Speaker 1: Hello and welcome to the channel. This is my first video so thank you for being here. It will be a short one unfortunately but this is something that I did really want to talk about, so let’s get into it.
So today I want to talk about Lucy Letby. Everyone by now knows who she is and is aware of the case, but just in case some people aren’t, she was a nurse who is now serving 14 whole life sentences for the murder of seven babies and the attempted murder of six more whilst she was working at the Countess of Chester Hospital. She’ll never be free.
Whole life sentences in the UK basically mean you’ll die behind bars, and she was given 14 of them, so there’s no chance of parole or anything like that. But in this video I wanted to take a look at a mugshot and talk about what we see in it. This is a mugshot — the one that we have pretty much all seen by now. It’s the one that all the newspapers use and, you know, online articles whenever they are doing a piece on her.
So when we look at this, what do we see? I mean, first off, you know, it’s just coldness. She just looks dead behind the eyes, no remorse, lack of shame, lack of empathy. You know, pretty much what you’d expect from a psychopath that’s killed seven incredibly young babies, right? But what if I told you this isn’t her mugshot? Well, not how it originally looked, anyway. This is her mugshot in original form. Now this is from the Chester Standard. I’m not sure when it was printed. I got this from one of the Lucy Letby Facebook groups, so that’s why I thought I’d do a video on it.
But as we can see, there is a considerable difference in her appearance and in her emotion. So what do we see? Her eyes look puffy and red, there are tears in her eyes, she has a slightly swollen red nose, she looks in distress, she looks terrified to be honest. She knows the world’s just collapsed — which it has. She’s just been accused of murder in probably the worst possible form that you could be accused of it. You know, this is young babies, babies that are incredibly ill that you are supposed to be caring for.
This is the same image but it’s just unedited, and just in case there’s any doubt about that, I’ll put them on top of each other. As you can see they fit perfectly over one another — her mouth is in the exact same expression, as are her eyes and nose, and her strands of hair fall in exactly the same place.
So why would they airbrush the image to hide her emotion and clear distress? Well, perception’s everything, really. So if you saw that original image, would you look at it and think, “could she have done this?” Because she doesn’t look what you would expect from a psychopath. Like I said, perception’s everything. I’m not saying that she’s definitely innocent, but when you put these two images together, one looks like what you would expect from a psychopath, from an evil person — no emotion, no remorse. But in comparison to the other image it looks the opposite. She’s full of emotion.
The contrast between these two images is amazing because they are the exact same image. How you can just basically brush someone’s emotion out is incredible, you know, but you have to ask why this has been done. Why have they hidden her emotion? Why have they basically given her this cold, blank, emotionless stare? And, you know, I think this is just how our media works nowadays to be honest. If you show her like that, show her exactly how a serial killer should look, people are probably going to read it more.
You know, we were all used to the images before the mugshot — they used to show pictures of her at parties and with friends and stuff like that, smiling, in a nurse’s uniform. And ever since we had this mugshot that’s pretty much all we’ve seen, and it shows this different contrast. It shows her in a different light, and it’s probably for clicks. It really is probably just for clicks. I think that’s probably the reason — people feel more compelled to read an article about somebody who is this dead-behind-the-eyes serial killer. I don’t know, it’s a strange one, but I just wanted to talk about it because I think it’s important.
I think editing pictures for media purposes is wrong anyway, because it’s essentially a lie. And I’m not saying that the case against her was a lie or that the verdict was wrong, or anything like that. But what I am saying is, if you publish a false image of someone — which is what they’ve essentially done — I think that’s wrong. I think it’s a way that the newspapers shape public perception on a lot of things, not just this. But anyway, I’ve sort of gone into rambling mode now, so I’m going to leave this video here.
Thank you for watching. Please like, leave a comment, subscribe — because it does help the algorithm, and I want as many people to see this as I can reach. Thank you.