Lucy Letby: the handover notes: Difference between revisions

(4 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)

Line 1:

{{a|letby|{{audio|lucy-letby-the-handover-notes|}}{{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.

{{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 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.

Line 54:

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?

It ''doesn’t'', really. For one thing, the 257 sheets spanned Ms. Letby’s whole career. Fewer than ''~~one~~ 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”.

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?====

Line 84:

''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~~-nine~~ percent of these sheets had nothing to do with any suspicious event.

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.

The best explanation for those?

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-{{a|letby|{{audio|lucy-letby-the-handover-notes|}}{{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.
+{{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 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.
@@ Line 54: / Line 54: @@
 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?
-It ''doesn’t'', really. For one thing, the 257 sheets spanned Ms. Letby’s whole career. Fewer than ''one 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”.
+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?====
@@ Line 84: / Line 84: @@
 ''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-nine percent of these sheets had nothing to do with any suspicious event.
+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.
 The best explanation for those?