Lord Sumption thinks she is innocent, and in any case that the trial was unsafe
There is a significant groundswell of opinion that the trial was unsafe - notably one of the doctors may have lied to the court (his evidence in the trial is at odds with emails from the time of the events).
Interesting piece in Private Eye (where MD has been following developments). Main takeaway is that both sets of expert on deaths in these cases cannot both be right. If it wasn't so serious it would be an amusing watch.
There is a significant groundswell of opinion that UFOs are real. Fortunately, we have court cases to make determinations. Letby's prior appeals have been rejected, but they're allowed to and have made a final one. Let's see what it's conclusion is.
Because of the powers of the CCRC there is no such thing as a 'final' appeal as the door remains open for ever to a further application and referral.
While it seems to me that the convictions are sound (for reasons see 58 pages of the first Court of Appeal judgment) there is clearly plenty that people want to say, after the event, about how flawed the evidence was.
A question to keep in mind is this. We still have been given no reason for the defence calling no expert evidence. Why? They did this not once but twice (retrial), and they did it for reasons. Her former lawyers can say nothing (while their critics have free range) as it is the privilege not of the lawyer but the client, Letby herself, unless she waives privilege. So assume she hasn't. Why?
Also bear in mind this. The defence launched in cross examination a perfectly proper ad hominem attack on a chief expert witness (Evans) and his reliability/expertise. If their ammunition went beyond the ad hominem and into the quality of the opinion they had free rein to call expert evidence in rebuttal. They didn't. Why?
Until better stuff emerges, I shall for now draw the obvious conclusions. (Which does not mean there were no appealable flaws in the trials, or compelling fresg evidence. As to that, wait and see.)
So what? If the contention is the criminal justice system is flawed, why are Letby's lawyers exempt from that?
If the contention is that lawyers (and doctors) do not understand statistics and probability, why are Letby's lawyers exceptions?
If the medical expert panel was convened as a reaction to the court decision, how could Letby's lawyers possibly have called its evidence?
However, for most people, I suspect the takeaway is this is just another example of broken Britain.
Either a killer nurse was allowed to murder babies for years with no-one noticing, or there is abundant evidence of a miscarriage of justice but apparently it cannot be fixed.
The fact that (sadly) babies die in these wards through no fault of anyone means that spotting a potential murder is a bit harder than most murders (dead body in the street/living room/office). Then you end up with statistics being involved. So a bit like the replication crisis in certain parts of bio science, you have things that cannot be replicated.
In the Letby case it was asserted by some that "they looked at all the babies whose deaths were suspicious and who was on shift, and the only person on shift for all of them was Letby". Except that's not how the chart was compiled. There was significant back and forth and babies deaths were added and removed and then the chart was found to show just Letby.
There is a lot to unpick. Its undoubtedly complex. And the truth is as you say either a serial killer killed a stack of tiny babies or shit care did and someone innocent is currently in a living hell.
There is much confusion about the idea of statistics. SFAICS no statistical evidence was called.
But when investigating, you follow whatever threads you have. If you begin by finding X number of babies died when Y was on duty, and the number X is abnormal, it gives you an investigation starting point. Just as if 25 burglaries occur in a week and you notice that there's a chap who keeps popping up in CCTV in the area at the time, you start looking at him.
But to get home with a conviction in each case abnormal figures are not enough. You have to prove cause of death, and you have to prove the link in each case. These are not statistical matters, but factual ones.
By far the most obvious way out of culpability is to call expert evidence to show that cause of death (or injury) has not been proved. That the defence did not do so, until another explanation is forthcoming, admits only of one rational account.
Footnote: This is certain to go to the CCRC, and probable to go back to the Court of Appeal. So wait and see is the only option.
The young man whose escape from Northumberland Constabulary resulted in seven patrol cars being written off* has been jailed for fourteen months.
* The cars were written off after a patrol car driver who was unaware that the six police cars were stationary careered into them at ultra high speed.
Why is that an example of two tier justice?
No license. No insurance. Just 3 driving lessons. Put his passenger at risk driving her home from a date at 2:30am. 20 years old. BMW X5. 120mph. Lied extensively on oath in a previous court hearing about his record. 7 policemen consequently injured. Drove to work on at least 5 days despite having a bail condition not to drive, 'because I needed to'. Bought his BMW X5 on finance.
I'd be interested to see what exactly the govt has in mind for "war fighting readiness".
HMF are currently around 130k strong (fewer than the army during Op Banner days).
SKS says he wants "pay rises and a stronger reserve" (the reserve is currently 40k-odd).
And paying people more and doing something to the reserve is going to put us on a war fighting footing.
I find that an interesting approach. If they want HMF to be war fighting ready then they are going to have to increase significantly the number of people in uniform as their day job plus provide sufficient equipment for as many battle groups the govt thinks is required for whatever it is we want to do. Which, of course, we still aren't really sure but that's another issue.
I don't see this as being part of the new and exciting road map.
I don't either.
I see RN and RAF coming first, and we are due another anonymous General from the USA allegedly declaring that the British Army is fourth rate - I think that is the next one due.
The young man whose escape from Northumberland Constabulary resulted in seven patrol cars being written off* has been jailed for fourteen months.
* The cars were written off after a patrol car driver who was unaware that the six police cars were stationary careered into them at ultra high speed.
Why is that an example of two tier justice?
No license. No insurance. Just 3 driving lessons. Put his passenger at risk driving her home from a date at 2:30am. 20 years old. BMW X5. 120mph. Lied extensively on oath in a previous court hearing about his record. 7 policemen consequently injured. Drove to work on at least 5 days despite having a bail condition not to drive, 'because I needed to'. Bought his BMW X5 on finance.
All they wanted to do was stop him for a broken taillight.
The defence said he "had shown remorse". Driving whilst on bail? I'm skeptical on the remorse.
14 months in prison - ie out in about 6. 37 month driving ban. That's feels quite a light sentence imo. But I think the last 3 months suspended for 10 years would be a good intervention for long term control, which we do not do.
Came here as a child from Iran. GBNews and Daily Mail are all over his nationality, of course. There are things here about cultural assimilation and British police, and also about young people getting powerful cars.
The 'driving ban' penalty always makes me laugh. Many of these people are 'in for a penny, in for a pound' and once banned don't actually think, "well, I'd better not drive then."
I recall a motorway cop show about 10 years ago, where the officer pulled the car because it was flagged as having no insurance (they've since wised up to this, and now just stick a fake 'Third party' insurance on it for Mrs Miggins who drives 1 mile a year).
Cop pulled the driver and said to him, "We've pulled you because the vehicle is shown as being uninsured. Do you have insurance to drive the vehicle?"
The culprit just said, "No insurance, no MOT, not taxed and I haven't got a licence for you to ban me, though if I did, the ban still has 3 years to run."
It was cheaper to just go out and buy another £500 banger than drive honestly.... I do wonder if it still is.
The ones that make me laugh are the crims engaged in some nefarious act who get caught because the vehicle is untaxed. FFS - just tax the vehicle and you won't get pulled over on the way to commit X. Y or Z. Crims really are thick.
There was an enormous drug bust because the driver used to hard shoulder to skip a queue. Traffic cop couldn't believe it.
Despite all my witterings on here, I'm not a big fan of prison sentences for most driving offences, even if they cause a death. I think the bar should be very high, but include things like driving with a known medical condition or an extensive record of traffic offences.
Instead, much higher fines (linked to income/wealth) and much longer driving bans for careless/inconsiderate. There should be a life driving prohibition for anyone who uses a medical condition to swerve a conviction too - that loophole is too well used. If people drive through the ban, confiscate the car regardless of who owns it.
Can't agree with you, poor driving is dealt with far too leniently. A friend's son was cycling the coast to coast on the "quiet" sustrans route, going up a hill on winding B roads the cyclist at the back of the group was cleaned out by a motorcyclist from behind. Luckily the cyclist was just badly bruised but could easily have been killed. The motorcyclist told the attending plod that he didn't normally crash on that corner. He'll probably be back treating that country road as a racetrack and could easily get away with just a few points. Another petrol-head friend had a falling out with other people in his car club because they wanted to get up early to drive at "11/10" on the scenic roads on a weekend away. If people want to drive like that they should go to a track, not risk other people's lives on public roads.
I think those people just be serving lengthy driving bans - not prison sentences.
No, you can be imprisoned for negligence if people die on your paddleboarding trip, as an example, speeding on a country road is a similar, if not higher, degree of negligence and there is a high chance they'll drive while disqualified.
I was rather shocked by the prison sentence for the paddle boarding firm owner tbh. I take your point, but I would class that as dangerous driving and imprisonable if it causes a death.
In my ideal world, such drivers would have been slapped with huge fines, bans and confiscations before they ever got to that stage.
The young man whose escape from Northumberland Constabulary resulted in seven patrol cars being written off* has been jailed for fourteen months.
* The cars were written off after a patrol car driver who was unaware that the six police cars were stationary careered into them at ultra high speed.
Why is that an example of two tier justice?
No license. No insurance. Just 3 driving lessons. Put his passenger at risk driving her home from a date at 2:30am. 20 years old. BMW X5. 120mph. Lied extensively on oath in a previous court hearing about his record. 7 policemen consequently injured. Drove to work on at least 5 days despite having a bail condition not to drive, 'because I needed to'. Bought his BMW X5 on finance.
All they wanted to do was stop him for a broken taillight.
The defence said he "had shown remorse". Driving whilst on bail? I'm skeptical on the remorse.
14 months in prison - ie out in about 6. 37 month driving ban. That's feels quite a light sentence imo. But I think the last 3 months suspended for 10 years would be a good intervention for long term control, which we do not do.
Came here as a child from Iran. GBNews and Daily Mail are all over his nationality, of course. There are things here about cultural assimilation and British police, and also about young people getting powerful cars.
The trouble with the cultural thing is that unfortunately it's at least somewhat true.
I was involved in a saga with a Nigerian chap in his 40s plus his wife and teenage son who turned up during the Boriswave to work in a local care home. Several of us at church tried to help and support them in various ways.
He asked me about buying a car - I showed him some listings on autotrader which might possibly have fitted his needs and budget, just to give him an idea of what he might get for his money. Next thing I know he's bought one of the ones I'd shown him - blind. 18 year old Skoda Octavia diesel estate. Rather to my surprise, it was actually quite a solid tidy car - clearly my bangernomics instincts weren't too bad.
That was the easy bit. Despite various of us impressing on him the need for tax and insurance, and it becoming apparent that his Nigerian license wasn't valid (he'd been in the UK too long) he's been cheerfully driving round in it for six months now without any of these. All good until he hits someone, or the plod take an interest and he gets his collar felt.
This isn't a racist observation, but he's got a cultural problem - he doesn't understand what is and isn't acceptable in our culture. Being blunt, I think he thinks that if he gets stopped by the old flatfoot he'll be able to offer them £50in cash to make them go away.
I don't bear him any malice, but it's blindingly obvious that importing lots of people like him who don't get uk culture is just creating problems. One quality run in with law and we'll be spending more on his prosecution than he's paid in tax in ten years.
I think there's a lot of truth in that. But it is many countries rather than particular ones - eg (was it mentioned here or somewhere else?) the USA habit of driving stuck like a limpet to speed limit+5-10mph when it is applied on UK roads, where even the maddest of us don't try to drive at the limit when dangerous - unless under some sort of influence. Equally it is noteable in Bradford and London, two places I have live, the former with people moved over or visiting from mainly Pakistan, the latter with many internationals.
The young man whose escape from Northumberland Constabulary resulted in seven patrol cars being written off* has been jailed for fourteen months.
* The cars were written off after a patrol car driver who was unaware that the six police cars were stationary careered into them at ultra high speed.
Why is that an example of two tier justice?
The young lad took the custodial hit for some incompetent driving by a Motorway Patrol Driver. The lad had tried to outrun the police, true, but the £200,000 damage to police vehicles was surely entirely the work of TC Magoo.
"he lad had tried to outrun the police, true" is the same as "posted some nonsense on X".
And they both got custodial sentences.
I don't understand you right wingers and your defence of Connolly. She pleaded guilty to incitement to riot. People who saw her tweet took it on themselves to set fire to hotels full of people.
The potential for death or injury was enormous in both cases.
I don't see those defending Connolly bellyaching that the Just Stop Oil protesters didn't deserve five year sentences.
I don't know why you call me a right winger. I'm also not defending her, although I think the sentence is steep, and now, in the calmer conditions where the cowardly murderer whose actions got her into the mess she is in has been locked away, I think a pardon wouldn't hurt.
Oh everyone is a right winger or Tory to him. You don’t even have to vote for them to be one 🤷♂️
There’s also no comparison between the JSO criminals and Connolly. For Connolly is was a first offence. The JSO criminals are repeat offenders and had been on suspended sentences too. They were also contemptuous of court often disrupting proceedings and making speeches.
It’s most amusing to see how the same people who think Connolly, a first time offender, should be in jail want to see the JSO criminals, repeat and habitual offenders, released probably due to their sympathy with their views.
Lock them all up. I wouldn't throw soup on a valuable painting , climb the Dartford Bridge or make inflammatory racist tweets. But you have to see Connolly's tweet caused riotous behaviour which if it hadn't been contained could have led to a Holiday Inn full of people set on fire. They were setting fire to wheelie bins Infront of fire doors. Why don't you people see that it was more than a "little bit of fun".
WTF is this ‘you people’ crap.
I have no problem with Connolly being imprisoned for her crime, to which she pleaded guilty, and she is not a political prisoner, as I was discussing with Topping, Eek and others today. Making pretty much the same points as you.
The sentence may be excessive but it is in line with the guidelines.
The sentence was not out of line with the guidelines but that was not the basis of the appeal. The basis of the appeal was that Connolly's solicitor did not advise her of the consequences of pleading guilty. It was his word against hers in the appeal and the judges sided with him, but his answers were of the 'I would have said this' and 'I do not recall saying that' type which is interesting.
It is also an simple untruth that Conolly's Tweet caused riotous behaviour - the timings don't match - her Tweet was long deleted by the time of any rioting activity, and subsequent Tweets (perhaps self-servingly) advocated against any form of violent protest.
The young man whose escape from Northumberland Constabulary resulted in seven patrol cars being written off* has been jailed for fourteen months.
* The cars were written off after a patrol car driver who was unaware that the six police cars were stationary careered into them at ultra high speed.
Why is that an example of two tier justice?
No license. No insurance. Just 3 driving lessons. Put his passenger at risk driving her home from a date at 2:30am. 20 years old. BMW X5. 120mph. Lied extensively on oath in a previous court hearing about his record. 7 policemen consequently injured. Drove to work on at least 5 days despite having a bail condition not to drive, 'because I needed to'. Bought his BMW X5 on finance.
All they wanted to do was stop him for a broken taillight.
The defence said he "had shown remorse". Driving whilst on bail? I'm skeptical on the remorse.
14 months in prison - ie out in about 6. 37 month driving ban. That's feels quite a light sentence imo. But I think the last 3 months suspended for 10 years would be a good intervention for long term control, which we do not do.
Came here as a child from Iran. GBNews and Daily Mail are all over his nationality, of course. There are things here about cultural assimilation and British police, and also about young people getting powerful cars.
The 'driving ban' penalty always makes me laugh. Many of these people are 'in for a penny, in for a pound' and once banned don't actually think, "well, I'd better not drive then."
I recall a motorway cop show about 10 years ago, where the officer pulled the car because it was flagged as having no insurance (they've since wised up to this, and now just stick a fake 'Third party' insurance on it for Mrs Miggins who drives 1 mile a year).
Cop pulled the driver and said to him, "We've pulled you because the vehicle is shown as being uninsured. Do you have insurance to drive the vehicle?"
The culprit just said, "No insurance, no MOT, not taxed and I haven't got a licence for you to ban me, though if I did, the ban still has 3 years to run."
It was cheaper to just go out and buy another £500 banger than drive honestly.... I do wonder if it still is.
The ones that make me laugh are the crims engaged in some nefarious act who get caught because the vehicle is untaxed. FFS - just tax the vehicle and you won't get pulled over on the way to commit X. Y or Z. Crims really are thick.
There was an enormous drug bust because the driver used to hard shoulder to skip a queue. Traffic cop couldn't believe it.
Despite all my witterings on here, I'm not a big fan of prison sentences for most driving offences, even if they cause a death. I think the bar should be very high, but include things like driving with a known medical condition or an extensive record of traffic offences.
Instead, much higher fines (linked to income/wealth) and much longer driving bans for careless/inconsiderate. There should be a life driving prohibition for anyone who uses a medical condition to swerve a conviction too - that loophole is too well used. If people drive through the ban, confiscate the car regardless of who owns it.
Can't agree with you, poor driving is dealt with far too leniently. A friend's son was cycling the coast to coast on the "quiet" sustrans route, going up a hill on winding B roads the cyclist at the back of the group was cleaned out by a motorcyclist from behind. Luckily the cyclist was just badly bruised but could easily have been killed. The motorcyclist told the attending plod that he didn't normally crash on that corner. He'll probably be back treating that country road as a racetrack and could easily get away with just a few points. Another petrol-head friend had a falling out with other people in his car club because they wanted to get up early to drive at "11/10" on the scenic roads on a weekend away. If people want to drive like that they should go to a track, not risk other people's lives on public roads.
Some of that reads, I'm afraid, as simply anti-motorcyclist. Could read it as group of cyclists, strung out along a quiet road, all over the road as cyclists sometimes are when hill-climbing. Motor-cyclist, regular user of the route comes round blind corner finds cyclist halfway across the road. Obviously wasn't going that fast or the consequences could have been far worse. I know I'm only using an electric scooter now, but in my time I've been a cyclist, motor-cyclist and car driver. There can be faults on all sides.
Nah, the liability for that lies entirely with the motorcyclist, even in your hypothetical scenario. Could have been a cow, a horse rider, a tractor, whatever. You've got to leave yourself time to react and stop on those country roads.
Yes, I agree with that interpretion - the careful and competent driver can stop within the distance they can see. A classic case is "I couldn't see because of the sun in my eyes" whilst continuing driving at a normal pace as if visibility is OK, given as a reason in a Court of Law, when it is actually a confession of careless or reckless driving.
The young man whose escape from Northumberland Constabulary resulted in seven patrol cars being written off* has been jailed for fourteen months.
* The cars were written off after a patrol car driver who was unaware that the six police cars were stationary careered into them at ultra high speed.
Why is that an example of two tier justice?
The young lad took the custodial hit for some incompetent driving by a Motorway Patrol Driver. The lad had tried to outrun the police, true, but the £200,000 damage to police vehicles was surely entirely the work of TC Magoo.
"he lad had tried to outrun the police, true" is the same as "posted some nonsense on X".
And they both got custodial sentences.
I don't understand you right wingers and your defence of Connolly. She pleaded guilty to incitement to riot. People who saw her tweet took it on themselves to set fire to hotels full of people.
The potential for death or injury was enormous in both cases.
I don't see those defending Connolly bellyaching that the Just Stop Oil protesters didn't deserve five year sentences.
I don't know why you call me a right winger. I'm also not defending her, although I think the sentence is steep, and now, in the calmer conditions where the cowardly murderer whose actions got her into the mess she is in has been locked away, I think a pardon wouldn't hurt.
Oh everyone is a right winger or Tory to him. You don’t even have to vote for them to be one 🤷♂️
There’s also no comparison between the JSO criminals and Connolly. For Connolly is was a first offence. The JSO criminals are repeat offenders and had been on suspended sentences too. They were also contemptuous of court often disrupting proceedings and making speeches.
It’s most amusing to see how the same people who think Connolly, a first time offender, should be in jail want to see the JSO criminals, repeat and habitual offenders, released probably due to their sympathy with their views.
Lock them all up. I wouldn't throw soup on a valuable painting , climb the Dartford Bridge or make inflammatory racist tweets. But you have to see Connolly's tweet caused riotous behaviour which if it hadn't been contained could have led to a Holiday Inn full of people set on fire. They were setting fire to wheelie bins Infront of fire doors. Why don't you people see that it was more than a "little bit of fun".
WTF is this ‘you people’ crap.
I have no problem with Connolly being imprisoned for her crime, to which she pleaded guilty, and she is not a political prisoner, as I was discussing with Topping, Eek and others today. Making pretty much the same points as you.
The sentence may be excessive but it is in line with the guidelines.
The sentence was not out of line with the guidelines but that was not the basis of the appeal. The basis of the appeal was that Connolly's solicitor did not advise her of the consequences of pleading guilty. It was his word against hers in the appeal and the judges sided with him, but his answers were of the 'I would have said this' and 'I do not recall saying that' type which is interesting.
It is also an simple untruth that Conolly's Tweet caused riotous behaviour - the timings don't match - her Tweet was long deleted by the time of any rioting activity, and subsequent Tweets (perhaps self-servingly) advocated against any form of violent protest.
I honestly have no idea how much weight a claim of 'I pled guilty by mistake, because my solicitor got it wrong' carries, especially as the Appeal Court made afaics a very detailed examination of the case.
I don't think that 2nd para stands up.
The murders were on July 29. Conolly's Tweet was at 8:30pm on July 29, with its 330k view and 800+ retweets. Then riots ran from the evening of July 30th to August 5th as it was nipped in the bud fortunately, after a day where there was a lot of misinformation about the perp being a "muslim immigrant" and other inflammatory claims from all kind of radical (or choose your word) right elements. 'Riot organisation' (ie calling and settiing the protests) was clearly done well before the actual events themselves.
if it had been 4 or 5 days before with a peaceful interim, I would agree with you - but that is not what happened.
I have believed for years that Luxembourg should increase its defense spending to at least 5 percent of its GDP. At least.
And I have wondered all that time whether their pitiful contribution could be explained partly by the fact they have no sea coast, and no neighbors that were not in NATO.
Comments
But when investigating, you follow whatever threads you have. If you begin by finding X number of babies died when Y was on duty, and the number X is abnormal, it gives you an investigation starting point. Just as if 25 burglaries occur in a week and you notice that there's a chap who keeps popping up in CCTV in the area at the time, you start looking at him.
But to get home with a conviction in each case abnormal figures are not enough. You have to prove cause of death, and you have to prove the link in each case. These are not statistical matters, but factual ones.
By far the most obvious way out of culpability is to call expert evidence to show that cause of death (or injury) has not been proved. That the defence did not do so, until another explanation is forthcoming, admits only of one rational account.
Footnote: This is certain to go to the CCRC, and probable to go back to the Court of Appeal. So wait and see is the only option.
https://web.archive.org/web/20200330213843/https://www.carmagazine.co.uk/features/car-culture/rain-stopped-play-lotus-carlton-vs-the-autobahn-car-archive-january-1991/
I see RN and RAF coming first, and we are due another anonymous General from the USA allegedly declaring that the British Army is fourth rate - I think that is the next one due.
It is also an simple untruth that Conolly's Tweet caused riotous behaviour - the timings don't match - her Tweet was long deleted by the time of any rioting activity, and subsequent Tweets (perhaps self-servingly) advocated against any form of violent protest.
I don't think that 2nd para stands up.
The murders were on July 29. Conolly's Tweet was at 8:30pm on July 29, with its 330k view and 800+ retweets. Then riots ran from the evening of July 30th to August 5th as it was nipped in the bud fortunately, after a day where there was a lot of misinformation about the perp being a "muslim immigrant" and other inflammatory claims from all kind of radical (or choose your word) right elements. 'Riot organisation' (ie calling and settiing the protests) was clearly done well before the actual events themselves.
if it had been 4 or 5 days before with a peaceful interim, I would agree with you - but that is not what happened.
Appeal Court Judgement with timing of the tweet: https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/Lucy-Connolly-v-The-King-1.pdf
Timeline: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_United_Kingdom_riots
And I have wondered all that time whether their pitiful contribution could be explained partly by the fact they have no sea coast, and no neighbors that were not in NATO.