Southall Guilty

[Bunglie]

I am so very pleased that he has been found guilty on most of the charges. I do not understand how he did what he did to the Clarke family.
What disturbs me is that he has not been struck off. There is still the posibility that he could just be reprimanded.
If he were allowed to continue to practice would you trust him and take your child to him?

Frogs - I have been thinking about what you posted. I now wonder why anyone would have wanted to use Meadows et al as defense experts?
Therefore of course it was always going to be for the prosecution. no one is going to say "I tried to hurt my child and therefore I have MSBP, so take them away as I am not a safe parent". Which is the consequences of having MSBP.
Just a thought!

scroll down a little way and you get to some very interesting reading about MSBP here

I live in the same area as luckymum. He made his allegations whilst he was suspended from duty at my local hospital for various other things but he is now being allowed to practice.

There were a few locally reported cases where he misdiagnosed child abuse. In one case a woman had her 3 children taken into care after her estranged husband killed her puppies.

I'm not sure what I feel about the CNEP cases (CNEP is a special type of ventilator) some say it killed/brain damaged their babies, others that it saved their lives.

My God! Thanks for that Julie, I do not agree with the killing of puppies but to loose your children because of it seems like insanity!
I knew nothing of the venilators so I shall try and find out. As I don't know I can not have an opinion.
Jimjams, THANK YOU for your link, it is reall interesting, All of it but can you give me a time or reference number as to the bit you were referring to as I sseem to have missed it in my 'skimming'.
Many thanks for your input, I am finding all this fascinating, I know what the papers say, (sometimes) but it is nice to know what real mums think.
I shall go and look at those ventilators, back later.

Question of the day, What should his punishment be from the GMC?

Struck off!!!! If that's the worst they can do.

The Trust's current line is that he is practicing but 'not doing child protection work' - I don't see how he can separate the two.

Bunglie- a bbc article on CNEP

I still feel he had a duty of care to report his concerns. and who did kill those poor Clarke children?

Cos, Why do you think it was murder? Could it not just be a very sad case of SIDS, I think I read somewhere about a family history or something. I am sure someone can put me straight.

I am just interested why you think that they were killed - please, I do not intend it as a critisism. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, and I for one will respect it, but I am interested to know.

Sally Clarke said herself that she felt people thought she was still guilty, I thought, no, but you have shown me that I am incorrect. can you explain a bit more? I promise, I shall not 'jump down your posting' just pure interest. Is it the'no smoke without fire' or do you not believe in SIDS?

Luckymum, thank you for that link. I had almost got there but this does make it clearer.

Sorry Cos - who is to say that those children were 'killed' as far as I am aware everything that happened recently points to their deaths being natural??

Where di you get the information that they were 'killed' from??

ASory Bunglie - far more eloquently put than I could!!

while reluctant to drag up the sally clarks problems, (she was dismissed from her solicitors job for being repeatedly drunk on duty whilst pregnant etc) the defence never claimed they were SIDS deaths they are still unexplained - just a few random theories and the evidence does suggest they were smothered.

"It is now known that sudden infant deaths do not follow a random pattern.Substantial relations exist between unexplained death and social background, social chaos, poverty, parental mental illness, prematurity, parental smoking and substance misuse, and pre-existing symptoms of illness in the baby"
from a recent reviw article
Levene S, Bacon C. Sudden unexpected death and covert homicide in infancy. Arch Dis Child 2004;89: 443-7.[

Thank you for that cos. I did think however that there was a history in her family of 'sids' or something. And I am not certain that having a drink problem means that she killed her children. I think that it is obvious that they were going to say they were smothered because they were trying to prove murder. However I will be honest I did not follow her case and knew nothing of it until the retrial. I am worried though that her family or her surviving child will be scarred by all of this. Southall I think was wrong to have made a conclusion based on a TV programme but I will be honest and say I had never thought that the deaths were anything but accidental. Thank you for being so honest.
Do you think you will ever change your opinion and think that she is innocent or the deaths were accidental? I get the impression, and I stress it is only an impression, and please corect me, but it is that you feel she 'got off on a technicality'. I have to believe in our justice system, but I also now realise that it has some serious flaws as far as expert witnesses are concerned.

I don't follow the logic here cos- Southall was accusing her husband of murdering the children, not her, so what does her alcohol problem have to do with it? The clustering of sudden infant deaths has been known about for decades, but that suggests of anything that it was less likely to have been murder rather than more, surely? Unless you think that the clustering occurs because people who fall in those categories being more likely to murder their babies?

cos - what you are quoting proves nothing. Does it not strike you as ironic that what you are doing is quoting statistics. Which is exactly what happened in Sally Clark's original trial and which was susequently ruled out as it actually proves nothing about what happened in that particular case.

Actually the evidence upon which Sally Clark was acquitted at the appeal showed that one of her sons probably died from a staphylococcal infection (information which was shown from tests at the time but withheld from the original trial), and the other, as per the original post mortem, from the lung disease, idiopathic pulmonary haemosiderosis. Doesn't that fall into the category of "pre-existing symptoms of illness in the baby" in any case?

Also I've not seen any evidence that she had a drink problem before the tragedy of her first baby dying (which is the kind of traumatic event which could trigger that, don't you think?).

I beg your pardon? Unnecessarily inflammatory? Oh, and going to the police accusing a grieving father of being a double murderer on the basis of watching a TV documentary isn't? And thus quite possibly destroying his life, that of his child and of his innocent wife? Give me a break. That bastard has been responsible for doing stuff to people that is worse than killing them - by promulgating his disgusting theory he has destroyed families. Robbed children of their mothers and parents of their children. There is no language strong enough for evil men like him. What their motivation is one can only guess. Ego? Misogyny? Mental illness? Who knows, but let us hope this decision means an end to this particular disreputable part of medical history. He's as bad as Shipman, in my opinion. And I'd no sooner bring my son to him than to see Dr Mengele. Inflammatory enough for you?

FROM RADIO 4's FILE ON 4 PROGRAMME:
Sally Clark is in jail, for life, for murdering babies
Christopher and then baby Harry. Steve, like his wife a solicitor, has
believed in her innocence throughout. And now he says he's found the
evidence to prove it.

Steve Clark: We were badgering Macclesfield Hospital for months and
months and months for the children's medical records which hadn't been
properly disclosed to us, and when we finally, finally got the papers at
the end of last year, hidden away amongst those papers was a report
which had not been disclosed to the defence at the time of trial. And
the scary thing is that it could still be there and no one would know.

John Sweeney: Steve Clark had unearthed a laboratory report
commissioned by Home Office pathologist Dr Alan Williams - one of a
small group of expert witnesses whose prosecution evidence secured his
wife's conviction.
When he first spotted the report on the second child to die, Baby Harry,
he did not immediately appreciate its significance.

Steve Clark: My initial reaction, not being a doctor was 'what on earth
is this?' I don't really understand it?' So I showed it to one of the
doctors who's been helping us behind the scenes. And he almost shouted
Eureka. This is a test, which reveals a potential natural cause of death
for the baby.

Are we talking about just one test, something that he ...might have
missed?

Well it was a formal request to one of the laboratories at Macclesfield
Hospital to carry out tests on blood and tissue samples, and a formal
report was produced within a few days of the post mortem.

The tests were carried out by Dr Williams the pathologist, he
commissioned the report in any event, the report was found in his files
at Macclesfield Hospital.

John Sweeney: The prosecution did not disclose the key findings of the
lab report pointing to a potentially fatal infection in Baby Harry.

The bacterial infection was staphylococcal aureus and found in eight
parts of the body, including the spinal fluid. The test also indicated
that the infection had been active while Harry was alive. Two leading
pathologists have seen the results, and both have said the Staph A
infection was the most likely cause of death. One, Professor James
Morris, consultant pathologist at the Royal Lancaster Infirmary, added:
'no other cause of death is sustainable.'
And yet, throughout the trial, the jury remained in the dark about this
compelling evidence of Sally Clark's innocence.

Bunglie- the column 648 bit- by the Earl. It's often been said but it points out that if you are accused of MSBP then you can do very little to defed yourself. I have posted before a very good NAS (national autistic society) response about MSBP. I couldn't find it yesterday though- but will look again.

I'm wth aloha on this one. It is so so so easy to end up with an accusation.

Before ds1 was dxed with autism I started him on a special diet for autistic kids (following tests at the autism research unit). I then asked for an appointment with a dietician. She was useless and practically accused me of making up the autism "who said he has autism?" in a very accusing tone me: "no-one- but he's had the dietary test done at the university of Sunderland". I came out of there feeling as if she thought I had MSBP. (this was all because he picked up his toys when I told him to).

Anyway fast forward a couple of years into a different helath authority. Post autism diagnosis- and I hear that I am "well known for not being able to accept her son's autism". So right which is it? Am I making it up or am I unable to accept it, or is it whichever it suits that particular "professional" to think.

It did frighten me in a way- it is so easy to get marked, and once the system moves against you boy are you stuffed. And if you do anything slightly unusual - home educate, have a disabled child, be disabled yourself, or heaven forbid on benefits you are well and truly screwed.

I don't understand cos' reference. Surely all those things mean the deaths are less likely to be murder (unless smoking makes you more likely to murder your baby).

aloha, these cases are heartbreaking, but I disagree that Southall is as bad as Shipman. We don't know, and probably will never know, why Southall chose to act the way he did; he may be an egotistical, misogynistic madman, or he may just be plain wrong and misguided. Either way he did not kill those children himself. Yes, the families have suffered incalculable torment as a result of his evidence, he should not be allowed to deal with children and their families again, but he is not responsible for the deaths, as Shipman was.

Tissy, I think the parents who were forced against their will to put their healthy babies into his experimental incubators and got back severely braindamaged shells might disagree with you. Would I rather have my (theoretical) 89 year granny murdered or my baby snatched away from me and delivered into the hands of god-knows-who, and I could never see him again? You know, I'd prefer the former. It would cause me less pain. So, yes, I think he is worse than Shipman. The suffering is worse, IMO.
When he dies there will a queue to dance on his grave. He's not even sorry!

Also, that evil idiot (having been part of the medical mafia that put Sally Clarke in prison) said that now he was sure that her husband (the sole carer of their remaining son) murdered the babies. These blokes can't even make their wretched little minds up. And his 'evidence'? That the child (who we now know was suffering from a virulent bacterial infection) had a nose bleed. His belief is that any baby that had a nose bleed was being abused. Now would anyone take their baby to see him?

Thanks Jimjams, I will look again tomorrow. I know what 'those' doctors did to me. I know that once labled, always labled, I also know that 15 years later you still can't defend yourself, as no one wants to believe that 'yes' an illness really does exist despite medical evidence proving it.
I am feeling rather low at the moment, so forgive me.
And Yes I do agree with aloha, she seems to be more informed than I am and I was accused.
I can not believe that there is a big chance that Southall will not be struck off.
I feel useless, I feel as if I should be able to look at this constructively but I am afraid I am too emotionally involved. I only wish that the law would change and I hope to God that no more parents live in fear or are accused of having MSBP and if there is anything I can do I would like to think that I would and could help. I just wanted to know all sides of the argument, otherwise I thought that my argument would be biased. realistically how can it be anything but. It is NOT fair that people live in fear of people like Southall, Meadows et al. When you know that you love your child, do your best and yet still feel open to critisism.
My heart goes out to you and other mothers in your position. I do hope I have not offended you anyone as that is not my intention.

Cos, I think your post is a nonsense. You put forth an out of context quote from a pseudo-medical article (it wasn't actually a study, just an opinion on some studies) that states that cot deaths are likely due to a variety of reasons, and suggest that your quote is proof that the clark babies were murdered. Do you really think anyone on mumsnet is dumb enough to be fooled by that warped, incorrect logic.
Well, then again, a handful of doctors and a bunch of judges were. Pity mumsnet isn't running the world, or at least the family courts.

I agree with aloha.