We find it hard to comprehend evil in a 'caring' profession, writes Judy Finnigan
Does evil truly exist? I think it does. We find it hard to comprehend evil happening in a "caring" profession, writes Judy Finnigan
Lucy Letby sentenced to whole-life order
Such a depressing week. Trying to fathom the motives behind Lucy Letby’s murder of the fragile premature babies in her care is impossible. Psychopathic narcissism seems to be the only explanation.
Worrying away at it I had a sudden flash of insight; a certain type of girl who I knew at school, outwardly pleasant, obliging but quiet, wanting to fit in, but who would have odd little outbursts of boasting. Would say grandiose things about her family and connections that we knew weren’t true. Pathetic fibs really, easily seen through by the rest of us, but we didn’t tease or take her up on it.
She obviously wanted attention, craved importance, but we just felt quietly embarrassed. She was lying and we knew it but didn’t want to humiliate her.
Maybe Lucy Letby was a girl like that; maybe she was drawn to crisis and melodrama; given her job balancing life and death, Letby’s need to be noticed warped her mind.
We find it hard to comprehend evil in a “caring” profession. Reporters who covered Letby’s trial say at first they felt sorry for her. Surely this quiet, pleasant, awkward girl couldn’t possibly be capable of such cruelty?
It was only as the trial went on and the evidence of Letby’s extraordinary presence at each and every tiny death-bed was glaringly clear that we all realised that, yes, she had to be guilty. There was simply no other explanation.
There are times when even those who aren’t religious are faced with evil and must acknowledge it.
Does evil truly exist? I think it does. It sidles in, corrupts vulnerable minds, possibly from birth. It takes away the strength to fight a crippling personality disorder.
The parents of those tiny babies, those beloved scraps of humanity who died at Letby’s hands have gone though hell.
But evil’s touched Letby’s parents too. I feel so sorry for them. To give birth to a beloved child who grows up to inflict such pain and horror must be torture. Just like the mothers and fathers of her victims, the Letbys, must be lost in a world of pain.
Frasier’s back
Fantastic news that Frasier’s back with a new series on Paramount in October. It was the best sitcom ever and I’m still addicted to the reruns.
I’m not quite sure it will be the same without the sublime Niles, Daphne and Roz, and I can’t quite picture Only Fools And Horses star Nicholas Lyndhurst as Frasier’s new English professor sidekick, but Kelsey Grammer, right, is a genius.
I can’t wait to see those tossed salads and scrambled eggs on the menu again.
Don't miss...
Homeless and estranged from the Firm, Prince Harry prepares for UK return [LATEST]
Harry and Meghan 'embrace reconciliation' but not when it comes to their family [DISCOVER]
Meghan Markle's silent 'cry for help' while Prince Harry was abroad spotted [INSIGHT]
Let Anne jump the line to save throne from heirheads
Last week I wrote about the line of succession, suggesting Prince Harry, fifth in line, should be quietly dumped into the royal rubbish bin to save us from a Harry/Meghan monarchy if some disaster wiped out Charles, William and the Wales kids. What was I thinking? Because, here’s the rub. Without Harry and the Montecito mob the next in line would be – guess who? Andrew!
Stop screaming at the back. After Andy would come to Queen Beatrice, and then… well let’s just say we’d be sliding down a very slippery slope. It’s obvious that the only person in the line of succession who would inspire any respect is No.17: Princess Anne, who, like her late parents, breathes common sense and practicality.
She’d be a perfect Queen. Can we tinker with the line to put her straight after Louis? It might just save the monarchy.