Sometimes, history doesn’t just repeat itself—it comes back with a hauntingly similar face.
That’s exactly what it felt like last week when Peter Sullivan, once branded “The Beast of Birkenhead,” was quietly released from prison after nearly four decades behind bars.
The reason? DNA evidence finally proved what he’d been saying all along—he wasn’t the killer.
Back in 1986, Sullivan was convicted of brutally assaulting and murdering barmaid Diane Sindall.
At the time, he was known around his community as a man with learning difficulties, or as they would’ve said back then, “not the full shilling.”
He had minor theft convictions, was spotted near the crime scene with a crowbar, and when the police picked him up, they interrogated him without a lawyer.
Sullivan confessed… then took it back… then confessed again.
During the whole thing, he kept repeating one heartbreaking plea: “I want my mum.”
It’s Hard Not to Think of Stefan Kiszko
Reading about Sullivan’s release stirred an eerie memory—the tragic case of Stefan Kiszko.
In 1975, 11-year-old Lesley Molseed was murdered near her home in Rochdale.
Kiszko, just 23 at the time, ended up being convicted based on false accusations from a few girls who claimed he’d exposed himself.
Like Sullivan, Kiszko confessed under pressure and without a solicitor. And like Sullivan, he just wanted his mum.
Kiszko had the mental age of a child, and crucial biological evidence that could have cleared him was overlooked—he had a medical condition that made him incapable of producing sperm, unlike the evidence found on Lesley’s body.
That evidence eventually led to the real killer, Ronald Castree, who wasn’t convicted until 2007.
But by then, Kiszko had already spent 16 torturous years in prison and died just a year after being freed.
What If the Death Penalty Had Still Been Around?
It’s chilling to think about what might’ve happened if capital punishment had still been in place when these men were convicted.
Both Sullivan and Kiszko would likely have been executed—no questions asked. But in 1965, the UK formally abolished the death penalty.
That decision has saved lives, quite literally, from irreversible mistakes.
And yet, here we are in 2025, with Parliament now debating a law that could once again put vulnerable lives in the hands of the state.
It’s not being framed as capital punishment this time—it’s being called “assisted dying.”
A New Law That Could Quietly Harm the Vulnerable
The new bill, introduced by Labour MP Kim Leadbeater and backed by Sir Keir Starmer, is making its way through Parliament.
The idea is to legalize assisted dying, giving terminally ill people the option to end their lives through a doctor-administered process.
On paper, it’s framed as compassionate. In reality, many fear it’s a dangerous road.
The bill passed its second reading last year with a majority, but when it came to debating the details, only 28 MPs were given a chance to speak—despite over 100 proposed amendments.
Among those amendments was one from Conservative MP Damian Hinds, who wanted to make sure people with learning disabilities, like those with Down’s syndrome, wouldn’t be approached about assisted dying unless they raised it themselves.
Doctors Could Suggest It—Even to Strangers
One of the biggest concerns is that the bill allows doctors to suggest assisted dying—not just to their own patients, but even to people they’ve never treated before.
For anyone facing a grim diagnosis, depression is incredibly common.
Imagine being told you’re terminally ill, and the next thing your doctor says is, “We can help end your suffering early.”
That kind of suggestion, even if well-meaning, can plant the seed of suicidal thoughts.
That’s why palliative care doctors and even the Royal College of Psychiatrists are pushing back hard against the bill.
They’ve seen how vulnerable people can be when they’re scared and overwhelmed.
What About Families Being Left Out?
Another deeply troubling part of the bill? It doesn’t require families to be part of the conversation.
The idea that someone could be guided toward ending their life without their loved ones even knowing is, frankly, horrifying.
As someone with a daughter who has Down’s syndrome, this hits painfully close to home.
People like my daughter are often trusting, eager to please, and highly suggestible
. If a doctor, viewed as an authority figure, suggests something as serious as assisted dying, the potential for subtle coercion is real.
Are People with Disabilities Being Seen as Less Than?
There’s a dangerous perception—one that still lingers quietly in parts of the medical community—that people with congenital disabilities are somehow lesser.
That they’re a burden. The NHS even encourages prenatal screening aimed at identifying conditions like Down’s syndrome, often leading to suggestions of termination. What kind of message does that send?
Back in 2011, I sat in on a focus group of adults with cerebral palsy discussing the idea of assisted dying.
These were intelligent, thoughtful people—one even worked in the NHS.
But many of them said they were deeply afraid of where such a law could lead.
One man, who was once in favor of legalizing assisted suicide, said he’d changed his mind because he couldn’t see a version of the law that wouldn’t be abused.
Vulnerable People Aren’t Protected by Good Intentions
Let’s be clear—this isn’t about doubting the compassion of every doctor.
But vulnerable people, especially those with learning disabilities, often try to say what they think others want to hear.
Just like Sullivan and Kiszko did when pressured by police, someone in a medical setting could be nudged, even unintentionally, toward a decision they don’t fully understand.
Dr. Matthew Doré, a palliative care expert, summed it up perfectly.
“We stopped capital punishment because we made mistakes, even with juries, judges, and endless appeals.
How many mistakes will two doctors make?”
Even the Legal Experts Are Worried
Jonathan Sumption, once a Supreme Court Justice, initially supported the idea of changing the law. But even he’s had second thoughts.
Last year, he called the Leadbeater bill “seriously defective” and said parts of it “read like a protocol for an execution.”
When someone with his legal experience expresses that kind of concern, we should listen.
We Must Ask: Who Are We Really Protecting?
At the heart of this debate is one big question: Are we protecting the vulnerable, or are we quietly making it easier to discard them?
If our laws don’t prioritize the lives of those who are least able to fight for themselves, then what kind of society are we becoming?
Before we rush to embrace a law that claims to offer dignity, we need to take a long, hard look at whose dignity we’re really talking about—and who might pay the ultimate price.