Lucy Letby: Difference between revisions

Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Advanced mobile edit
No edit summary
Line 4: Line 4:


====On herd minds, groupthink and narrative biases====
====On herd minds, groupthink and narrative biases====
{{drop|L|ucy Letby’s case}} is in the news. Those internet citizens who have taken more than a passing interest have divided into opposing camps. There are some for whom Lucy Letby is a cold-blooded monster. Others question the safety of her criminal conviction. Those with a passing acquaintance with the case tend to suppose she must be a monster, having been convicted of it. But those who take a closer look tend quickly to gravitate to an extreme: either they are horrified by the extent of her visceral wickedness or certain, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Lucy Letby is positively innocent of all charges, and even some kind of martyred saint.
{{drop|L|ucy Letby’s case}} is in the news. Those with only a passing acquaintance tend to suppose that, having been convicted of the murder and attempted murder of multiple infants, the case is closed and she must be a monster. And she admitted it in a note, right? But look a bit closer and the picture is complicated. Depending on your filter, it becomes a matter of pure, calculated evil, or of breathtaking systemic injustice.  


These two extremes — outright innocence and guilt beyond reasonable doubt — leave a wide range of ambivalent attitudes between. Bu humans like our narratives to tell us things about the world, and a narrative that says, “huh, who knows?” is not awfully helpful. It doesn’t tell us much about the world.  
These two extremes — guilt beyond reasonable doubt and outright innocence and victimhood  — leave untouched a range of ambivalent attitudes between them. We like our narratives to tell us things about the world, and a perspective that says, “well, it’s complicated” doesn’t tell us much about the world. It isn’t useful. So few of us occupy that space.  


It may offer little intellectual satisfaction, but it may be the best we can reasonably expect.
JC will advance the position that we ''should''. While it may offer little intellectual satisfaction, it may be the best we can reasonably expect.  


The system has behaved in a way which renders Lucy Letby either a monster or scapegoat. There is no middle ground, in which she is an ordinary kid, with her pluses and minuses, virtues and failings, just like the rest of us: she is either angel or devil.   
The system has behaved in a way which deprives this individual of a middle ground, in which she is an ordinary kid, with her pluses and minuses, virtues and failings, just like the rest of us: neither angel nor devil.   


Given the probabilities at play — 99% of us are neither angel or devil — giving Lucy Letby only these two choices is an injustice in itself.  
Given the probabilities at play — 99% of us are neither angel or devil — allowing Lucy Letby only these two options is an injustice in itself.  


The problem with “conviction” and “innocence” narratives is that they become self-fulfilling: from either perspective you can panel-beat most subsequent information to suit that view. The hard-edged peripheral evidence we do have can and has been coloured through that lens.  
The problem with “conviction” and “innocence” narratives is that they become self-fulfilling: from either perspective you can panel-beat most subsequent information to suit that view. The hard-edged peripheral evidence we do have can and has been coloured through that lens.  


Here is BBC Reporter Judith Moritz, in a piece to camera, on reviewing Letby’s social media posts:{{quote|
Here is BBC Reporter Judith Moritz, in a piece to camera, on reviewing Letby’s social media posts:{{quote|
“Sparky, full of fun, popular — she looks like the life and soul of the party in these photos. I don’t know what Britain’s most prolific child killer should look like. ''I’m pretty sure it’s not this, though''.}}And then a few moments later.{{Quote|“She comes across as — mousy; a bit ''normal'' — you can’t really marry that with the enormity of what she’s been accused of.”}}Lucy Letby’s apparently vivacious personality and active social life, for example. If you have an open mind, this behaviour is ''normal''. It tells us nothing. It places Lucy Letby within a standard deviation of the mean. But once you are persuaded of her guilt it marks her out as a psychopath — ''corroborates'' and ''amplifies'' her wickedness. If you believe her to be innocent, that this information has been so rudely traduced only illustrates the single-mindedness with which our vicious system will crush an innocent, unsuspecting spirit.  
“Sparky, full of fun, popular — she looks like the life and soul of the party in these photos. I don’t know what Britain’s most prolific child killer should look like. ''I’m pretty sure it’s not this, though''.}}And then a few moments later.{{Quote|“She comes across as — mousy; a bit ''normal'' — you can’t really marry that with the enormity of what she’s been accused of.”}}In this way is Lucy Letby’s apparently vivacious personality and active social life, taken as validating her wickedness. but if you have an open mind, this behaviour is ''normal''. It tells us nothing. It places Lucy Letby in that ordinary space, with the rest of us, within a standard deviation of the mean.
 
If — and ''only'' if — you are already persuaded of her guilt, it marks her out as a psychopath. It ''corroborates'' and ''amplifies'' her wickedness. If you believe her to be innocent, that this information has been so rudely traduced only illustrates the single-mindedness with which our vicious system will crush an innocent, unsuspecting spirit.  


Similarly, that Lucy Letby searched online for the parents of the deceased is consistent with ''either'' breathtaking malevolence — if she is a serial killer — ''or'' affecting compassion — if she is not. But by itself, it is ''evidence'' of neither. We all Google individuals we meet in real life — even people we know we probably shouldn’t: this is perfectly normal behaviour. We are curious animals.
Similarly, that Lucy Letby searched online for the parents of the deceased is consistent with ''either'' breathtaking malevolence — if she is a serial killer — ''or'' affecting compassion — if she is not. But by itself, it is ''evidence'' of neither. We all Google individuals we meet in real life — even people we know we probably shouldn’t: this is perfectly normal behaviour. We are curious animals.
Retrieved from "https://jollycontrarian.com/index.php?title=Lucy_Letby"