[News] Baby murder nurse case

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

TBF from a sentencing perspective the comparison isn’t unreasonable - it’s only the 4th whole life tariff handed out to a female, the others being, er West, Hindley and Dennehy.

I don't object to the sentence. Not at all. There is no inconsistency between expecting the harshest sentencing and objecting to a tacit encouragement that the woman be attacked in prison (the previous poster was sufficiently vague to deny having said this, of course).

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

how much is down to Tory cuts to NHS and other services, due to staff shortages / austerity which creates vacuums where such complacancy can occur?

Remember when they say "less government / smaller state" and "the nanny state" - reap what you sow

I don't think this is relevant. These munchausen-by-proxy cases are extremely rare and hard to spot till the stats show an unexpected high amount of unexpected death and trauma. Money won't fix the problem. There is reason to be angry about the subsequent cover up in the present case, however.

I would add that I don't encourage anyone reading the gory details of this or other such harrowing cases, if you are over 40. Getting angry and upset will cloud one's judgement and soon all you can think about is revenge. Then soon we sink into savagery. But we all have to read about this stuff at least once just to understand the true depths into which some humans can sink.

 

[dejavuatbtn]

What I find offensive in these cases is the continual showing of their mugshots on news reports. There’s no need for anyone being reminded what they look like. I’m sure the families don’t need reminding.
Lock em up and forget about them as best we can.

 

[Springal]

What I find offensive in these cases is the continual showing of their mugshots on news reports. There’s no need for anyone being reminded what they look like. I’m sure the families don’t need reminding.
Lock em up and forget about them as best we can.

It’s intriguing the photo that keeps getting used - rather than the mugshot ?

 

[dejavuatbtn]

It’s intriguing the photo that keeps getting used - rather than the mugshot ?

Mugshot/photo - I don’t want to see either!

 

[Is it PotG?]

These acts are truly abhorrent.
There can be no justification at any level for such evil.
We may look at a possible troubled past, a moment back in the dark yonder to trigger such acts.
We need, as a civilised nation to look at all possible causes, and try to understand why such a 'normal' human being can do such things.
In her incarceration, we need to help, rather than punish. She'll be troubled no doubt, and needs understanding.
If, in the meantime, someone gets to her with a sharpened toothbrush then power to your elbow.

 

[TheJasperCo]

I would say that victims 'families have the right to see the perpetrator receive his/her sentence in court. Anecdotally that seems to be the opinion of the majority of the public. Do you disagree?

Although I obviously don't condone what the other poster said about austerity, I do disagree - even if it's not the popular view. Forcing convicts to come to the courtroom just gives them a platform, an opportunity when they have nothing else to lose, to mouth off during sentencing. The sentencing and impact statements should have the victims at its heart. Those responsible can rot in the dungeons below the courtroom.

Especially when, as in this case, the sentence was always going to be a foregone conclusion. What is to gain from forcing her to appear? She was a coward the moment she harmed her first tiny victim, the cowardice doesn't start at sentencing.

Just my two cents. Sunak clearly trying to get the 'low-hanging fruit' by changing this law, fine. It's popular opinion and demanded by victims' families. I just have reservations. Which is unlike me, because I am socially quite conservative in many respects.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

This is what I don't understand. Can someone really be that evil without anyone else having an inkling? The option she went for was to try and ride it out and hope for a not guilty verdict so presumably no signs of insanity, at least from a legal perspective. Frightening that such an outwardly 'normal' person could be such a massively evil narcissist.

Evil is as evil does.

I don't think 'evil' has much value as a measurable, either when monitoring employees or when prosecuting crime.

The idea that evil can be spotted is naïve. When part of someone's phenotype is the gift of deception, or when the drivers for someone's deviance are highly niche (as in Munchausen by proxy), it is too much to expect it all to be easily identifiable during the job interview process.

Some of us think we can 'spot a wrong-un' a mile off. Think again. Sometimes it's important to remind ourselves that Cruella De Ville, Hannibal Lecter and Dr Evil are characters from fiction.

 

[dangull]

Many would say that L/L parents are also victims in this case and any form of meaningful life after this is effectively over.

I would imagine the parents would move from their present location and probably change their names. No reason why they should be targeted. Presumably they had no idea what their daughter was doing.

 

[Si Gull]

Evil is as evil does.

I don't think 'evil' has much value as a measurable, either when monitoring employees or when prosecuting crime.

The idea that evil can be spotted is naïve. When part of someone's phenotype is the gift of deception, or when the drivers for someone's deviance are highly niche (as in Munchausen by proxy), it is too much to expect it all to be easily identifiable during the job interview process.

Some of us think we can 'spot a wrong-un' a mile off. Think again. Sometimes it's important to remind ourselves that Cruella De Ville, Hannibal Lecter and Dr Evil are characters from fiction.

Agreed. I wasn't really implying that she was a wrong-un that should have been spotted, as such; more that it's shocking that she never, as far as we know, let her guard slip with any of the people she interacted with.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Although I obviously don't condone what the other poster said about austerity, I do disagree - even if it's not the popular view. Forcing convicts to come to the courtroom just gives them a platform, an opportunity when they have nothing else to lose, to mouth off during sentencing. The sentencing and impact statements should have the victims at its heart. Those responsible can rot in the dungeons below the courtroom.

Especially when, as in this case, the sentence was always going to be a foregone conclusion. What is to gain from forcing her to appear? She was a coward the moment she harmed her first tiny victim, the cowardice doesn't start at sentencing.

Just my two cents. Sunak clearly trying to get the 'low-hanging fruit' by changing this law, fine. It's popular opinion and demanded by victims' families. I just have reservations. Which is unlike me, because I am socially quite conservative in many respects.

I'm glad you posted that. When others said 'it is an outrage she wasn't there to suck up the sentencing' etc., I had forgotten momentarily those two things, one that the law does not require the convicted to give an account of themselves after conviction, and two that lots of those convicted would take one last opportunity to humiliate the victims and their families (which, in a separate context, is why lots of men accused of rape enjoyed cross-examining their accuser in court until this was stopped some years ago). No, f*** that. I am retracting my support for it (despite Starmer suggesting it first). Best the convicted not be present in court to hear the sentencing. Their presence is no longer required.

 

[herecomesaregular]

My guess would be that mental illness isn't her issue - some people are just born evil and it's also nothing to do with parenting, life events etc. Sadly, as I've got older I've realised some people are just this, they have evil in them and they do evil things without logic, reason or excuse other than because they want to.
As for ensuring the defendant is there to listen to their sentence and victim statements, I always think of mass killer Breivik in Norway and all the shite he spouted at every opportunity he could in the courtroom. Best avoided. Have to agree that the defendant should at least be placed in a locked room with a one way mic and the judges remarks and the victim statements are played at high volume. They don't have to be present but they should be forced to listen.

 

[Is it PotG?]

I'm glad you posted that. When others said 'it is an outrage she wasn't there to suck up the sentencing' etc., I had forgotten momentarily those two things, one that the law does not require the convicted to give an account of themselves after conviction, and two that lots of those convicted would take one last opportunity to humiliate the victims and their families (which, in a separate context, is why lots of men accused of rape enjoyed cross-examining their accuser in court until this was stopped some years ago). No, f*** that. I am retracting my support for it (despite Starmer suggesting it first). Best the convicted not be present in court to hear the sentencing. Their presence is no longer required.

The parents of the victims might want some sort of closure and to see the whites of the guilty's eyes one last time.
I fully understand their wishes, and any rebuff of such is both shallow and highly insensitive.

 

[Cotton Socks]

I think it likely she'll be placed in a secure unit 'for her own safety'. Some will argue that she doesn't deserve protection, I understand that, but she's clearly 'mentally ill' and will need protecting from herself and others.

She isn't clearly mentally ill, that's the 'mad vs bad' point that @Tom Hark Preston Park was alluding to. At not one point has a mental health issue been mentioned apart from speculation after, that she has Munchausen's by proxy which also would've been instantly used as a possible defence, if there was any evidence of it. It appears that on the 'mad vs bad' debate, she is in the 'bad' side. Secure units are not for prisoners safety, as far as I know, Isolation is for their safety. To put someone in a secure mental health unit is far more expensive than prison, she will most likely stay in prison & I don't think they'll bother with the 'rehabilitation' part. Well I hope they don't anyway because she should never be released,

 

[TheJasperCo]

I'm glad you posted that. When others said 'it is an outrage she wasn't there to suck up the sentencing' etc., I had forgotten momentarily those two things, one that the law does not require the convicted to give an account of themselves after conviction, and two that lots of those convicted would take one last opportunity to humiliate the victims and their families (which, in a separate context, is why lots of men accused of rape enjoyed cross-examining their accuser in court until this was stopped some years ago). No, f*** that. I am retracting my support for it (despite Starmer suggesting it first). Best the convicted not be present in court to hear the sentencing. Their presence is no longer required.

Yes HWT. So often those responsible have a thuggish mindset and zero capacity for emotuonal intelligence. When you hear such poignant, moving statements read by the victims' families with incredible eloquence given the circumstances, let's not ruin it with the person responsible able to stare them out, roll their eyes/pick their nose/fart/shout obscenities/ interrupt... it's for the best that they're retired from public view forever and a day.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Agreed. I wasn't really implying that she was a wrong-un that should have been spotted, as such; more that it's shocking that she never, as far as we know, let her guard slip with any of the people she interacted with.

That's a good point. The Munchausen syndrome by proxy cases we have seen appear to be similar. Nobody suspected before the killers started killing they planned to start killing. And that is taking into account the ready availability of that powerful instrument, the retrospectroscope

There again, many people do things in private that the rest of us might consider perverse or disgusting, and the rest of us never know, and will never know because there will never be 'alarm bells' because nobody will be hurt (unless they want to be) or die. If your quirk is a desire to kill, things may well pan out differently.

But...frankly, while the workings of the human mind interest me, I don't have any curiosity about this woman and her ilk, who have 'identified' as scum, other than in the context of whether the next one off the production line can be spotted before they get cracking. And let's not forget Harold Shipman. I can only assume they enjoyed it. If we could screen for that, it would be a result.

 

[The Clamp]

The MbP is of course debatable. In most cases of MbP the perpetrator “displays” their crime in order to gain sympathy and martyrdom. Without admitting to the crime, of course.

Who knows. I think it’s one of those cases that will be studied for years with no conclusion .

As someone posted above, she or her defence never once claimed mental disorder.

f*** knows. I hope she’s never heard of again.

 

[The Optimist]

Well I hope they don't anyway because she should never be released,

She’s been given a whole life term so she won’t be released.

 

[dangull]

They also have that weird thing in the USA where the family of a murdered victim can watch the execution by lethal injection of the person responsible.
Not sure what good that does for anybody.Revenge, I guess.
.

 

[Weststander]

Evil is as evil does.

I don't think 'evil' has much value as a measurable, either when monitoring employees or when prosecuting crime.

The idea that evil can be spotted is naïve. When part of someone's phenotype is the gift of deception, or when the drivers for someone's deviance are highly niche (as in Munchausen by proxy), it is too much to expect it all to be easily identifiable during the job interview process.

Some of us think we can 'spot a wrong-un' a mile off. Think again. Sometimes it's important to remind ourselves that Cruella De Ville, Hannibal Lecter and Dr Evil are characters from fiction.

One of the dumbest things I’ve heard over the last few days is from (not real) experts clamouring to say that NHS screening for staff depression or any history of depression should be key. [As Letby had had some in her life]. That they shouldn’t be employed by the NHS.

That would eliminate 20% of those at working ages. Discriminating against countless innocents who do a great job.

Instead I lean towards practical solutions. CCTV in wards, always a minimum of two medical personnel with the vulnerable (needs ££££) and a culture where whistle blowers are given immediate respect.