The evidence against Lucy Letby is so obviously flimsy that the Appeal Court’s decision to deny her leave to appeal makes Britain’s judicial system appear rotten to the core. The reality is more complex: while Letby’s trials have highlighted serious questions about our whole system of justice, it must also be acknowledged that there have been cases in the past involving multiple baby deaths or collapses in which meticulous and carefully reasoned judgments show an admirable and responsible exercise of judicial authority. The truly appalling thing about the Lucy Letby case, once it reached the Court of Appeal, has been the way in which these vital precedents have been disregarded by judges Sharpe, Holroyde and Lambert.
The single most important judgment that the Appeal Court discounted was the successful appeal of Angela Cannings ([2004] EWCA Crim 01). Three of Mrs Cannings’s babies had died and there had been a further two, or possibly three, acute episodes in which the babies had apparently come close to death. In quashing her (two) murder convictions, judges Judge, Rafferty and Pitchers set out a principled framework for how to investigate such cases. This framework recognised the limits of what could be known in instances where suspicion had been aroused by the lack of a definite explanation for how babies had died, rather than because of direct evidence of harm. The judges also warned of the pitfalls of an alternative framework, one that viewed repeated baby deaths as evidence enough of a crime and, driven by this assumption, tended to view anything and everything as evidence confirming this. This framework raised the “dreadful possibility” of imprisoning innocent people for murder (para 179).
To understand the broader context of the Cannings case, it is necessary to take a step back to the 1980s when Dr. David Southall showed conclusively — by secretly filming them — that mothers sometimes deliberately harmed their own babies. Professor Sir Roy Meadow had classified such behaviour with the baroque label “Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy”. The work of Southall and Meadow had a powerful impact on U.K. paediatricians. It gave them a new role; not only were they doctors, but they were now detectives. Further, in the realisation that such assaults undoubtedly occurred, it was a short step to ask how many ‘cot deaths’ were deliberately caused by the mother out of sight at home. A line of reasoning developed amongst paediatricians that where a baby died unexpectedly, with no apparent natural cause, there was a distinct possibility that this was due to deliberate harm, probably inflicted by the mother. Given this reasoning, it seemed to follow that if unexpected deaths happened repeatedly in the same family, then the case for deliberate harm was more or less proved. Using reasoning of this type, in 1998 Sally Clark had been convicted of murdering her two baby sons. In 2003, however, she was released after evidence came to light that showed infection as a possible cause of death for one of the babies.
This was the background against which the Appeal Court judges decided to free Mrs Cannings. They argued that although a natural cause of death in a baby might not be identified it might well exist, and that when baby siblings died, sharing the same genes they might well share the same fatal vulnerabilities. In the details of its judgment, the Court of Appeal cited both medical literature and expert witnesses at the trial to demonstrate that these views conformed to a substantial body of medical opinion which stressed much was unknown about sudden infant death, and that genetic factors could link sibling deaths.
The judges also criticised a rival point of view, widespread amongst paediatricians, that on the basis of repeated unexplained baby deaths, they could infer, with a fair degree of certainty, that someone was killing them. This criticism was shared by at least two of the expert witnesses at the trial. One had described it as “current dogma” (para 18) and a second as “a fashion nowadays” (para 20) that when there was more than one sudden infant death in a family for which a natural explanation could not be demonstrated, this in itself was seen as enough to establish an unnatural cause, and further one that was very probably deliberate harm. The comment of the Appeal Court was that “if that is the fashion, it must now cease” (para 20).
The judges did not suggest that it was wrong to be suspicious in cases where multiple babies had died in a family. On the contrary, they stated that it was right and proper. However, they warned that without positive evidence of harm, it should not be assumed that any crime had been committed. It was wrong, therefore, to take as a starting point the reasoning that three unexplained fatalities provided “a very powerful inference that the deaths must have resulted from deliberate harm” (para10). Once this faulty stance was taken, “the route to a finding of guilt is wide open. Almost any other piece of evidence can reasonably be interpreted to fit this conclusion” (para 11). Thus, the judges explained how anything done by a mother in her grief might be interpreted as not normal and showing that she was the culprit.
In their detailed review of the evidence given at Cannings’s trial, the Appeal Court judges implied that fitting the evidence to predetermined guilt was not confined to putting damning interpretations on the behaviour of the mother, but extended to presentation of some of the medical evidence. In particular, the judges pointed to unqualified assertions by Professor Meadow that the suddenness of a death or a collapse was exceptional, and so tended to rule out natural explanations. This evidence, the judges said, ought to have been tempered by findings in the medical literature that it was not uncommon for infants to appear well until shortly before death (paras 150-52). Such one-sided evidence could be contrasted with more balanced evidence given by some of the other medical experts at the trial, evidence that acknowledged uncertainties. For example, a common symptom, bleeding, which was found in the lungs of one of the babies, was described as possibly having natural or accidental causes (para 70).
With tragic foresight, the judges in the Cannings case predicted exactly what would happen if their warnings were ignored. In the lucy Letby case, their warnings were ignored and the way of thinking that they had criticised was applied in the most extreme and least justified of ways. The “dogma” or “fashion” amongst paediatricians that a series of unexplained deaths meant foul play, and that they could act the part of detective with a prime suspect, had not ceased; at the Countess of Chester Hospital, it was still very much in place. The framework that the Appeal Court had condemned was adapted to a nurse in an intensive care unit: there had been three deaths, they were unexplained, so someone had killed them. The frame was a little clumsy; Letby was not a mother and the babies were not being cared for at home, out of view but in apparent good health; they were premature and in a busy ICU, but no matter. After the first three deaths, all in June of 2015, Letby was put into the frame, and once there, everything she did was interpreted accordingly. Her most innocent actions, such as sending a sympathy card to bereaved parents, were given sinister explanations. And as further collapses and deaths occurred, it was decided that even though she had been seen to do nothing, she must have done it. This insistence that everything was down to Letby exposed a further clumsy feature of the frame she had been placed in; the deaths and collapses that were being attributed to her were, by and large, explained. To make them “unexplained” and hence make them fit the frame, the accusing doctors ruled out natural explanations for deaths or collapses that they themselves had made (such as NEC in the death of Baby E), as well as those found in the coroner’s reports.
The experts at Letby’s trial also placed her in the frame that the Appeal Court had warned against in Cannings. They presented one-sided accounts of the evidence rather than recognising uncertainties. Letby was said to have killed twins and triplets, but the possibility that genetic factors might link their deaths by natural causes was not acknowledged. Common symptoms, like the presence of air or of bleeding, that might have any number of natural and accidental causes, were said to be evidence only of deliberate harm. Fragile neonates were described as doing well, almost as if they were healthy full-term babies. The apparent suddenness with which they collapsed was not acknowledged as a common occurrence but said to be strong evidence of deliberate harm.
The Appeal Court judges in the Letby case were invited by Letby’s defence to consider this earlier case with its many remarkable parallels and with the principles it contained, but they took no notice of it and turned down her leave to appeal. This confirmed the final words of the judges in the Cannings case, that unless their warnings were heeded, a potentially innocent woman might end up imprisoned for life when “she should not be there at all”. “In our community, and in any civilised community,” the judges concluded, “that is abhorrent.”
Dr. Peter Hayes was for many years a Senior Lecturer in Politics at Sunderland University. With academic research interests cutting across medicine and law, he authored numerous publications in both medical and legal journals.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
critique the government and get cancelled, this is respecting democracy how?
Yup it is open for a wide range of interpretation. Just like the (abuse of) Public Health Act 1984.
Those reasons include: “the interests of national security”, furthering the “foreign policy objectives of the Government”, promoting “compliance with international humanitarian law”, promoting “respect for democracy, the rule of law and good governance” and “for the purposes of compliance with a UN obligation”.
Just which of the above have the British government complied with these last two and half years?
Ok, perhaps “compliance with a UN obligation” – no surprise there.
As I keep repeating, switch any government pronouncements completely and you will be closer to the truth.
“respect for democracy and the rule of law?” – oh do ferk off you lying barstewards.
Tyrants throughout the ages use essentially the same language, and they share the same hypocrisy: “national security” means their security; “humanitarian” means anything they like.
But the outright and unabashed lying comes out with “respect for democracy, the rule of law and good governance”. Who, in their right mind, believes this? Are they laughing at us?
Sadly AE I believe the wannabee powers that be are now emboldened by the ease with which they have beaten down and infantilised the Western populations. So yes, they are laughing at us.
Yes – I think that’s the great danger we face.
People were beaten down and infantilised with an ease I think most of us here found shocking, but that tyrants (big and small) found enthralling.
We saw an explosion of self-righteous bullying. There are people who love their new normal, and they serve as the troops on the ground and the thought police.
The tyrants they serve will now push until we resist. We have to have our red line, and fight this – or abandon lives worth living.
Who will ever forget MattHancock laughing at us along with Piers Morgan? The problem with these people is they never learned or understood history.
“compliance with a UN obligation” is perhaps the most disturbing.
If the Paris Climate Accord is a UN obligation is the government now calling for any website that contains anything that could be classed as promoting a climate sceptic view to be blocked?
Somebody should invent and launch “Internet v2”, a place where none of this bollocks ever applies
It’s being done right now.
the Russia situation is being used in the UK as the patriot act is being used in the US, the patriot act was sold as a temp measure in 2001 after 9/11, its still on the books 21 yrs later. Same here, use the current situation to force through vague laws and regulations and then use them however you like.
“And who is a “designated person”? It is simply somebody designated by the Secretary of State as being on the Russia sanctions list”.
imagine how that will work in say “election time” “oh look, this info that we don’t like is coming from erm, russia, better block it”
Russia interfered in the elections, look 49 people from the CIA said Biden’s laptop is Russian misinformation…
Tell me, Boris, is the pandemic treaty a step towards World Government?
https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/tell-me-boris-is-the-pandemic-treaty-a-step-towards-world-government/
Dr Deborah Ancell
Stand for freedom with our Yellow Boards By The Road next events
Saturday 28th May 3pm to 5pm
Yellow Boards LONDON
Junction Buckingham Palace Road/Victoria St,
London SW1E 5LB
Stand in the Park Sundays from 10am – make friends & keep sane
Wokingham
Howard Palmer Gardens
Sturges Rd RG40 2HD
Bracknell
South Hill Park, Rear Lawn, RG12 7PA
Telegram http://t.me/astandintheparkbracknell
I’m certainly noticing ‘access denied’ on an increasing number of sites.
TCW Conservative Woman is still being blocked by Three 4G, after 2 weeks.
I hope LS stays with this, just at GB News is also exposing this silent insurrection.
Perhaps DS.org could earn money suggesting a VPN supplier to work around state censorship?
just use the Opera browser – it has a built in, free VPN
It’s not a full VPN and records your activity.
I use Private Internet Access (PIA) https://tinyurl.com/y357tyr6
Importantly, it does not hold records of your internet activity as many do, so it can never be compelled to hand them over.
It’s also dead easy to use and almost invisible.
Snap. And I use for the same reasons.
All I’d add is PIA makes it easy to switch locales. If for some reason you need pretend to be in Luxembourg you can do so. Or Ukraine, lol.
Another advantage of Opera is that it was designed with security in mind – so all the defaults are set high…
Surprised GBNews hasn’t got Ofcomcensored for this!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iExn7ogxWrs
Research suggests mRNA all-cause mortality rate is higher: Professor Christine Stabell Benn explains
The same government banning websites on the grounds of national security are welcoming in hoards of foreign nationals whom we know nothing about. Except the origins of those immigrants and the volumes means few will integrate in any meaningful way. A significant threat to national cohesion never mind national security.
Our world is a farce.
we know most of them are lying!
mangled after speelcheque
“Except the origins of those immigrants”
Most migrants are lying about origin, age and status. As soon as they get the paperwork, they often return home. Often the place they claimed they were at risk if they had not left.
I meant in the broader, cultural sense. As in, not like us. There is no greater longterm threat to our ability to hold the nation together.
And not enough return home.
I think some lads should Get together and descend on that Yorkshire village. Democracy is dead. I saw the GB News interview. If the villagers just get ignored in Parliament, well, there needs to be ‘other’ methods.
If you ‘get together’ the military will be called in to suppress a ‘right-wing terrorist plot’,,,,
If there is anyone out there who resents HM “government” censorship.
Yandex. Good luck censoring that.
I’d never heard of it before the delightful Liz Truss caused me to look.
We can expect to see the WWF (World Wildlife Fund) added to this list for torture, murder and gun running can we?
Translation note for Brits: when Tucker talks about “liberals” he means leftists, not anti-authoritarians, and NPR is a bit like the BBC. When he talks about “the American middle class” he’s talking about what we would probably term working and lower middle classes.
Tucker: This should make you nervous
watch Mary Poppins.
The middle classes could afford to employ full time servants…
Using this “formula” How many people are middle class nowadays?
very few.
While the everyone is distracted by daily life, our governments grab power that allows it to act arbitrarily against us.
It’s been happening for a long time. Now it’s just getting very creepy, because there is barely any self restraint any more.
In that sense the government reflects the people. Very little restraint there either.
People are voluntarily distracted. I’ve tried to discuss the basics of covid responses and vaccines with people around me. Total indifference.
Most people hate thinking. They’ll happily outsource it.
Maajid Nawas…Permium meat is Wagyu. The cow is pampered until it is slaughtered. If you see but cannot perceive, step aside so that those that are awake may fight this enemy for you.
That is why right now in the US, despite that horrible shooting, they need to defend their 2nd amendment. Biden would be only too happy to part people with Arms. Then, Canada or Shanghai here we come.
US citizens do need to defend the 2nd amendment, otherwise, if that can be altered then so can the rest of the constitution. You can imagine the politicians like biden going, “well you don’t need the first amendment, whats that? yes I would be quite happy to get rid of the 4th amendment” etc etc.
“…promoting “respect for democracy, the rule of law and good governance”
By that token, the websites and social media of virtually every politician in the country would be blocked
Unlike in WW2, when the British government decided NOT to ban Lord Haw-Haw because doing so would make a mockery of Britain’s commitment to democratic principles. The Nazis, on the other hand, banned Germans from listening to BBC & US broadcasts and penalties were severe. My parents told me the family would just laugh when they tuned into Lord Haw-Haw before retuning to the BBC.
And what about the BBC? This quote from an article in The Conversation (written by the excellent Tim Luckhurst from Durham University): “The solution was not censorship but a determined effort to raise the entertainment value of BBC radio. Lord Haw-Haw played a part in shifting the BBC away from its policy of ignoring popular preferences to an understanding that “the barometer of listeners’ preferences” should help to define its output.”
I fell about laughing. The BBC in its current awful form could learn a lot from history!
Like the main political parties, the BBC has long since been hijacked. They still have to maintain appearances and pretend these institutions are fans of democracy and balance. But not for much longer.
The same kinds of people run the schools and the kids are being conditioned to reject democratic norms like free speech.
Look at the universities for what our future will look like. Fewer statues, less free speech, the condemnation of anyone who challenges orthodoxy. There is an authoritarian generation coming who will embrace slavery for themselves and us all.
I agree that these regulations are excessively censoring and restrictive. On the other hand they are being imposed extremely laxly, it is very easy to stream RT in the UK.
Most importantly they bear no relationship whatsoever to the level of extreme state-enforced silencing which takes place in e.g. Russia itself, including imprisonment for up to fifteen years for even questioning the invasion of Ukraine; and a long and extensive history of both internment and assassinations of any major dissenting political or journalistic figures.
It is vitally important to recognise the benefits of liberal democracy (which includes the right to challenge and ultimately overthrow these current restrictions) rather than let them fall by default.
Well I suppose that’s a “liberal” interpretation of the onslaught of tyranny.
One of the main propagandist tools that genuinely tyrannical ideologies and agendas use to undermine then overthrow multi-party liberal democracy is to claim that the proclaimed benefits are a sham, that there is no genuine freedom, voting is pointless due to actual control by unelected ‘elites’ etc.
So do you believe that there is more or less freedom of speech, democratic control, freedom from oppression (including threat of imprisonment or worse for expressing political views) in the UK or Russia?
If the latter please point me to the equivalent of this site based in the Russian Federation (just by way of example).
They’ll get their comeuppance when we get a Labour government and they block the Tory party for being “far right”.
‘UN Obligation…’
This would be the same UN that has China and Russia as permanent members of the Security Council and threw out founding member Taiwan?
And exactly how are they going to prevent me from logging into my vpn, typing ‘rt.com’ and reading Russia Today? I did just that a few seconds ago and there was no problem at all. Incidentally, I didn’t spend much time on the site but whilst I was there saw nothing that was blatant propaganda or any ‘anti Ukrainian rants’.
it’s a bit annoying that RT aren’t obviously biased … when the Biased Brainwashing Cult is.
Basically my whole conceptual model of a biased USSR media and “impartial honest” BBC, has now been totally turned on its head.
Give it a couple of months and the only thing available online will be the BBC showing Boris’ latest pandemic declaration on loop and youtube kitten videos.
RT is available through Rumble:
https://rumble.com/user/RTnews
However, it’s not exactly the most thrilling read and I am hoping the UK government stop behaving like spoilt children and grow up, so I don’t have to keep watching it … although to be truthful there’s the odd article on some obscure subject that usually grabs my attention.
Quis custodiet diet ipsos custodes?
Stop pussy footing around: our goverment and opposition, entire political/media/ngo/quango class are fascists. This has been evolving since 1997. Go read my old stuff about internet censorship on commentisfree.
So fascistic that you can freely publish unlimited amounts of material calling them fascists…
Have you ever tried doing the same thing in Russia or China?
We should hear the Russian view of what is happening in Ukraine and Russia. We should be making more effort to make our view of those things heard in Russia. The Russian people are not in favour of Putin’s despotic behavior but they only hear about it from his side, so how can we blame them for supporting the way he is indescriminatedly killing people, because they don’t believe it is happening. We should not discriminate against people just because they are Russian. If Russians come here or other western countries, they will have the opportunity to hear both sides of the situation and balance both sides propaganda output.
This is truly shocking. Thanks goodness for VPN connections. Most don’t have them though and will just assume the sites are dead. This is really, really bad.