was looking at the baby they thought it was too high?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2
It’s going to get to the point where people say “duck you fella”! And it’s ok cos they said fella*

*Joking of course fellas 😂
 
  • Haha
  • Like
Reactions: 23
Only on page 2 of the thread, but wanted to weigh in on this.

I don't find it hard to believe someone could deliberately hurt babies. I believe these crimes are possible because they've happened before. Bev Allitt's case was slightly before my time, but I do remember the news about Harold Shipman. It's a terrible fact that some doctors/nurses are killers. Having said that, I'd assume (& hope!) it's extremely rare. The number of 'good' nurses will always outweigh the number of bad. It'll always be more common for a patient to die due to medical negligence than murder. From this perspective, it's still shocking because of the rarity of these crimes. I didn't expect to see another trial like Harold Shipman's in my lifetime, so I do understand why people have expressed shock.

When people talk about disbelief, I also think they're referring to their total incomprehension of the psychology behind these crimes. ''How could anyone hurt a baby?'' is a reasonable question and it's not one I can answer. It goes against all instincts.

To condense this waffle into a few sentences: I believe the crime is possible because it's happened before. That's a fact. But I'm still shocked that this nurse, with her girl-next-door energy, is accused of murdering newborn babies. I think both of those feelings can coexist.
I was more referring to the people who can’t believe that someone would do this, rather than referring to those who have said “who could hurt a baby” I do understand how the latter statement is meant obviously.

To be honest though, I was more surprised at myself and others like me who can so easily believe that this evil exists in the world, people like me who are so willing to accept that this stuff happens. I find it sad actually that I’m so I’m willing to accept it happens, but that’s because I’ve seen evil myself.

I wish I wasn’t so willing to accept that anyone could be a serial killer or similar, but there you go.
 
  • Like
  • Heart
  • Haha
Reactions: 10
Only on page 2 of the thread, but wanted to weigh in on this.

I don't find it hard to believe someone could deliberately hurt babies. I believe these crimes are possible because they've happened before. Bev Allitt's case was slightly before my time, but I do remember the news about Harold Shipman. It's a terrible fact that some doctors/nurses are killers. Having said that, I'd assume (& hope!) it's extremely rare. The number of 'good' nurses will always outweigh the number of bad. It'll always be more common for a patient to die due to medical negligence than murder. From this perspective, it's still shocking because of the rarity of these crimes. I didn't expect to see another trial like Harold Shipman's in my lifetime, so I do understand why people have expressed shock.

When people talk about disbelief, I also think they're referring to their total incomprehension of the psychology behind these crimes. ''How could anyone hurt a baby?'' is a reasonable question and it's not one I can answer. It goes against all instincts.

To condense this waffle into a few sentences: I believe the crime is possible because it's happened before. That's a fact. But I'm still shocked that this nurse, with her girl-next-door energy, is accused of murdering newborn babies. I think both of those feelings can coexist.

Brilliant summing up, exactly how I feel too.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3
Status
Thread locked. We start a new thread when they have over 1000 posts, click the blue button to see all threads for this topic and find the latest open thread.