Lucy Letby: the handover notes: Difference between revisions

(11 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)

Line 1:

{{a|letby|{{wmc|Trophies for the prettiest cows and horses in the show?.jpg|}}}}{{quote|I’ve read the [''New Yorker''] article<ref>{{new yorker article}}.</ref> and now the retrial is over I can write about it. And while there’s no doubting the author, who says she obtained full transcripts of the ten-month trial at huge cost, has researched the case thoroughly, it contains errors and cherry-picks evidence, omitting large parts of the prosecution case which was pivotal in reaching a conviction.

{{a|letby|{{audio|lucy-letby-the-handover-notes|7Ebigjeockl1fitYLkuq6g}}{{wmc|Trophies for the prettiest cows and horses in the show?.jpg|Not these, yesterday.}}}}{{quote|I’ve read the [''New Yorker''] article<ref>{{new yorker article}}.</ref> and now the retrial is over I can write about it. And while there’s no doubting the author, who says she obtained full transcripts of the ten-month trial at huge cost, has researched the case thoroughly, it contains errors and cherry-picks evidence, omitting large parts of the prosecution case which was pivotal in reaching a conviction.

For example, it makes no mention of the 250 confidential “trophy” handover notes, blood test results and resuscitation notes relating to the babies police found at Letby’s home; it does not try to explain the Facebook searches that she made for the parents of her victims, years after she harmed their children.

:—{{plainlink|https://web.archive.org/web/20240706010703/https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13604633/Lucy-Letby-conspiracy-theorists-wrong-New-Yorker-theories-errors-evidence-LIZ-HULL.html|“Lucy Letby Conspiracy Theorists are Wrong”, Liz Hull, ''Daily Mail'', July 5, 2024}}.}}

{{drop|I|t was alleged}} — strictly speaking, it is ''alleged'' that it was alleged<ref>{{pl|https://www.~~theguardian~~.com/uk-~~news~~/~~2023~~/~~apr~~/17/lucy-letby-~~initials~~-of-~~babies~~-on-~~dates~~-of-~~alleged~~-~~attacks~~-~~noted-in-diary-court-told~~|Lucy Letby~~: initials of babies noted~~ in ~~diary on dates of alleged attacks, court told|~~}}~~, ''The Guardian'', 17 April 2023.~~</ref> — that Ms. Letby took handover sheets home with her and kept them as “trophies” of her grisly deeds. In her judgment on Ms Letby’s appeal, President of the King’s Bench Division Dame Victoria Sharp said the following:

{{drop|I|t was alleged}} — strictly speaking, it is ''alleged'' that it was alleged<ref>No media organisation used the word “trophies” before the verdict. There was one stray reference from a pitchforker on Amy Gull’s subreddit ({{pl|https://www.reddit.com/r/lucyletby/|r/lucyletby}}). The first reference post-verdict is the Standard, which paraphrases Mr Justice Goss’s sentencing remarks: {{pl|https://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/lucy-letby-sentencing-today-when-killer-nurse-murder-police-arrest-b1101869.html|Killer nurse Lucy Letby to die in prison after being sentenced to whole life order}}</ref> — that Ms. Letby took handover sheets home with her and kept them as “trophies” of her grisly deeds. In her judgment on Ms Letby’s appeal, President of the King’s Bench Division Dame Victoria Sharp said the following:

{{quote|[''Ms. Letby''] retained and took home a large number of handover sheets as “trophies” of her crimes. These handover sheets were confidential documents and should not have been removed from the unit. Over 200 were found hidden under the applicant’s bed. <ref>{{cite|Letby|R| 2024| EWCA Crim|748}}, at Para 27. Judgment {{pl|https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/R-v-Letby-Final-Judgment-20240702.pdf|here}}.</ref>}}

====It ''wasn’t'' alleged====

{{drop|L|et me first}} explain my “allegation” [[pedantry]]. It has so entered the commonplace that Ms Letby “collected trophies” that even the President of the King’s Bench repeated it without so much as a pausing, whilst recapping issues from the trial.

But, during the trial, it was ''not'' alleged, by ''anyone'', that Ms. Letby kept the handover notes “as trophies”. She had 257 handover sheets, sure, in a shoebox labelled “keep”. But no-one claimed them to be trophies. As far as the transcripts reveal, no variation of the word “trophy” was uttered over the course of the ten-month trial. Not in opening, not in evidence, not in cross examination, and not in closing.<ref>~~One my fellow~~ [[~~Pundshop~~ Poirot~~|pundshop Poirots~~]] has accumulated a near-complete record of the trial transcripts and kindly searched for “Trophy”, “Trophies”, “trophy”, “trophies” across the whole database for me. There were no hits.</ref>

But, during the trial, it was ''not'' alleged, by ''anyone'', that Ms. Letby kept the handover notes “as trophies”. She had 257 handover sheets, sure, in a shoebox labelled “keep”. But no-one claimed them to be trophies. As far as the transcripts reveal, no variation of the word “trophy” was uttered over the course of the ten-month trial. Not in opening, not in evidence, not in cross examination, and not in closing.<ref>{{pl|https://x.com/triedbystats|@triedbystats}}, one the august company of [[Poundshop Poirot]]s who has been on the case from the beginning, has accumulated a near-complete record of the trial transcripts, and kindly searched for “Trophy”, “Trophies”, “trophy”, “trophies” across the whole database for me. There were no hits.</ref>

The Crown Prosecutor did not really make much of the handover notes at all. Mr Johnson KC said:

Line 35:

None of that stands up to any sensible analysis. And as I say, if she’s not telling the truth about that, is the true explanation one that’s going to help her in the context of the allegations being made in this case? You can safely conclude the answer to that question is no.}}

The Crown presented the handover sheets not to allege Ms. Letby “kept trophies” but, based on her explanations for keeping them, ''as evidence of her dishonesty''. Mr. Johnson KC didn’t believe her explanations. He thought the sheets were ''somehow'' suspicious, but he did not offer a sensible theory for ''why''. His best guess was that ''they would help her perform a covert Facebook search''. He didn’t buy Ms. Letby’s explanation, that she ~~was “just a bit of a magpie”~~. But it’s a far more plausible explanation than “Facebook spellchecker”, which doesn’t even make sense, let alone “serial killer trophy hunter”.

The Crown presented the handover sheets not to allege Ms. Letby “kept trophies” but, based on her explanations for keeping them, ''as evidence of her dishonesty''. Mr. Johnson KC didn’t believe her explanations. He thought the sheets were ''somehow'' suspicious, but he did not offer a sensible theory for ''why''. His best guess was that ''they would help her perform a covert Facebook search''. He didn’t buy Ms. Letby’s explanation that she “has difficulty throwing things away”.<ref>{{pl|https://www.chesterstandard.co.uk/news/23530215.recap-lucy-letby-trial-may-18---prosecution-cross-examines-letby/|Recap: Lucy Letby trial, May 18}}, Chester Standard, May 18 2023.</ref> But it’s a far more plausible explanation than “Facebook spellchecker”, which doesn’t even make sense, let alone “serial killer trophy hunter”.

If there are two alternative explanations, one having a fair chance of happening at random, and one being an remote “outlier”, then unless you have better evidence, ''don’t plump for the outlier''.

Line 43:

Squirrelling useless bits and bobs away is ''not especially unusual behaviour''. One does not need to be mentally ill to do it.<ref>With that said, up to 6% of the US population have a diagnosable “hoarding disorder” according to the American Psychiatric Association’s {{pl|https://www.psychiatry.org/psychiatrists/practice/dsm|Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders}}, 5th Ed. So, even an undiagnosed psychiatric hoarding condition would be orders of magnitude more likely than this being “serial killer trophy collecting”.</ref> Mrs. Contrarian does it.<ref>I make no insinuations about Mrs. C’s mental health, but she did marry me.</ref> Furthermore, staff taking handover notes home does not seem to have been especially unusual behaviour, either. It seems to have been {{pl|http://cheshire-live.co.uk/news/patient-notes-countess-chester-hospital-6128424|a perennial problem at the Countess of Chester Hospital}}.

All the same, it is not “best practice”. It requires explanation.

All the same, it is not “best practice”. It requires an explanation.

But rather than starting, as the Crown seems to have, with the hypothesis “this means serial murder” and working backwards, the right starting place is to ask this question.

{{quote|

{{quote|“This is odd behaviour. What could explain this? Is this the sort of thing a person who was ''not'' a murderer might do?”}}

~~“We have evidence of~~ odd behaviour. What could explain this? Is this the sort of thing a person who was ''not'' a murderer might do?”}}

Given how rare [[healthcare serial murder]]s are, you should only ask, “is this cogent evidence of serial murder?” if you have answered, firmly, “no” to that starting question.

~~But let’s~~ say we ''had'' answered, ~~“no”. Is this odd behaviour this cogent evidence of serial murder? [[Consistent with]] it? Does it map~~ to Mr. ~~Johnson’s theory about spell-checking?~~

Let’s say we ''had'' answered, “No” to that starting question.

It ~~doesn’t, really~~.

Even so, is this behaviour cogent evidence of serial murder? It is even “[[consistent with]]” it? Does it map to Mr. Johnson’s theory about spell-checking?

For one thing, the 257 ~~notes~~ spanned Ms Letby’s whole career~~, not just the suspect period~~. Fewer than 1 per cent ~~of them~~ related to victims of ~~Ms. Letby’s~~ alleged crimes.<ref>Just 21 of the 257 handover sheets related to victims with which she was charged at all, let alone “critical shifts”.

It ''doesn’t'', really. For one thing, the 257 sheets spanned Ms. Letby’s whole career. Fewer than ''ten per cent'' related to victims of the alleged crimes.<ref>Just 21 of the 257 handover sheets related to victims with which she was charged at all, let alone “critical shifts”.

</ref> How were ''they'' going to help her spell her Facebook searches? What would ''they'' be “trophies” of?

</ref> How were ''they'' going to help her spell her Facebook searches? What would ''they'' be “trophies” of? At least three of the victims were not represented in the handover notes at all.<ref>{{pl|https://www.chesterstandard.co.uk/news/23613176.recap-lucy-letby-trial-june-26---defence-closing-speech/|Recap: Lucy Letby trial, June 26 - defence closing speech.}} Chester Standard, June 26, 2023. I am indebted to fellow [[Poundshop Poirot]] {{pl|https://x.com/DebbieKennett|Debbie Kennett}} for pointing this out.</ref> How was she going to spell ''those'' names?

====Serial killer trophies?====

{{drop|T|he Crown may}} not have formally advanced the “trophies” line, but is it fair anyway? ~~Look,~~ I am not a serial murderer, so I am not well placed to say, but ride with me a while: ''a shoebox full of your own scribbled notes seems an odd serial killer trophy''. Doesn’t it? The internet tells us:

{{drop|T|he Crown may}} not have formally advanced the “trophies” line, but is it fair anyway? I am not — promise — a serial murderer, so I am not well placed to say, but ride with me a while: ''a shoebox full of your own scribbled notes seems an odd serial killer trophy''. Doesn’t it? The internet tells us:

{{quote|

Serial killers may take “trophies” as souvenirs or keepsakes from their victims or as a way of remembering to maintain a sense of control over their victims.}}

Serial killers may take “trophies” as souvenirs or keepsakes from their victims or as a way of remembering, or to maintain a sense of control over their victims.}}

But in this way, as in so many others, Ms. Letby ~~just~~ thumbs her nose at what is expected of a self-respecting psychopathic killer.

But in this way, as in so many others, Ms. Letby thumbs her nose at what is expected of a self-respecting psychopathic killer.

The literature says the most common trophies are underwear or hair. Ed “Leatherface” Gein made furniture and suits out of his victims. Some, such as Jack the Ripper, Charles Albright, Stanley Baker, Jeffrey Dahmer, Alex Mengel and Dennis Nilsen kept severed body parts. Others took jewellery, driver’s licences and personal effects. One took a library card. But all took things that, in some way or another, ''belonged'' to or personified the victim and signified her control and possession of things in the world. These were trophies of conquest: of deprivation of that control.

Line 69:

Line 68:

So what about your own scribbled handover sheets, which you made yourself, had in your bag anyway, and were never in the victim’s control? As trophies these seem — well, a bit ''beige'', don’t they?

But, look: ok. Let’s go with these handover sheets as potential serial killer trophies. Clearly, they might, also, ''not'' be. It could be an accident: it could be sloppiness. (Nurses ~~on the internet~~ are ferociously divided: some say it would be ''unthinkable''~~, ever,~~ to take so much as an annotated lunch ticket off the ward. Others claim to pull sheaves of the things out of their smocks each day before putting the wash on.) It certainly seems ''precendented'': it happened often enough at the very same Countess of Chester Hospital {{pl|http://cheshire-live.co.uk/news/patient-notes-countess-chester-hospital-6128424|to make the papers independently}}.

But, look: ok. Let’s go with these handover sheets as ''potential'' serial killer trophies. Clearly, they might, also, ''not'' be. It could be an accident: it could be sloppiness. (Nurses online are ferociously divided: some say it would be ''unthinkable'' to take so much as an annotated lunch ticket off the ward. Others claim to pull sheaves of the things out of their smocks each day before putting the wash on.)

So for now, let us give Ms. Letby the benefit of the doubt and allow that, in itself, it might denote behaviour that is merely sloppy, or even within the Overton window of normalcy.

It certainly seems ''precedented'': in 2013, it happened often enough at the Countess of Chester Hospital {{pl|http://cheshire-live.co.uk/news/patient-notes-countess-chester-hospital-6128424|to make the local paper}}.

So for now, let us give Ms. Letby the benefit of the doubt and allow that, in itself, this might denote behaviour that is merely sloppy, or even within the Overton window of normalcy.

Are there some other filters we might apply to this trove of sheets to bump up the inferential likelihood of evil?

Line 77:

Line 78:

There are.

One is the ''subject matter of the sheets''. If they all relate to victims, and only victims, then, hello: ''that'' seems a bit more fishy. ~~handover~~ sheets about random shifts on which nothing much happened don’t seem especially emblematic of anything.

One is the ''subject matter of the sheets''. If they all relate to victims, and only victims, then, hello: ''that'' seems a bit more fishy. Handover sheets about random shifts from five years previously on which nothing much happened don’t seem especially emblematic of anything. But a tightly curated set, matching, and restricted to, the 25 episodes set out on the charge sheet? ''That'' might tell us something.

So let us look: we have the evidence. What does it tell us?

''Not that''.

Sure: some ''do'' relate to victims. We do not know whether they relate to specific shifts on which collapses occurred, but it seems reasonable to suppose that, if they ''did'', the Crown would be all over that fact in its summing up. It was not. But literally ninety percent of these sheets had nothing to do with any suspicious event.

To be sure, some do relate to victims. We are not told whether they relate to specific shifts on which collapses occurred, but it seems reasonable to suppose that, if they ''did'', the Crown would be all over that fact in its summing up. It was not.

The best explanation for those?

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-{{a|letby|{{wmc|Trophies for the prettiest cows and horses in the show?.jpg|}}}}{{quote|I’ve read the [''New Yorker''] article<ref>{{new yorker article}}.</ref> and now the retrial is over I can write about it. And while there’s no doubting the author, who says she obtained full transcripts of the ten-month trial at huge cost, has researched the case thoroughly, it contains errors and cherry-picks evidence, omitting large parts of the prosecution case which was pivotal in reaching a conviction.
+{{a|letby|{{audio|lucy-letby-the-handover-notes|7Ebigjeockl1fitYLkuq6g}}{{wmc|Trophies for the prettiest cows and horses in the show?.jpg|Not these, yesterday.}}}}{{quote|I’ve read the [''New Yorker''] article<ref>{{new yorker article}}.</ref> and now the retrial is over I can write about it. And while there’s no doubting the author, who says she obtained full transcripts of the ten-month trial at huge cost, has researched the case thoroughly, it contains errors and cherry-picks evidence, omitting large parts of the prosecution case which was pivotal in reaching a conviction.
 For example, it makes no mention of the 250 confidential “trophy” handover notes, blood test results and resuscitation notes relating to the babies police found at Letby’s home; it does not try to explain the Facebook searches that she made for the parents of her victims, years after she harmed their children.
 :—{{plainlink|https://web.archive.org/web/20240706010703/https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13604633/Lucy-Letby-conspiracy-theorists-wrong-New-Yorker-theories-errors-evidence-LIZ-HULL.html|“Lucy Letby Conspiracy Theorists are Wrong”, Liz Hull, ''Daily Mail'', July 5, 2024}}.}}
-{{drop|I|t was alleged}} — strictly speaking, it is ''alleged'' that it was alleged<ref>{{pl|https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/apr/17/lucy-letby-initials-of-babies-on-dates-of-alleged-attacks-noted-in-diary-court-told|Lucy Letby: initials of babies noted in diary on dates of alleged attacks, court told|}}, ''The Guardian'', 17 April 2023.</ref> — that Ms. Letby took handover sheets home with her and kept them as “trophies” of her grisly deeds. In her judgment on Ms Letby’s appeal, President of the King’s Bench Division Dame Victoria Sharp said the following:
+{{drop|I|t was alleged}} — strictly speaking, it is ''alleged'' that it was alleged<ref>No media organisation used the word “trophies” before the verdict. There was one stray reference from a pitchforker on Amy Gull’s subreddit ({{pl|https://www.reddit.com/r/lucyletby/|r/lucyletby}}). The first reference post-verdict is the Standard, which paraphrases Mr Justice Goss’s sentencing remarks: {{pl|https://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/lucy-letby-sentencing-today-when-killer-nurse-murder-police-arrest-b1101869.html|Killer nurse Lucy Letby to die in prison after being sentenced to whole life order}}</ref> — that Ms. Letby took handover sheets home with her and kept them as “trophies” of her grisly deeds. In her judgment on Ms Letby’s appeal, President of the King’s Bench Division Dame Victoria Sharp said the following:
 {{quote|[''Ms. Letby''] retained and took home a large number of handover sheets as “trophies” of her crimes. These handover sheets were confidential documents and should not have been removed from the unit.  Over 200 were found hidden under the applicant’s bed. <ref>{{cite|Letby|R| 2024| EWCA Crim|748}}, at Para 27. Judgment {{pl|https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/R-v-Letby-Final-Judgment-20240702.pdf|here}}.</ref>}}
 ====It ''wasn’t'' alleged====
 {{drop|L|et me first}} explain my “allegation” [[pedantry]]. It has so entered the commonplace that Ms Letby “collected trophies” that even the President of the King’s Bench repeated it without so much as a pausing, whilst recapping issues from the trial.
-But, during the trial, it was ''not'' alleged, by ''anyone'', that Ms. Letby kept the handover notes “as trophies”. She had 257 handover sheets, sure, in a shoebox labelled “keep”. But no-one claimed them to be trophies. As far as the transcripts reveal, no variation of the word “trophy” was uttered over the course of the ten-month trial. Not in opening, not in evidence, not in cross examination, and not in closing.<ref>One my fellow [[Pundshop Poirot|pundshop Poirots]] has accumulated a near-complete record of the trial transcripts and kindly searched for “Trophy”, “Trophies”, “trophy”, “trophies” across the whole database for me. There were no hits.</ref>
+But, during the trial, it was ''not'' alleged, by ''anyone'', that Ms. Letby kept the handover notes “as trophies”. She had 257 handover sheets, sure, in a shoebox labelled “keep”. But no-one claimed them to be trophies. As far as the transcripts reveal, no variation of the word “trophy” was uttered over the course of the ten-month trial. Not in opening, not in evidence, not in cross examination, and not in closing.<ref>{{pl|https://x.com/triedbystats|@triedbystats}}, one the august company of [[Poundshop Poirot]]s who has been on the case from the beginning, has accumulated a near-complete record of the trial transcripts, and kindly searched for “Trophy”, “Trophies”, “trophy”, “trophies” across the whole database for me. There were no hits.</ref>
 The Crown Prosecutor did not really make much of the handover notes at all. Mr Johnson KC said:
@@ Line 35: / Line 35: @@
 None of that stands up to any sensible analysis. And as I say, if she’s not telling the truth about that, is the true explanation one that’s going to help her in the context of the allegations being made in this case? You can safely conclude the answer to that question is no.}}
-The Crown presented the handover sheets not to allege Ms. Letby “kept trophies” but, based on her explanations for keeping them, ''as evidence of her dishonesty''. Mr. Johnson KC didn’t believe her explanations. He thought the sheets were ''somehow'' suspicious, but he did not offer a sensible theory for ''why''. His best guess was that ''they would help her perform a covert Facebook search''. He didn’t buy Ms. Letby’s explanation, that she was “just a bit of a magpie”. But it’s a far more plausible explanation than “Facebook spellchecker”, which doesn’t even make sense, let alone “serial killer trophy hunter”.
+The Crown presented the handover sheets not to allege Ms. Letby “kept trophies” but, based on her explanations for keeping them, ''as evidence of her dishonesty''. Mr. Johnson KC didn’t believe her explanations. He thought the sheets were ''somehow'' suspicious, but he did not offer a sensible theory for ''why''. His best guess was that ''they would help her perform a covert Facebook search''. He didn’t buy Ms. Letby’s explanation that she “has difficulty throwing things away”.<ref>{{pl|https://www.chesterstandard.co.uk/news/23530215.recap-lucy-letby-trial-may-18---prosecution-cross-examines-letby/|Recap: Lucy Letby trial, May 18}}, Chester Standard, May 18 2023.</ref> But it’s a far more plausible explanation than “Facebook spellchecker”, which doesn’t even make sense, let alone “serial killer trophy hunter”.
 If there are two alternative explanations, one having a fair chance of happening at random, and one being an remote “outlier”, then unless you have better evidence, ''don’t plump for the outlier''.
@@ Line 43: / Line 43: @@
 Squirrelling useless bits and bobs away is ''not especially unusual behaviour''. One does not need to be mentally ill to do it.<ref>With that said, up to 6% of the US population have a diagnosable “hoarding disorder” according to the American Psychiatric Association’s {{pl|https://www.psychiatry.org/psychiatrists/practice/dsm|Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders}}, 5th Ed. So, even an undiagnosed psychiatric hoarding condition would be orders of magnitude more likely than this being “serial killer trophy collecting”.</ref> Mrs. Contrarian does it.<ref>I make no insinuations about Mrs. C’s mental health, but she did marry me.</ref> Furthermore, staff taking handover notes home does not seem to have been especially unusual behaviour, either. It seems to have been {{pl|http://cheshire-live.co.uk/news/patient-notes-countess-chester-hospital-6128424|a perennial problem at the Countess of Chester Hospital}}.
-All the same, it is not “best practice”. It requires explanation.
+All the same, it is not “best practice”. It requires an explanation.
 But rather than starting, as the Crown seems to have, with the hypothesis “this means serial murder” and working backwards, the right starting place is to ask this question.
-{{quote|
+{{quote|“This is odd behaviour. What could explain this? Is this the sort of thing a person who was ''not'' a murderer might do?”}}
-“We have evidence of odd behaviour. What could explain this? Is this the sort of thing a person who was ''not'' a murderer might do?”}}
 Given how rare [[healthcare serial murder]]s are, you should only ask, “is this cogent evidence of serial murder?” if you have answered, firmly, “no” to that starting question.
-But let’s say we ''had'' answered, “no”. Is this odd behaviour this cogent evidence of serial murder? [[Consistent with]] it? Does it map to Mr. Johnson’s theory about spell-checking?
+Let’s say we ''had'' answered, “No” to that starting question.
-It doesn’t, really.
+Even so, is this behaviour cogent evidence of serial murder? It is even “[[consistent with]]” it? Does it map to Mr. Johnson’s theory about spell-checking?
-For one thing, the 257 notes spanned Ms Letby’s whole career, not just the suspect period. Fewer than 1 per cent of them related to victims of Ms. Letby’s alleged crimes.<ref>Just 21 of the 257 handover sheets related to victims with which she was charged at all, let alone “critical shifts”.
+It ''doesn’t'', really. For one thing, the 257 sheets spanned Ms. Letby’s whole career. Fewer than ''ten per cent'' related to victims of the alleged crimes.<ref>Just 21 of the 257 handover sheets related to victims with which she was charged at all, let alone “critical shifts”.
-</ref> How were ''they'' going to help her spell her Facebook searches? What would ''they'' be “trophies” of?
+</ref> How were ''they'' going to help her spell her Facebook searches? What would ''they'' be “trophies” of? At least three of the victims were not represented in the handover notes at all.<ref>{{pl|https://www.chesterstandard.co.uk/news/23613176.recap-lucy-letby-trial-june-26---defence-closing-speech/|Recap: Lucy Letby trial, June 26 - defence closing speech.}} Chester Standard, June 26, 2023. I am indebted to fellow [[Poundshop Poirot]] {{pl|https://x.com/DebbieKennett|Debbie Kennett}} for pointing this out.</ref> How was she going to spell ''those'' names?
 ====Serial killer trophies?====
-{{drop|T|he Crown may}} not have formally advanced the “trophies” line, but is it fair anyway? Look, I am not a serial murderer, so I am not well placed to say, but ride with me a while: ''a shoebox full of your own scribbled notes seems an odd serial killer trophy''. Doesn’t it? The internet tells us:
+{{drop|T|he Crown may}} not have formally advanced the “trophies” line, but is it fair anyway? I am not — promise — a serial murderer, so I am not well placed to say, but ride with me a while: ''a shoebox full of your own scribbled notes seems an odd serial killer trophy''. Doesn’t it? The internet tells us:
 {{quote|
-Serial killers may take “trophies” as souvenirs or keepsakes from their victims or as a way of remembering to maintain a sense of control over their victims.}}
+Serial killers may take “trophies” as souvenirs or keepsakes from their victims or as a way of remembering, or to maintain a sense of control over their victims.}}
-But in this way, as in so many others, Ms. Letby just thumbs her nose at what is expected of a self-respecting psychopathic killer.
+But in this way, as in so many others, Ms. Letby thumbs her nose at what is expected of a self-respecting psychopathic killer.
 The literature says the most common trophies are underwear or hair. Ed “Leatherface” Gein made furniture and suits out of his victims. Some, such as Jack the Ripper, Charles Albright, Stanley Baker, Jeffrey Dahmer, Alex Mengel and Dennis Nilsen kept severed body parts. Others took jewellery, driver’s licences and personal effects. One took a library card. But all took things that, in some way or another, ''belonged'' to or personified the victim and signified her control and possession of things in the world. These were trophies of conquest: of deprivation of that control.
@@ Line 69: / Line 68: @@
 So what about your own scribbled handover sheets, which you made yourself, had in your bag anyway, and were never in the victim’s control? As trophies these seem — well, a bit ''beige'', don’t they?
-But, look: ok. Let’s go with these handover sheets as potential serial killer trophies. Clearly, they might, also, ''not'' be. It could be an accident: it could be sloppiness. (Nurses on the internet are ferociously divided: some say it would be ''unthinkable'', ever, to take so much as an annotated lunch ticket off the ward. Others claim to pull sheaves of the things out of their smocks each day before putting the wash on.) It certainly seems ''precendented'': it happened often enough at the very same Countess of Chester Hospital {{pl|http://cheshire-live.co.uk/news/patient-notes-countess-chester-hospital-6128424|to make the papers independently}}.
+But, look: ok. Let’s go with these handover sheets as ''potential'' serial killer trophies. Clearly, they might, also, ''not'' be. It could be an accident: it could be sloppiness. (Nurses online are ferociously divided: some say it would be ''unthinkable'' to take so much as an annotated lunch ticket off the ward. Others claim to pull sheaves of the things out of their smocks each day before putting the wash on.)
-So for now, let us give Ms. Letby the benefit of the doubt and allow that, in itself, it might denote behaviour that is merely sloppy, or even within the Overton window of normalcy.
+It certainly seems ''precedented'': in 2013, it happened often enough at the Countess of Chester Hospital {{pl|http://cheshire-live.co.uk/news/patient-notes-countess-chester-hospital-6128424|to make the local paper}}.
+So for now, let us give Ms. Letby the benefit of the doubt and allow that, in itself, this might denote behaviour that is merely sloppy, or even within the Overton window of normalcy.
 Are there some other filters we might apply to this trove of sheets to bump up the inferential likelihood of evil?
@@ Line 77: / Line 78: @@
 There are.
-One is the ''subject matter of the sheets''. If they all relate to victims, and only victims, then, hello: ''that'' seems a bit more fishy. handover sheets about random shifts on which nothing much happened don’t seem especially emblematic of anything.
+One is the ''subject matter of the sheets''. If they all relate to victims, and only victims, then, hello: ''that'' seems a bit more fishy. Handover sheets about random shifts from five years previously on which nothing much happened don’t seem especially emblematic of anything. But  a tightly curated set, matching, and restricted to, the 25 episodes set out on the charge sheet? ''That'' might tell us something.
+So let us look: we have the evidence. What does it tell us?
+''Not that''.
+Sure: some ''do'' relate to victims. We do not know whether they relate to specific shifts on which collapses occurred, but it seems reasonable to suppose that, if they ''did'',  the Crown would be all over that fact in its summing up. It was not. But literally ninety percent of these sheets had nothing to do with any suspicious event.
-To be sure, some do relate to victims. We are not told whether they relate to specific shifts on which collapses occurred, but it seems reasonable to suppose that, if they ''did'',  the Crown would be all over that fact in its summing up. It was not.
+The best explanation for those?
+{{Quote|Letby says she has difficulty throwing things away.}}
 {{sa}}
 {{letby sa}}
 {{ref}}