Having earned three national championship rings playing volleyball for UCLA, 6-foot-8 Tom Stillwell knows a little bit about competition and commitment to sports excellence.
Nothing, though, compares to his joy being a Girl Dad.
“That’s a full-time job, and being a volleyball dad is the best,” said Stillwell, an All-American at UCLA.
It was never planned that his two daughters, Maya, a 6-4 senior, and Lucy, a 6-0 sophomore, would become volleyball players at Harvard-Westlake. Stillwell and his wife, Julie, met at UCLA. She’s 5-6 and neither was thinking how tall their kids might be. But it happened. They were raising giants.
“We felt they needed to be involved in something and as they started to get really tall, I started to talk to friends who had tall females and their recommendation was get them involved in sports because it’s going to turn their tall from being awkward to cool,” Stillwell said. “For them, whether it was tennis, swimming, basketball or volleyball, it didn’t really matter to us. It was whatever they became connected with. They both had journeys.”
Maya had little interest in sports growing up.
“I was not athletic,” Maya said. “It was originally a way to get my body moving. I was into art and music. I started in club when I was 12 and hated it. It wasn’t for me. When COVID happened, we were forced to move to another club and I loved my teammates and coaches and started to like it.”
She became a top middle blocker, playing on a national championship club team and receiving a scholarship to Northwestern. She’s taken advantage of a mini-grass court in the family backyard and her father’s experience having switched from basketball to volleyball during his high school days at Sherman Oaks Notre Dame.
Lucy followed her sister into volleyball after trying other sports. She’s a backup at Harvard-Westlake, which started the season 7-0 until running into Marymount. The team is 10-2. Both have grade-point averages above 4.0.
Except for their mom, the Stillwells share a common experience — receiving stares because of their height.
Said Maya: “People at school are used to it, but walking outside, it’s like, ‘Oh you’re so tall. Do you play basketball?’ I never get, ‘Do you play volleyball?‘”
“It’s very funny,” Tom said. “I think all tall people have a similar experience with people coming up to you and asking, ‘Do you play basketball?’ When you play sports it helps to have that community because of a lot of their club people are similar height.”
But who gets the extra leg room when flying?
“I’m older and taller,” Maya said.
“She does,” Lucy said.
“Let me tell you who gets the worst seat. Julie, my wife,” Tom said. “She’s like, ‘I’m the mom. I birthed you. I get the worst seat?’”
The daughters never got to meet their legendary grandmother, Liz Shapiro, who was always at Tom’s games at Notre Dame and UCLA. Her generosity to both schools in terms of support will never be forgotten. She died of cancer after Tom’s volleyball career had ended.
“She was a rabid fan,” Tom said. “She would have been at every game, every tournament, club, high school, probably trying to watch practice.”
Tom, 51, has been helpful offering tips whenever his daughters ask, but he has tried to let them listen and learn from their coaches and not impose his own athletic beliefs on them.
“Volleyball just connected with them. It was fun to watch,” he said. “I told them they’re not doing it for me or my wife. They have to enjoy it and if they don’t, they shouldn’t do it. This is their journey, not mine.”
As a Girl Dad, Tom has adopted a specific philosophy no matter what he sees or hears.
“All I’m trying to be is their dad,” he said. “That’s my No. 1 focus. Not their volleyball coach, not their mentor in volleyball. It’s hard enough for these teenage girls. They don’t need to hear their dad yelling.”
My goodness, is it time for the Cambridge Dictionary’s annual release of the new words that have made it into its hallowed listings already! It seems to come round quicker every year. Possibly that should be “more quickly”. Their grammarian splinter group will let me know.
Far more so than birthdays or adventures in HRT, this event is a great measure of how functionally old you are. How much of the world do you, quite literally, still understand? I have heard of, and indeed enjoy though have never personally deployed, “delulu” – a play on “delusional”. “Tradwife”, too – which is the practice of monetising all the most boring bits of motherhood and domesticity on Instagram, under the guise of upholding conservative tradition. I like to think that among tradwives themselves it also carries the meaning of “socking all the proceeds away in a secret bank account and taking off for Costa Rica the minute the last child turns 18”, but I have yet to confirm.
Then things get harder. “Mouse jiggler” is more innocuous than I first feared and just about inferable (software that makes it look like you are still working if you are not in the office but likely to be remotely observed) but “skibidi” defeated me. It’s a YouTuber’s coinage, and seems to mean everything and nothing. Only those born to the skibidi can use it properly. And that is as it should be. The words “bath chair”, “tartan rug” and “Werther’s Originals” remain for the rest of us.
Tuesday
Spare a thought for the poor Prince and Princess of Wales, soon to be up to their eyes in packing tape and cardboard boxes as they prepare to move from Adelaide Cottage on the Windsor Great Park estate to Forest Lodge on … the Windsor Great Park estate.
Nothing says “I live a life unimaginably distant from yours” than a) the ability to move house at whim and b) to one that’s essentially in the same garden. Yes, there’s an extra four bedrooms in it for them (otherwise it’d just be another cottage, not a lodge, duh!), but imagine a normal doing the equivalent and going to all the expense and stress to move a few doors up the road. Although take away the stamp duty, the unreliable movers, the crippling solicitor’s fees, the dealing with utility companies and estate agents – oh, and the sale price, which I didn’t so much forget as find myself unable to conceive of living a life without – and the whole thing becomes instantly feasible. Who knew? Who knew?
Macron: ‘Get rid of it. Get rid of that sofa, that abomination, and then – then I will come in and we can talk.’ Photograph: ABACA/Shutterstock
Wednesday
Another new word is upon us! What a week we’re having! This time it is “otrovert”. I thought at first it might be something to do with non-innocuous mouse-jiggling, but no. It is a term coined by the American psychiatrist Rami Kaminski for people “whose fundamental orientation is defined by the fact that it is rarely the same direction that anyone else is facing”. (He’s written a book about them.) Oh, for heaven’s sake. That’s mostly just your common-or-garden introvert in a world that’s largely extrovert and they’re just facing into a book – leave them alone. The remainder are simple contrarians, the most wearisome people in the world. They see a received opinion and immediately set themselves mindlessly up against it.
Thursday
Speaking of Jungian archetypes as we tangentially were, researchers are claiming that almost every activity is more enjoyable in company – even reading. Which is just more blatant propaganda from Big Extrovert bent on destroying the last havens of peace for those who don’t follow their busy, cacophonous lead.
We have to start pushing back at this point. We can attack the new contention on any number of grounds. On the practical: is farting better in company? It’s funnier, sure, at least for the farter – but beyond that? And even for the detonator, the law of diminishing returns sets in pretty quickly. On the philosophical: can masturbation, for example, truly be said to be taking place in company? Does it not become subsumed within exhibitionism? And on the methodological: this study was carried out using only American subjects, citizens of the most extrovert, camera-ready nation on earth. To take them as representative samples of humanity is a very great mistake.
Stormtrooper: ‘This is CLEARLY not Tatooine, you planks. Try again.’ Photograph: Hannah McKay/Reuters
Friday
Common sense and a small understanding of probability theory tells us it is technically possible – but still. No one really thinks they will live to experience it but on the way back from Edinburgh, where I’d been talking about my new book (Bookish – available in all good bookshops and maybe some bad ones too, if there is such a thing), I did. I had a perfect train journey.
No, honestly. I’ve no reason to lie. I thought all my travel luck had been used up when the 11.05 arrived on time. But then I got on and reservation screens were working and my seat had not been taken. The lady next to me was a reader and knitter. We smiled at each other as I sat down, and that was the full extent of our interaction over the next three and a half hours. During which: nobody yelled into a phone; the few children there played quietly together at their tables; the air conditioning worked and kept us at a comfortable instead of sub-arctic temperature. And the buffet was open.
This really happened. I feel I am going to pay for it somehow in the next few days – I am constantly checking the cats for signs of illness and my bank account for fraud – but until then, I shall revere the memory.
ADDIS ABABA, Ethiopia — The human ancestor fossil known as Lucy left Ethiopia for display in a European museum, Ethiopian national media reported Friday, citing Tourism Minister Selamawit Kassa.
Lucy’s skeleton, which is 40% complete, left Ethiopia on Friday and will be displayed at the Czech National Museum in Prague for approximately two months.
Lucy was recovered in Ethiopia in 1974 from what was an ancient lake near fossilized remains of crocodiles, turtle eggs and crab claws. She was a member of Australopithecus afarensis, an early human species that lived in Africa between about 4 million and 3 million years ago.
This is the second time Lucy has left Ethiopia. The first was in 2013, when she toured the United States.
Lucy’s fragmented bones will be exhibited alongside Selam, the fossil of an Australopithecus baby that is about 100,000 years older than Lucy and was discovered in the same region 25 years later.
“As an iconic specimen, she belongs to the whole world, so sharing her with the rest of humanity is something that everyone would love to see,” said Yohannes Haile-Selassie, director of the Institute of Human Origins at Arizona State University.
While many experts believe Lucy’s trip to Europe presents a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for people in Europe and beyond, there are safety concerns about the transportation of her fragile bones.
“The fragmented bones of Lucy are truly unique and need utmost care. Traveling to Europe has its own risks,” said Gidey Gebreegziabher, an archaeologist and Ph.D. candidate at the University of Warsaw, Poland, “She will also be exposed to different climate conditions, which could potentially have negative impacts on her preservation.”
Even in Ethiopia, the public has only occasionally seen the real Lucy fossil. At the National Museum of Ethiopia, a replica of Lucy is exhibited while the actual remains are stored in a secure vault.
“I’ve seen how she was packed, so I have no worries about anything happening to Lucy anymore,” Yohannes said.
Lucy’s quiet departure on Thursday night also raises questions about transparency as many Ethiopians — who take pride in her — were unaware of her journey to Europe.
“It’s unbelievable! The government appears to be deliberately sidelining its people from the narrative of their own heritage,” Gebreegziabher said.
Bekele Reta, 43, a resident who lives just 164 feet from the museum where Lucy is housed, was unaware of Lucy’s departure until he saw it on social media.
“I learned this morning on Facebook that Lucy has departed for Prague. It’s unfortunate that most Ethiopians only have the opportunity to see her showcased elsewhere.” he said.
Early this year, the director general of the Czech National Museum, Michal Lukeš, in a statement announcing the exhibition of Lucy and Selam, expressed his appreciation of the Ethiopians for agreeing to “lend” the remains.
“These priceless exhibits give us a unique insight into the past and deepen our understanding of humanity’s roots,” said Lukeš.
Birhane writes for the Associated Press. AP writer Evelyne Musambi contributed to this report from Nairobi.
When it comes to the Lucy Letby case, there are two parallel universes. In one, the question of her guilt is settled. She is a monster who murdered seven babies and attempted to murder seven more while she was a nurse at the Countess of Chester Hospital between 2015 and 2016.
In the other universe, Letby is the victim of a flawed criminal justice system in which unreliable medical evidence was used to condemn and imprison an innocent woman.
This is what Letby’s barrister Mark McDonald argues. He says he has the backing of a panel of the best experts in the world who say there is no evidence any babies were deliberately harmed.
These extremes are both disturbing and bewildering. One of them is wrong – but which? Who should we believe?
An alternative version of events
The families of the infants say there is no doubt. Letby was convicted after a 10-month trial by a jury that had considered a vast range of evidence. They say Letby’s defenders are picking on small bits of evidence out of context and that the constant questioning of her guilt is deeply distressing.
I have spent almost three years investigating the Letby case – in that time I have made three Panorama documentaries and cowritten a book on the subject. Yet, if true, the new evidence, presented by Mark McDonald in a series of high-profile press conferences and media releases, is shocking.
According to his experts, the prosecution expert medical case is unreliable.
Mark McDonald has not released the panel’s full reports, which are currently with the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC), the body he needs to persuade to reopen Letby’s case, but he has released summaries of the panel’s findings.
Panorama
Barrister Mark McDonald says his panel of leading experts found no evidence that any babies were deliberately harmed
Letby was found guilty of 15 counts of murder and attempted murder, and the jury in her original trial reached unanimous verdicts on three of those cases. That is a good indication of where the strongest medical evidence might lie.
To get a sense of the imperfections woven through both the prosecution and the defence arguments, it’s worth looking at one of those cases in which the guilty verdict was unanimous: that of Baby O.
What really happened to Baby O?
Baby O was born in June 2016, one of triplet brothers. At Letby’s trial, the jury was told that his death was in part the result of liver injuries, which the prosecution pathologist described as impact-type injuries – similar to those in a car accident.
As in other cases for which Letby was convicted, the prosecution said circumstantial evidence also tied her to the crime.
However, a paediatric pathologist who was not involved in the case but has seen Baby O’s post-mortem report, says it was “unlikely” Baby O’s liver injuries were caused by impact – as the prosecution claims.
“You can’t completely rule out the possibility,” says the pathologist, who does not want to be identified. “But in my view, the location of the injuries and the condition of the liver tissue itself don’t fit with that explanation.”
Which raises the obvious question – if the prosecution were wrong about Baby O’s liver injuries, then why did he die?
Questions around air embolism
Letby was accused of injecting air into the blood of Baby O as well as that of other babies. This, the prosecution said, caused an air bubble and a blockage in the circulation known as air embolism.
During the trial the prosecution pointed to several pieces of evidence to make their case, including a 1989 academic study of air embolism in pre-term babies, which noted skin discolouration as one possible feature of it.
Prosecutors argued that these same skin colour changes were observed in several babies in the Letby case.
Reuters
In many aspects of the Letby case, the answer is not clear-cut
However, Dr Shoo Lee, a Canadian neonatologist and one of the authors of that 1989 study, is now part of Letby’s team of defence experts working with Mark McDonald. He argues that his study was misused.
He says skin discolouration has not featured in any reported cases of air embolism in babies where the air has entered the circulation via a vein – which is what the prosecution alleged happened in the Letby case.
In other words, the prosecution was wrong to use skin discolouration as evidence of air embolism.
It sounds significant. But is it enough to defeat the air embolism allegations?
As with many aspects of the Letby case, the answer is not clear-cut.
The prosecution did not rely on skin discolouration alone to make their case for air embolism. And although there have not been any reported cases of skin discolouration in babies where air has entered the circulation via a vein, some critics have argued that the number of reported air embolism cases is small and that the theory is still possible.
Andy Rain/ EPA – EFE/REX/Shutterstock
Professor Neena Modi believes there is some postmortem evidence of air embolism but this is likely to have occurred during resuscitation (pictured far left, with Professor Shoo Lee far right)
To muddy the waters further, another of Mark McDonald’s panel of experts has said that in fact there was post-mortem evidence of air embolism in the babies.
“We know these babies suffered air embolism because of the post-mortem imaging in some of them,” says Neena Modi, a professor of neonatal medicine.
She believes this is highly likely to have occurred during resuscitation, and that there are much more plausible explanations for the collapses and deaths of the babies in the Letby case than air embolism.
The air embolism theory, she said, was “highly speculative”. But her remarks show the debate is far from settled.
The needle theory: another explanation?
There has been another explanation for Baby O’s death.
In December 2024, Mark McDonald called a press conference in which one of his experts, Dr Richard Taylor, claimed that a doctor had accidentally pierced the baby’s liver with a needle during resuscitation. This, he argued, had led to the baby’s death.
Dr Taylor added: “I think the doctor knows who they are. I have to say from a personal point of view that if this had happened to me, I’d be unable to sleep at night knowing that what I had done had led to the death of a baby, and now there is a nurse in jail, convicted of murder.”
The doctor accused of causing the baby’s death was subsequently identified as Stephen Brearey – one of Letby’s principal accusers at the Countess of Chester Hospital.
Mr Brearey says: “Given the ongoing investigations and inquiries, and to respect the confidentiality of those involved, I will not be making any further comment at this time.”
Julia Quenzler / BBC
The needle theory was examined at length during Lucy Letby’s trial
It was a bombshell claim. But does the evidence support it?
One indication that the needle theory might be shaky was that Dr Taylor, by his own admission, had not seen Baby O’s medical notes and was relying on a report that had been written by two other experts.
Another obvious problem with the needle theory is that it had already been examined at length during Letby’s trial.
The prosecution pathologist concluded that there was no evidence that a needle had pierced Baby O’s liver while he was alive and the paediatric pathologist we spoke to agrees.
They told us: “These injuries weren’t caused by a needle. They were in different parts of the liver and there was no sign of any needle injury on the liver.”
Even if the needle had penetrated the baby’s liver, it cannot explain why Baby O collapsed in the first place or why he died – the needle was inserted after the baby’s final and fatal collapse towards the end of the resuscitation.
When asked if he still stood by his comments about the doctor’s needle, Dr Taylor told us that while the needle may not have been the primary cause of death, his “opinion has not substantially changed”.
He said the “needle probably penetrated the liver” of Baby O, and “probably accelerated his demise”.
Lack of consensus among the experts
The question of where this leaves the case presented by Mark McDonald’s panel of experts when it comes to the needle theory is a difficult one to answer.
It would appear that among Letby’s defenders, there is not consensus.
Consultant neonatologist Dr Neil Aiton is one of the authors of the original report on which Dr Taylor based his comments. Dr Aiton says that he has examined the evidence independently and has concluded that Baby O’s liver injuries were caused by inappropriate resuscitation attempts, including hyperinflation of the baby’s lungs.
However, he also says it was “pretty clear” a needle had punctured the liver during resuscitation.
When Dr Aiton was told that other experts, including the paediatric pathologist who spoke to the BBC, have examined the case of Baby O and said that it is implausible to conclude this happened, he said that there were two possibilities. Either the liver ruptured because of a needle or it ruptured spontaneously.
Dr Aiton’s position appears to be that poor resuscitation caused the baby’s liver injuries and whether it was a needle or not is “not important”.
That is a contrast from what Dr Taylor said in that December press conference. And critics say Dr Aiton’s account still does not explain why Baby O collapsed in the first place and why he needed such desperate resuscitation.
A summary report from Letby’s expert panel appears to back further away from the needle theory. It says a needle “may have” punctured the liver.
Other experts, including the paediatric pathologist, said that Dr Aiton’s observation of hyper-inflated lungs would not explain Baby O’s liver injuries.
Once again, the case illustrates how difficult it is to distinguish between plausible and implausible claims.
The debate around birth trauma
Since that press conference, other experts working for Letby’s defence team have put forward another theory for Baby O’s death. They say his liver injuries were the result of traumatic delivery at the time of birth.
Professor Modi says this was a “highly plausible cause”.
But that has been contested from a surprising direction. Dr Mike Hall, a neonatologist, was Lucy Letby’s original defence expert and attended court throughout her trial.
He has been a staunch critic of her conviction, arguing her trial wasn’t fair and that there is no definitive medical evidence that babies were deliberately harmed.
Panorama
Dr Mike Hall, Letby’s original defence expert, says there is no record of a traumatic delivery in Baby O’s medical notes
However, Dr Hall’s view is that evidence for the birth trauma theory is simply not there. He notes that Baby O was born in good condition by caesarean section and there is no record of a traumatic delivery in the baby’s medical notes.
“There’s still no evidence that anyone did anything deliberately to harm Baby O,” he adds. “However, something was going on with Baby O, which we haven’t explained.
“We don’t know what the cause of this is. But that doesn’t mean that we therefore have to pretend that we know.”
The insulin evidence
For the jury, Baby O was one of the clearest cases that proved Letby was a killer. And yet there appears to be flawed expert evidence on both sides.
There were two other cases where the jury returned unanimous verdicts – the cases of Babies F and L.
The prosecution argued that both babies had been poisoned with insulin and highlighted blood tests that it said were clear evidence of this. For the prosecution, the insulin cases proved that someone at the Countess of Chester Hospital was harming babies.
Letby’s defence have, meanwhile, marshalled numerous arguments against the insulin theory. One is that the blood test used – an immunoassay – is inaccurate and should have been verified. But even Letby’s experts accept the test is accurate around 98% of the time.
Another argument is that premature babies can process insulin differently and that the blood test results are “within the expected range for pre-term infants”. But the medical specialists we’ve spoken to are baffled by this claim and say it goes against mainstream scientific understanding.
PA
For the jury, Baby O was one of the clearest cases that proved Letby was a killer
Of course, mainstream opinion can be wrong. But it is difficult to tell because Letby’s defence team have not shared the scientific evidence.
One of the experts behind the report – a mechanical engineer who carries out biomedical research – clarified that his analysis says the blood test results were “not uncommon”. However, Letby’s defence declined to show the BBC the published studies that support this claim.
Once again, the claims of both the prosecution and defence are not clear-cut.
Ultimately, the question of whether Letby’s case should be re-examined by the Court of Appeal now lies with CCRC. They have the task of studying Mark McDonald’s expert reports.
If he is successful and Lucy Letby’s case is referred back to the Court of Appeal – that is ultimately where the expert evidence on both sides will face a true reckoning.
Lead image credit: Cheshire Constabulary, PA
BBC InDepth is the home on the website and app for the best analysis, with fresh perspectives that challenge assumptions and deep reporting on the biggest issues of the day. And we showcase thought-provoking content from across BBC Sounds and iPlayer too. You can send us your feedback on the InDepth section by clicking on the button below.
A childhood friend of Lucy Letby has revealed the serial baby killer attended her wedding day while she was on police bail after being granted ‘special permission’ to go
Liam McInerney Content Editor
23:00, 03 Aug 2025
Lucy Letby letting loose on the dance floor while supposedly on police bail (Image: ITV)
A childhood friend of Lucy Letby made a shocking revelation after showing off pictures of the baby killer at her wedding – while she was on police bail.
Letby was first arrested in July of 2018 on suspicion of murdering eight babies. She was officially charged in November 2020 before being found guilty across two trials of murdering seven babies and attempting to murder seven more. Dawn Howe, who went to Aylestone Secondary School in Hereford with Letby, brought out a stash of photos during a new ITV documentary called Lucy Letby: Beyond Reasonable Doubt?
Speaking on the documentary, Dawn said: “Definitely got some holiday snaps, birthdays, holidays I’ve forgotten we even had. The wedding photos are definitely my favourite.”
Laughing, she added: “There is Lucy at my wedding. I am just so glad she could be there because it was while she was on bail, she had to get special permission to be allowed to come from the police.”
Letby (right) pictured smiling during her friend Dawn’s big day (Image: ITV)
The shocking photo shows Letby, wearing a red top and grey skirt, beaming while others alongside her clap on the dance floor.
Another image shows a just-married Dawn walking past Letby, who is throwing confetti in the air.
Dawn and Lucy met as teenagers and reflecting on the wedding snaps, she said: “Shortly after this she was held in custody so… I don’t think Lucy has seen these.”
Speaking about how she reacted when her friend was arrested before her big day, she said: “I watched it all unfold every step of the way. I just couldn’t believe it. It was beyond belief that this could be happening.”
And later in the programme, Dawn features once again. She is seen driving to Letby’s former school, where they spent most of their adolescence together.
Out of their friendship group, she said Letby was the only one who had a clear career path, and during her A-levels, she was eager to one day “be a nurse and deal with really poorly babies”.
Dawn shared photos showing Letby at her special day (Image: ITV)
And speaking on camera, she said: “We were here and then university and then a few years after university is when she is supposed to have gone off on this killing spree…”
Dawn was working when Letby’s guilty verdict was announced in August 2023 and she described being “dumbfounded” when she heard the news.
Her immediate thought was what happened next. She remembered thinking: “She can’t just spend the rest of her life in prison.”
She is now serving 15 whole-life sentences (Image: PA)
Letby lost two attempts last year to challenge her convictions at the Court of Appeals. Her legal team meanwhile, led by barrister Mark McDonald, also submitted evidence from a panel of international experts to the Criminal Cases Review Commission in April, in an attempt to have her convictions overturned.
Dawn supported Letby throughout the trial and is continuing to do so now, but she said she felt guilt for being free while her friend was serving 15 whole-life sentences.
She concluded: “I am living a life Lucy should be living beside me in parallel. We should both be having families and we both bought our houses and we were looking forward to the next chapter of our lives and then all this happened.
Lucy Letby pictured with her childhood pal Dawn Howe(Image: ITV)
“It is just… there is so much guilt that I am sort of living a life that Lucy should also be living.”
Cheshire Police were contacted regarding claims made in this story but they chose not to comment.
Lucy Letby: Beyond Reasonable Doubt? will air on ITV1 at 10.20pm on Sunday August 3.
CRUCIAL evidence used to prosecute Britain’s worst child serial killer Lucy Letby has been ripped apart by experts who claim “grossly misleading” methods were used to secure the nurse’s conviction.
Lucy Letby was handed 15 whole life sentences, meaning she will never be released from prisonCredit: AP
7
A new ITV documentary explores the views of a team of international scientists who claim the prosecution case simply doesn’t stand up to scrutinyCredit: MEN Media
She was handed 15 whole life sentences, meaning she will never be released from prison.
Described as a cold-blooded, calculating killer, Letby was said to have used her trusted role on a neonatal intensive care unit to cause catastrophic harm to the most vulnerable newborn babies – without leaving a trace.
A new ITV documentary explores the views of a team of international scientists who claim the prosecution case simply doesn’t stand up to scrutiny, including crucial statistic evidence and claims over the methods used to kill newborn babies.
Doctors raised suspicions that Lucy Letby had been present at a number of these baby deaths, so she was moved off the unit and into a desk job.
A team from the Royal College of Paediatrics was invited in to investigate. It identified a shortage of nurses and a lack of consultant cover risking patient safety – but could find no definitive reason for the rise in mortality.
However, the unit’s senior doctors were unhappy with the outcome of the reviews and wrote to hospital bosses doubting that the deaths and collapses could be explained by natural causes.
In March 2017 the police were called, and in November 2020 Letby was charged with seven counts of murder and 15 counts of attempted murder, relating to 17 babies. She pleaded not guilty.
I was sure Lucy Letby was guilty… then I spent weeks poring over evidence and now I’m convinced no babies were murdered
The prosecution’s case centred on a few central pillars; a shift chart, which showed Letby was always there when something terrible happened, hand-written notes presented as confessions, blood tests suggesting babies had been poisoned, and medical evidence taken from the babies’ notes to support theories that Letby had attacked them.
The person who came up with most of those theories was a retired paediatrician, Dr Dewi Evans.
During the trial there was eight months of prosecution evidence and a series of prosecution witnesses.
But Letby’s legal team presented not a single expert medical witness in her defence.
She was found guilty of murdering seven babies and attempting to murder six others.
AS the second anniversary of Lucy Letby’s incarceration approaches, I remain convinced of her innocence.
This investigation by ITV only serves to bolster my opinion.
As the title of the documentary alludes, English justice requires a jury to convict on evidence that is beyond reasonable doubt.
Programme makers have gathered a raft of experts and experienced medics who, in my opinion, ably demonstrate that the Letby prosecution falls well short of that threshold.
I believe it rightly highlights flaws in the statistical evidence put before a jury at her first trial.
A chart showed a cluster of 25 suspicious baby deaths and collapses matched against the shift rota of the 38 nurses who worked on the unit. Only Letby was at the scene for every death and collapse.
Yet, the jury wasn’t told about six other baby deaths in the period for which she faced no charges.
Leading medical statistician Professor Jane Hutton says of the chart in the programme: “This is a summary that is so crude it can only be described as grossly misleading.”
The documentary examines Dr Ravi Jayaram’s assertion that Letby didn’t raise the alarm over a dying baby.
It has since emerged that an email sent by Dr Jayaram to colleagues suggests Letby did actually alert him. It wasn’t shown to juries at either of her trials.
I found convincing an expert on the documentary debunking the prosecution’s assertion that Letby poisoned some of the babies with insulin.
While international expert Dr Shoo Lee – a vocal supporter of Letby’s innocence – insisted that all the babies said to have been killed or injured by the nurse actually died from “natural causes or just bad medical care.”
It mirrors my belief that incompetence not malice was behind the baby’s deaths.
ITV’s documentary will only add to the increasing groundswell of opinion that an innocent woman now languishes behind bars.
As the country started to reflect on the horror of Letby’s crimes, concerns were already being raised about the evidence that was used.
Mark McDonald, Letby’s new barrister, was instructed last September after two failed attempts to appeal her convictions.
He says: “People started contacting me, medically qualified people, scientifically qualified people, statisticians saying ‘we think something has gone wrong here’.”
In the weeks after Letby was convicted, professor of statistics Richard Gill was among a handful of professionals who were questioning the verdict.
He is known to be controversial and outspoken but his work has led to two nurses in Italy and the Netherlands who were convicted of similar crimes having their convictions overturned.
Professor Gill believed the shift chart which helped convict Letby was misleading.
Leading medical statistician Professor Jane Hutton agrees, saying: “It has influenced a lot of people into thinking she must’ve done it because she was always there and nobody else was.
“It has a very strong visual impact but it doesn’t tell you how the data has been selected. You know it is clear that this is aimed to present a conclusion.”
Their main concern was the left hand column of the chart. Each entry presents a death or life-threatening event.
But these were not all the deaths or life-threatening events in that period. The prosecution made a selection.
Dewi Evans’ early reports for the police identified other events which he said were attacks on babies. But these happened when Letby wasn’t on duty and those events don’t appear on the chart.
“This is a summary that is so crude it can only be described as grossly misleading,” says Jane Hutton.
According to the prosecution, Letby used various methods to try to kill. The most simple was by dislodging a baby’s breathing tube.
This is a summary that is so crude it can only be described as grossly misleading
Jane Hutton
Countess of Chester paediatrician Dr Ravi Jayaram told the court he had never known of the breathing tube of a baby born at 25 weeks to become accidentally dislodged.
But Dr Richard Taylor, a neonatologist with over 30 years experience, and some of his colleagues disagree.
He explains: “The prosecution allege that the tube was intentionally dislodged and the first thing I would say is accidental dislodgement is distinctly common.
“It can be dislodged by the operator and it can also be dislodged by the baby themselves just by moving their head or thrusting their tongue.”
Convictions ‘unsafe’
7
As the country started to reflect on the horror of Letby’s crimes, concerns were already being raised about the evidence that was usedCredit: Alamy
7
Lucy Letby has a number of high profile supporters including MP David Davis and Dr Shoo LeeCredit: Alamy
The jury couldn’t decide if Letby was guilty of attempting to murder one of the babies, Baby K, by dislodging its breathing tube. That single case went to a retrial and Dr Ravi Jayaram gave evidence.
He told the court he went into the room and saw the baby’s blood oxygen levels dropping dangerously low while Letby stood by and did nothing. He also said Letby had not called for help.
But an email has come to light from Jayaram detailing the event in which he said Letby herself had called him in because the baby was collapsing. The jury was never told about this email.
The documentary claims that Dr Jayaram isn’t the only medic who appears to have contradicted his own testimony. Lucy Letby was convicted of murdering baby C by forcing air into its stomach.
ITV’s documentary will only add to the increasing groundswell of opinion that an innocent woman now languishes behind bars
The Sun’s Oliver Harvey
Dr Dewi Evans based this theory on an X-ray taken on June 12, 2015 which showed air in the baby’s stomach. But Letby had been off work that day and she hadn’t met Baby C when the X-ray was taken.
When challenged on this at trial, Dr Evans couldn’t rule out that air had been injected into the veins, but the prosecution maintained that Letby must have injected air into the baby’s stomach.
Now Dr Evans has committed to another theory. He says Letby killed Baby C a day later by injecting air into the veins, causing something called an air embolism.
Mark McDonald claims the fact that Dr Evans has changed his mind, and was the lead expert for the prosecution, makes all the convictions unsafe.
Mental anguish
7
Mark McDonald, Lucy Letby’s barrister, claims the fact that Dr Evans has changed his mind, and was the lead expert for the prosecution, makes all the convictions unsafe
Police investigated Letby for three-and-a-half years before she was charged. During searches of her home, some notes were found which appeared incriminating, with one noting: “I’m evil, I did this.”
In court Letby admitted writing the notes, but said she did so at a time of mental anguish and she was just scribbling down thoughts as a form of therapy.
The hospital had provided a therapist to support Letby during the investigations. Her name appears several times on the notes.
The jury was never told it was this therapist who suggested Letby express her feelings in this way as part of her treatment.
Nearly a year after the police began investigating Letby they made a breakthrough: blood tests which showed high levels of insulin and low c-peptide. The prosecution said this was proof that insulin had been given to the babies externally and was therefore an attempt to poison them.
The prosecution told the jury that two of the babies had been poisoned with insulin and they had test results that proved it.
But a leading forensic scientist says those results cannot be relied on as they will have been done quickly in a medical setting for diagnostic purposes and were not retested to forensic standards.
Over the last six months a team of scientists have been instructed by Letby’s legal team.
They have been given access to the babies’ medical notes and asked to look again at the insulin test results.
Chemical engineer Helen Shannon says: “We have spent hundreds of hours investigating every facet of the science and there is a completely obvious solution that does not involve poisoning.”
We have spent hundreds of hours investigating every facet of the science and there is a completely obvious solution that does not involve poisoning
Helen Shannon
“The insulin case has applied basic clinical guidance for healthy adults to tiny, compromised neonates,” adds Helen.
Many newborn babies are born with proteins in their blood called antibodies. The team says that insulin in the blood stream can stick to these antibodies, giving a higher reading, while c-peptide continues to be cleared, giving a low reading.
Helen says: “It doesn’t have any effect on the child at all, it just floats around. So as a result it gives a very high reading on the test that was done at the time.
“We can’t see any justification at all for the prosecution statement that it can only be poisoning.”
Earlier this year a panel of international medical experts, who reviewed Letby’s case, told a press conference that they did not find any evidence of murder.
Chairman Dr Shoo Lee provided what he said were highly detailed grounds baby-by-baby for concluding that none of the murders occurred.
He added: “We did not find any murders. In all cases, death or injury were due to natural causes or just bad medical care.
“Lucy was charged with seven murders and seven attempted murders. In our opinion, the medical opinion, the medical evidence doesn’t support murder in any of these babies.”
‘Deeply distressing’
The expert panel report has been delivered to the Criminal Cases Review Commission and her case can only be returned to the Court of Appeal if there is new evidence.
To reexamine the cause of the babies’ deaths, the expert panel was given access to all the babies’ medical records to compile their report. For Professor Neena Modi those records tell a story of failure by the hospital and the doctors.
She says: “On reading through the detailed medical notes, what was harrowing was seeing a story unfold where possibly things could have been recognised earlier and interventions put in place and possibly for some of the babies the outcomes might not have been what they were. This was deeply distressing.”
The increase in deaths coincided with the unit having to take babies who were more unwell than they were equipped or staffed for, it is claimed.
Professor Modi says: “The babies we are referring to were all extremely vulnerable. Some of them were demonstrably and recognisably on a knife edge.
“Others could have been recognised to be on a knife edge but they were not monitored appropriately or treated appropriately.
“Problems went unrecognised until the point at which a baby deteriorated very abruptly. The babies might not have died had their difficulties been addressed earlier.”
7
To reexamine the cause of the babies’ deaths, the expert panel was given access to all the babies’ medical records to compile their report. For Professor Neena Modi those records tell a story of failure by the hospital and the doctorsCredit: Alamy
7
Earlier this year a panel of international medical experts, who reviewed Letby’s case, told a press conference that they did not find any evidence of murderCredit: PA
In a statement to ITV, the Crown Prosecution Service said: “Lucy Letby was convicted of 15 separate counts following two jury trials. In May 2024, the Court of Appeal dismissed Letby’s leave to appeal on all grounds rejecting her argument that expert prosecution evidence was flawed.”
They confirmed they are considering a file of evidence from the police relating to further deaths and non-fatal collapses of babies at the Countess of Chester Hospital and Liverpool Women’s Hospital.
The Countess of Chester Hospital NHS Foundation Trust said: “Due to the Thirlwall Inquiry and ongoing police investigations it would not be appropriate to comment further at this time.”
Dr Dewi Evans told ITV that his evidence was subject to cross examination agreed by a jury after thorough review from a judge and subsequently agreed by the Court of Appeal.
He added: “None of the evidence presented by Shoo Lee’s expert panel has been subject to any such scrutiny and it contains factual errors. It is trial by speculation.”
Dr Ravi Jayaram declined to comment.
Lucy Letby: Beyond all Reasonable Doubt? Is on ITV1 on Sunday 3 August.
An ITV documentary, Lucy Letby: Beyond Reasonable Doubt?, features medical experts questioning the evidence that convicted nurse Lucy Letby of killing seven babies and attempting to kill seven others, as her legal team pursues a potential appeal
22:34, 02 Aug 2025Updated 22:35, 02 Aug 2025
Lucy Letby convictions under scrutiny as experts challenge trial evidence in new ITV doc(Image: Chester Standard / SWNS.com)
Several medical experts criticise the “deeply disturbing” and “flawed” evidence used to convict killer nurse Lucy Letby in a new documentary on TV tonight.
He adds: “In the trial, they started from the starting point, ‘She has done harm. Now we have to show how she has harmed each child….we’re just going to put together a theory.’ And she was convicted on that theory.”
Two appeals have failed. But in February a panel of medical experts, led by Dr Shoo Lee, found Letby did not murder any babies. Her defence team has now submitted an application to the Criminal Cases Review Commission.
Dr Neena Modi, ex-president of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, says: “It’s been deeply disturbing that one can have such a… tremendously important trial that seems to have been conducted with so many flaws.”
Letby was found guilty of murdering seven newborn babies(Image: MEN MEDIA)
One alleged flaw is a shift chart, used to prove Letby was always present when the babies were harmed at the Countess of Chester Hospital from 2015 to 2016.
But statistician Professor Jane Hutton says some incidents, when Letby was not working, were left off, adding: “This is a summary that is so crude it can only be described as grossly misleading.”
It was also claimed Letby must have caused one baby’s death by removing a breathing tube. But several experts say the tubes can be dislodged for a “variety of reasons”.
Notes by Letby, including the phrase “I am evil I did this” were presented as confessional in court. But it is claimed she was encouraged by hospital staff to write down her feelings to help cope with stress.
Baby killer Lucy Letby has reportedly grown closer to another notorious child murderer in jail(Image: AP)
It is also alleged the prosecution’s lead expert, Dr Dewi Evans, has altered his view about how three babies died since the case.
But he denies this, saying his evidence has been agreed by a jury and the Court of Appeal. He also argues the case by Dr Shoo Lee’s panel has not been held to scrutiny in court and contains significant factual errors.
The CPS said: “Lucy Letby was convicted of 15 separate counts following two jury trials.
“In May 2024, the Court of Appeal dismissed Letby’s leave to appeal on all grounds, rejecting her argument that expert prosecution evidence was flawed.”
It added that it is considering police files on further baby deaths and collapses at the Countess of Chester and Liverpool Women’s Hospital.
Lucy Letby: Beyond Reasonable Doubt? is on ITV1, at 10.20pm, tonight.
LUCY BRONZE has revealed that she played the entirety of Euro 2025 with a fractured tibia.
The Lionesses stalwart, 33, incredibly fought through the serious injury to play a key role as Sarina Wiegman’s side retained their Euros crown.
1
Lucy Bronze incredibly played through the pain barrier at Euro 2025Credit: Getty
Bronze played 105 minutes of England’s final victory over Spain, before finally being forced off at half-time of extra time with a knee issue.
Following the Lionesses’ 3-1 penalty shoot-out victory, the Chelsea full-back told the BBC: “I have actually played the whole tournament with a fractured tibia, and then I have hurt my knee on my other leg.
“That’s why I got a lot of praise from the girls after the Sweden game, as I’ve been in a lot of pain. If that’s what it takes to play for England, that’s what I’ll do.”
“Very painful.”
On the tournament as a whole, warrior Bronze added: “We never lost belief in ourselves. There was a lot of noise on the outside. We stuck together and dug deep. To win on penalties. This team is so inspiring to be part of.
“What we have done today is unbelievable.
“Winning on penalties is an amazing feeling, but to lose on penalties is a horrible way to lose a final.
“I know a lot of these girls from Barca missing penalties. It is difficult I have been there a couple of years ago.
Bronze said Sarina Wiegman’s squad held meetings before the tournament to discuss abuse and how it had become a “huge factor specifically in women’s football”.
Before travelling to Switzerland, Arsenal and England striker Alessia Russo said she preferred to stay off social media because of how “damaging” the abuse can be.
And Chelsea forward Lauren James, who received racist abuse at the 2023 Women’s World Cup and during the following Women’s Super League season, said abuse “never really stops”.
Their comments came after British tennis player Katie Boulter spoke to BBC Sport about being subjected to online abuse and death threats.
Bronze said she hoped that by standing before kick-off, instead of taking a knee, “noise will be reached around the world”.
“We know the people higher up are the ones who can ultimately put in things to make change. But I think we know we’re never helpless as players,” she added.
“Our voices are loud enough to be heard by people around the world, whether that’s social media platforms or federations like Uefa and Fifa.
“That’s something we’re very proud of as a Lionesses team, that we’ve created this voice and a platform so we can reach the highest of heights. We’re willing to use that platform and that voice to make differences.”
Bronze also called for more action from social media platforms, adding: “People need to be held accountable.
“We don’t want it to be small steps anymore.
“No player needs social media. We play football because we love the sport, we love playing. We do love connecting with our fans, social media is a great way to do that, but we don’t need it.
“That’s something that the platforms should be very aware of. We can thrive without it.”
On Carter calling the abuse out publicly, she said: “For her to speak out is so empowering to our whole team in general, especially to the likes of someone like Michelle [Agyemang] who is in her first tournament.
“It gives people more power to be brave, stand up and speak up and see all the team-mates and the country are behind [Carter]. That means a lot in moments like this.
“A lot of players have known that this has always been an issue in football. To hear Jess talking about it yesterday, we’re all just so disappointed in so-called fans writing these messages.
“For Jess herself, she probably wouldn’t put it out to the world, but it’s obviously difficult for her to go through. We know it’s not just Jess as well.”
The trio of women let the cameras follow them again as they try to find (or keep) love, look after their kids and build businesses
18:00, 03 Jul 2025Updated 18:23, 03 Jul 2025
Binky, Lucy and Rosie are back for more action on E4 later this year(Image: PA)
Made in Chelsea breakout stars Binky Felstead, Lucy Watson and Rosie Fortescue are returning to E4 for a second series of Beyond Chelsea.
And this time around viewers will follow the three women, now in their mid-thirties, as they balance motherhood, family life and relationships, while running businesses and navigating life in the public eye.
The two-part fly on the wall spin-off, to air on E4 later this year, will give viewers more information about Binky’s mum’s challenges with MS (multiple sclerosis). The audience will also find out whether Rosie has had any success with finding a partner, after last time around she decided she was ready to welcome romance back into her life, with Binky acting as wing woman.
Binky, Lucy, Rosie will return to our television screens with the return of one of Made in Chelsea’s 11 spin-offs(Image: Channel 4 / Rob Parfitt)
The cameras also follow as Lucy moves into her new home mid-development while Binky takes on yet another new business venture, with all three trying to balance motherhood, family life and relationships.
Production boss Helen Kruger Bratt told the Mirror that other Made in Chelsea favourites would also pop up. “The love for Made in Chelsea, and the franchise as a whole, just keeps growing,” she told the Mirror. “Every series brings in new fans, while longtime viewers stay closely connected to the lives of our brilliant cast.
“With Beyond Chelsea, we’ve loved reconnecting with some of MIC’s most iconic OGs in a way we’ve never done before. Featuring these three amazing women, and guest appearances from other ex-MIC favourites, this second series promises to be even more revealing, emotional, and hilarious.”
Binky, seen here with Ollie, was seen in tears last year after finding out Alex had cheated(Image: Monkey Kingdom)
Channel 4 Senior Commissioning Editor Clemency Green added: “Binky, Lucy and Rosie’s lives are chaotic and yet they still find time to allow the cameras back in. The Made in Chelsea fans are going to love seeing what they have been up to this past year, catching up on the gang as they share the ups and downs of their lives.”
Main series Made in Chelsea will also be back on E4 for a 29th run. The BAFTA award-winning show, which first launched in 201, has since notched up a staggering 332 episodes. This time some of the cast head off to a luxury resort in Thailand – where they are joined by a new faces who are “set to cause a stir”.
In January, Binky hinted the show would be back with more appearances from some of the original cast from when the show started 14 years ago. “We only had time to do two episodes last year and to test people’s interest… which was off the charts and overwhelmingly positive,” she said. “Since then we’ve had 3/4 of the OG’s reach out who want to be part of the next phase – all very exciting.”
Lucy Connolly called for hotels housing asylum seekers to be set on fire and wrote “if that makes me racist, so be it”
Lucy Connolly’s 51-word online post in the wake of the Southport killings led her to jail and into the centre of a row over free speech.
For some, the 31-month jail term imposed for inciting race hate was “tyrannical”, while one commentator said Connolly was a “hostage of the British state”, and another that she was “clearly a political prisoner”.
Court of Appeal judges, however, this week refused to reduce her sentence.
Asked about her case in Parliament, Prime Minister Keir Starmer said sentencing was “a matter for the courts” and that while he was “strongly in favour of free speech”, he was “equally against incitement to violence”.
Rupert Lowe, the independent MP for Great Yarmouth, said the situation was “morally repugnant” and added: “This is not the Britain I want to live in.”
Others said her supporters wanted a “right to be racist”.
Northamptonshire Police
Connolly’s legal team argued her sentence was “manifestly excessive” but the Court of Appeal disagreed
Warning: This report contains racist and discriminatory language
In July last year, prompted by a false rumour that an illegal immigrant was responsible for the murder of three girls at a dance workshop in Southport, Connolly posted online calling for “mass deportation now”, adding “set fire to all the… hotels [housing asylum seekers]… for all I care”.
Connolly, then a 41-year-old Northampton childminder, added: “If that makes me racist, so be it.”
At the time she had about 9,000 followers on X. Her message was reposted 940 times and viewed 310,000 times, before she deleted it three and a half hours later.
In October she was jailed after admitting inciting racial hatred.
Three appeal court judges this week ruled the 31-month sentence was not “manifestly excessive”.
PA Media
Connolly’s appeal was paid for by the Free Speech Union, founded by Lord Toby Young (holding left edge of the banner)
Stephen O’Grady, a legal officer with the Free Speech Union (FSU), said the sentence seemed “rather steep in proportion to the offence”.
His organisation has worked with Connolly’s family since November and funded her appeal.
Mr O’Grady said Connolly “wasn’t some lager-fuelled hooligan on the streets” and pointed to her being a mother of a 12-year-old daughter, who had also lost a son when he was just 19 months old.
He said there was a “difference between howling racist abuse at somebody in the street and throwing bricks at the police” and “sending tweets, which were perhaps regrettable but wouldn’t have the same immediate effect”.
Free Speech Union
Stephen O’Grady said Connolly’s case demonstrated “police overreach”
Connolly’s case was also “emblematic of wider concerns” about “increasing police interest in people’s online activity”, Mr O’Grady said.
The FSU had received “a slew of queries” from people who were “very unsure” about “the limits of what they can they can say online”, he said, and who feared “the police are going to come knocking on the door”.
“There’s an immense amount of police overreach,” he added.
Responding to Mr O’Grady’s claim, a National Police Chiefs’ Council spokesperson said that Article 10 of the Human Rights Act “protects a person’s right to hold opinions and to express them freely” and that officers received training about the act.
They added: “It remains imperative that officers and staff continue to receive training commensurate with the demands placed upon them.”
PA Media
Raymond Connolly said the Court of Appeal had shown his wife “no mercy”
After the appeal was dismissed, Connolly’s husband, Conservative town councillor Raymond Connolly, said she was “a good person and not a racist” and had “paid a very high price for making a mistake”.
Her local Labour MP, Northampton South’s Mike Reader, said he had “big sympathy” for Connolly and her daughter, but there was no justification for accusing the police of “overreach”.
He said: “I want the police to protect us online and I want the police to protect us on the streets and they should be doing it equally.”
It was a “fallacy” and “misunderstanding of the world” if people did not “believe that the online space is as dangerous for people as the streets,” he added.
“We’re all attached to our phones; we’re all influenced by what we see, and I think it’s right that the police took action here.”
PA Media
Connolly had pleaded guilty but argued at appeal she had not intended to incite serious violence
In his sentencing remarks, Judge Melbourne Inman said Connolly’s offence was “category A” – meaning “high culpability” – and that both the prosecution and her own barrister agreed she “intended to incite serious violence”.
For Reader, this showed “they weren’t arguing this was a silly tweet and she should be let off – her own counsel agreed this was a serious issue”.
At her appeal, Connolly claimed that while she accepted she intended to stir up racial hatred, she always denied trying to incite violence.
But Lord Justice Holroyde said in a judgement this week the evidence “clearly shows that she was well aware of what she was admitting”.
Sentencing guidelines for the offence indicate a starting point of three years’ custody.
While the prosecution argued the offence was aggravated by its timing, “particularly sensitive social climate”, the defence argued the tweet had been posted before any violence had started, and that Connolly had “subsequently attempted to stop the violence after it had erupted”.
The judgement also highlighted other online posts from Connolly that the judges said indicated her “view about illegal immigrants”.
Four days before the Southport murders, she responded to a video shared by far-right activist Tommy Robinson showing a black man being tackled to the ground for allegedly performing a sex act in public.
Connolly posted: “Somalian, I guess. Loads of them,” followed by a vomiting emoji.
On 3 August, responding to an anti-racism protest in Manchester, she wrote: “I take it they will all be in line to sign up to house an illegal boat invader then. Oh sorry, refugee.
“Maybe sign a waiver to say they don’t mind if it’s one of their family that gets attacked, butchered, raped etc, by unvetted criminals.”
The FSU said she was likely to be eligible for release from August, after serving 40% of her sentence.
Some, including Mr O’Grady, argued her jail term was longer than punishments handed to criminals perceived to have committed “far worse” crimes.
Reform UK’s Mark Arnull, the leader of West Northamptonshire Council, said it was not for him “to pass comment on sentences or indeed discuss individual cases”.
But he added: “It’s relatively easy to understand why constituents in West Northamptonshire question the proportionality of Lucy’s sentence when they see offenders in other high-profile and serious cases walk free and avoid jail.”
Shola Mos-Shogbamimu
Shola Mos-Shogbamimu believed Connolly’s supporters wanted a “right to be racist”
The issue for writer and activist Shola Mos-Shogbamimu was that “those who have committed worse crimes” should “spend more time in jail, not less time for Lucy Connolly”.
Dr Mos-Shogbamimu added: “It’s not ‘freedom of speech without accountability’. She didn’t tweet something that hurt someone’s feelings; she tweeted saying someone should die.”
In her view, those making Connolly a “flag-bearer or champion” for free speech were asking for “the right to be racist”.
Free speech advocate Mr O’Grady said “no-one is arguing for an unfettered ‘right’ to incite racial hatred”.
Connolly’s case was about “proportionality”, he added, and “the sense that online speech is increasingly being punished very harshly compared to other offending… such as in-person violent disorder”.
