Lucy Letby: the handover notes

Crime & Punishment Lucy Letby Edition →This page on the premium JC Index: Click ᐅ to expand: Lucy Letby Criminal law Tell me more Sign up for our newsletter — or just get in touch: for ½ a weekly 🍺 you get to consult JC. Ask about it here.

I’ve read the [New Yorker] article 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.

—“Lucy Letby Conspiracy Theorists are Wrong”, Liz Hull, Daily Mail, July 5, 2024.

Serial killer trophies

It was alleged — strictly speaking, it is alleged that it was alleged — 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:

[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.

Now — look, I am not a serial murderer, so I really wouldn’t know, but ride with me a while — a shoebox full of your own scribbled notes seems an odd serial killer trophy. Doesn’t it?

Serial killers may take trophies, the internet tells us, as souvenirs or keepsakes from their victims or as a way of remembering to maintain a sense of control over their victims.

But in this way, as in so many respects, Ms. Letby just thumbs her nose at what is expected of her as 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.

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 to make the papers independently.

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.

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

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.

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. Of the handover sheets, Mr Johnson KC said:

I’m not going to spend a lot of your time looking at Lucy Letby’s notes. There are more important things in this case.

Later, on day 2 of his summing up, Mr Johnson KC said:

I want to start — I’m not going to deal in great detail with these jottings. I’ll start with Exhibit 15, which is the handover sheet of Baby P] and [Baby O].

Lucy Letby suggested that she took this home deliberately to rely on it as an aide-memoire when writing up the drugs on her following shift. But when you look at page 2, which shows the back of this document, the only drug you will see recorded on that sheet is caffeine. So Lucy Letby’s explanation is not true.

Why is she not prepared to tell you the true reason?

It can’t be because it helps her, can it? We suggest that the handover sheets are capable of informing you of her unhealthy interest in some of these children.

Whether directly, as in the case of [Baby M] for example, or indirectly, as in the case of [Baby G], for example, whose handover sheet would have been a very useful reminder of how to spell her mother’s French name when conducting a covert Facebook search.

And when determining or considering Lucy Letby’s credibility, her believability generally, we encourage you to think about these things. First, her claim that her collection of handover sheets, acquired over years and retained through multiple house moves, was simply a consequence of her tendency to collect paper.

Second, her assertion that they were stored confidentially, her inconsistent assertions about owning a shredder and whether or not students receive handover sheets. Third, her assertion that the word “keep” written on the side of the shredder box at her parents’ house referred to the shredder rather than the handover sheets that were in the box.

And fourthly, her assertion that documents containing sensitive information about dead babies were, to use her word, insignificant.

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.

We can see, the Crown did not really lean into the “murder trophy” argument. Indeed, it did not even mention it. It presented Ms. Letby’s explanations for having the handover sheets as evidence of her disingenuity. Mr Johnson thought the sheets were all somehow hinky, but did not offer a theory for why Ms Letby kept them. The best he can do is venture that it would help her spell a French surname for a covert Facebook search.

He didn’t like the explanation that she was a “magpie” — but, well, we’re back to our old friend base rates: American Psychiatric Association’s DSM-5 classifies “hoarding disorder” — which this was nothing like — as affecting 2-6% of the population. That is quite a bit more likely an explanation than “serial murder trophy”.

As back-pedals go, “spellchecker” is quite climbdown from “serial killer trophy”. As a hypothesis seems extraordinarily weak. And the bigger picture suggests why: the 257 handover sheets found in her possession spanned not the 15 months of the charges, but her whole career, and just 21 of them — fewer than 1 per cent. — related to victims of the alleged crimes with which she was charged at all, let alone “critical shifts”.