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.
Now I understand the current war the current Dutch government is waging on farmers, a war which unfortunately seems to be gaining allies across the world.
Our mega-clever leaders wish to prepare us for the dire prospect of losing a great deal of global food production due to climate change by 2100, by eliminating as much of global food production as they can by 2030… A most cunning plan. Cull hundreds of millions to save – well, if the corona response is anything to go by, to save no one.
Some people might say the better plan would be to make plans for areas that are predicted to be subject to extreme weather to better help them deal with droughts, heat, cold, floods, whatever. Sort of like we should have simply treated sick people suffering from a virus-indiced illness rather than trying to prevent it altogether.
Yes, preparing for any changes to climate that might occur would be 100 times cheaper than NET ZERO and removing fossil fuels. But I think we have to remember that “Climate Change” isn’t really about the climate. Climate Change is simply the excuse for the Eco Socialism. It is the excuse for “Sustainable Development” (A world run by technocrats, controlling the worlds wealth and resources and the global economy). PS There are not really any “predictions” about future climate. There are “projections” from climate models full of assumptions and speculations that don’t even include many of the climate parameters, because they are either poorly understood or not known at all.
Every scientist who remains silent in the face of these ludicrous, laughable, nonsense predictions of doom and gloom is complicit in causing poverty, immiseration and mental distress. There is no excuse that bears any scrutiny. They are self-serving cowards, more concerned with their own precious careers than their responsibility to be decent, honest human beings.
I expect deceit and lies from politicians and journalists, for the truth is not in them, but those that claim to be scientists who still go along with this fantastical, groundless soothsaying deserve a special place in hell.
But there has always been this symbiotic relationship between government and scientists. Today more than ever before though science has been corrupted for political purposes. Scientists are like any other group of people with families to feed and mortgages to pay. If government want to pay them good money to look for purple horses then it is very hard for them to quickly report back that there are NONE . ———They might decide to hedge their integrity with phrases like “The likelyhood of there being purple horses is not inconsistent with our studies”. That way the government get to say they are following the science and the scientists get to say they haven’t told porkies.
“pay them good money” is more accurately described as “waste hard earned taxpayers money”
Yes “hard earned taxpayers money”. But it was good money till the government decided to splash it about like confetti in support of anything remotely they think will help them pretend to save the planet.
If you want the names of the guilty, look no further than the celebrity scientists on TV.
If there was a climate emergency, don’t you think that all these ULEZ, CAZ and LEZs would not be based on paying a fee but on stopping all vehicles that do not meet emissions levels from entering? I, in my trusty old 16 years old diesel can drive happily into any urban centre, spouting my noxious fumes, IF I pay a fee. Likewise, don’t you think that housing estate developers would be forced to include solar panels, wind turbines, triple glazing, EV charging units etc on all their new builds? They aren’t. With rising sea levels predicted, wouldn’t people like Obama, Gore, Gates et al not be buying sea front homes? They are. Also, with air traffic one of the big emitters, wouldn’t all the same lot be leading by example and doing their G7 meetings via zoom? They aren’t. And these are just a few of the examples of the utter hypocrisy that lies at the heart of this fake emergency. Let’s look at what the emergency entails:
No more gas boilers
Less meat
Less farms
More EVs (with their dirty lithium batteries prone to catching fire)
More restrictions in driving
Phasing out of petrol and diesel cars
Phasing out or ban on woodburners
etc etc
And for Absolute Zero (which sounds like a vodka and maybe you need a stiff one to read the following):
No more flying
No more ships
No meat
No gas/fuel
No driving
etc etc
All this for what? Emissions of a gas that is at 400 parts per million, a gas that is plant food. This is not only a massive hoax, it is criminal. The mobsters who pass themselves off as bankers, politicians, judiciary, media…all of them fan the flames of this criminality. Most people would call you and me conspiracy theorists or some label or other. It’s just their way of shutting down debate because they know that in a debate they would lose. If ever the snoozing masses wake up to this and realise they’re prisoners on day release and not free and about to be locked up in zones while the globalists slowly kill us off, this would end.
Agreed – but it’s fewer farms not less.
I know, Epi, I wrote it in haste though.
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-51281986
Frim 29th Jan 2020
By Matt McGrath
Environment correspondent
The worst-case scenario for emissions of CO2 this century is no longer plausible, say researchers.
Proponents of climate change and climate policies in government, media and the useful idiot class that glue themselves to things think that climate change is a purely black and white issue. They think it is an issue where you either agree it is happening or you don’t agree (in other words you are a climate denier). To these people there is no in-between the black and white. So when a person asks any kind of question or points out any kind of discrepancy or inaccuracy in some claim about the climate then that must mean they are a “denier”. ———– But isn’t the issue of climate change not supposed to be about science? ——-In science isn’t it the case that scepticism is the highest calling and blind faith the one unpardonable sin? ——–YES. —— So, when science cannot be challenged, because it has simply been declared as ultimate truth and when that science cannot be falsified and there is no way to disprove those scientific claims, then actually we are not really dealing in science anymore. We are dealing in Politics and dogma. We are dealing in “Official Science” that exists for one reason only. ——-To provide the excuse for public policy.——- This “Official Science” that cannot be challenged and which cannot be falsified is the science that supports the Politics of “Sustainable Development”. Without that science, the whole Sustainable Development agenda collapses. So, this is why there can be no discussion, no questions, no expressions of doubt, no indication that maybe there are uncertainties that could use further investigation. But we do not live in a scientific dictatorship. Truth cannot simply be declared by government funded data adjusters, where if they torture the data for long enough it will confess to anything. If they do try to torture data for political purposes then along should come all the Investigative Journalists to expose their shenanigans, but the horror is confounded when we discover that vast swathes of the media supposed to be doing the investigating have simply morphed into climate activists (BBC, SKY NEWS, CNN, Independent, Guardian, New York Times etc etc.. ———We are reminded on TV News nearly every day of the “Climate Emergency”. But where is this emergency? Are storms floods and droughts getting more intense and more frequent? ———Eh NO. They aren’t ——-If someone asks me if there are such things as pillar boxes I can say yes there are, because I have seen them. I have posted letters in them so I know they exist. I have NOT seen a “Climate Emergency” despite the fact that I am continually reminded there is one. It turns out that the emergency exists in only one place —Climate Models. How have we got to a place where 40% of young people don’t want to have children because they fear for the future of the planet? The answer is that propaganda is a very powerful tool which is why governments love using it. They know it works.
Governments are shameless we know. But taking on Goebbels views on the ‘Big Lie’ is the worst of all their crimes.
Please watch Geoengineeringwatch.com. Those chem trails we see EVERY SINGLE day in the UK and around the world, but choose to ignore, are manipulating the weather. And not in a good way.
If you read it, the Washington Post article seems to be more of a discussion of climate change and turbulence than some kind of alarm.
For example, having explained why rising temperatures can increase turbulence, it writes:
But that doesn’t necessarily mean flight turbulence is becoming more common …. Airlines have taken measures to minimize or avoid bumpy air, including through improved forecasting of atmospheric turbulence.
In fact the article makes no predictions at all, much less doom-laden predictions. Yes it refers to Paul Williams but not to the paper that Chris links to. Chris links to a paper first published in 2017 about modelling turbulence. However, the WP article only refers to a 2019 paper providing data on what has been happening on the North Atlantic route (presumably this is the paper it is referring to).
Also amused to see this from Chris:
Apart from small upticks in warmth due to powerful and natural El Nino events, the recent warming is barely measurable within any reasonable margin of error.
Whenever Chris talks about the pause I assume he is referring to Spencer and Christie’s UAH record. There are of course many other global temperature records but even the UAH record looks very much like a rise (and Spencer and Christie don’t deny it). However, allowing for El Nino years is, I think, new. Can we equally allow for the La Nina which has suppressed global temperatures for the last three years?
Yes, but just because something warms does not mean humans warmed it.— Over the last hundred or so years official temperature records seem to indicate warming and cooling periods. There was cooling from 1940-76, slight warming from 76-98 and statistically not much since then despite more CO2 going into the atmosphere. Even the IPCC admit they cannot tell the difference between natural variability of the climate and changes allegedly caused by humans. They also recently admitted that their worst case scenarios are very unlikely to occur, which kind of eliminates the need for “climate crisis” kind of talk. ————— The temperature record of earth though has been fiddled about with more than a hookers knickers. So as Judith Curry has said “Sure, all things being equal, CO2 may cause a little bit of warming, but all things in earth’s climate are not equal”. ——-A little bit of warming is not a “crisis”
Climate change crisis is the biggest Cash Cow in the history of the world. Tens of thousands of scientists and academics rely on this for funding. There is 1 thing driving and maintaining this and it is western governments cash! Until that stops this will continue.
Is public trust in science really being undermined? If so, this article may explain why, but does not show that it is so. Its headline is misleading.
I *suspect* that the current state of science is such that no-one really knows how the climate might change, or what factors might change it. But that is just me, not the public.
Science is not about consensus or trust. What we are witnessing is an utter failure of the education system to prepare people to live in a technically advanced society. I suspect this is deliberate. An educated population ask too many questions.
The humanity-caused climate change industry is very lucrative for some.
They will try their best to keep the money flowing to them.