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?

Yes, GillW, you are getting cynical, and quite rightly so IMO.

The adversarial system of the English legal system means that how someone performs in court may well be more important than their expertise.

In my field there is one rogue operator whose evidence is regularly challenged in court (he is clearly wired to the moon). His evidence has become wilder over the years (he's well past retirement age) and it has now got to the point where even those members of the jury who are either (a) asleep or (b) not the brightest lightbulbs in the packet can see that he is barking.

Nonetheless I've often felt at a disadvantage in court because he has a very patronising, mad-professorly air which he plays to his advantage, trying to give the impression that I'm just a silly little girl who doesn't really have the knowledge or experience to know what she's talking about.

I can in fact chew bent nails in court if necessary, but this kind of thing does mean the scales can be weighed against people who try to challenge the evidence of long-serving experienced experts. I would imagine that Southall, Meadows et al acquired some of this kind of mystique and presence that made it very hard for others to challenge them.

Oh no- he wasn't involved in the Billi-Jo Jenkins case was he? I remember there was a rough justice programme about that fairly soon after the conviction.

Aloha, I wasn't defending Southall, just trying to explore one possible scenario behind Cos or CarrieMac's comments before everyone got carried away deciding that someone in favour of Southall must be married to him! It's just one possibility.
As a matter of fact, I've been concerned about Southall for some time now, ever since I came across the ventilator cases (while working as medical journalist) and I hold no brief for him. But I do think part of the tragedy is that someone who does genuinely care about children has developed an obsession to the point where he misused his skill and reputation in order to persecute parents. He could have been a brilliant doctor who helped thousands of children. He did help many children. But he allowed his ego, obession, whatever it is, to destroy many families as well.

I agree with you Eddm, that he probably does have grateful patients. But also pointing out to others that having grateful patients doesn't make you a good doctor or person - and Shipman had lots of loyal followers. I think he didn't so much love children as hate parents. The same motivation as Meadows. I think their egos were so great that they really did beleive that they were better carers for children than parents and that it was perfectly reasonable to think that wanting to attract the attention of doctors and spend more time with doctors was a likely reason for parents to abuse their kids. It's ridiculous! People hurt their kids for many reasons - but the idea that a big reason is to hang out with doctors, well, words fail me. It's nuts.

Looks like I have some catching up to do, back later.

IMO I genuinely do believe that Meadow's was not trying to be malicious. I find it hard to believe that someone who cares for the welfare and health of children would have wanted to cause harm on purpose. I therefore think that he used the courtroom as a platform to promote his own theories on MSBP. The fact that he went further I think he must of thought he had the 'childs best interests at heart' . If I did not think this I could not reconcile with what he has said about me to any reasonable conclusion. I do not think he set out to destroy lives but like most egocentrics he became an egomaniac! I still dislike him, and would like to admit openly that I 'hate' him, but hate is such a strong word. How could he have done what he did if he did not believe in what he was saying? Maybe later on he got himself in 'too deep' and had to 'carry on' and he did realise what he was doing but I am not him, but I do hold him responsible in part for the loss of my children and family. Nothing can make up for that and people like Southall and Meadows must be 'struck Off' IMO and I think that they should be fined!
Whew! I feel better now.

I remember the Billie Jo jenkins case quite well. Sion Jenkins , it turned out, regularly beat his wife up and was a deputy head teacher despite having no teaching qualifications - in other words a violent fraudster. I for one hope he remains in prison.

I suppose it would be the crowning irony that , because of Southall and his unreliable 'evidence', a genuine murderer (IMO)could be released whilst innocent people - women of course - have gone to prison.

Donnie, I seemed to have jumped a bit! my fault, but do you have a link to this case, purely out of interest. As I can not see why Southall was connected to it?
Many thanks Bunglie

What is the source for the information about Sion Jenkins beating his wife?

Sally Clark was, quote, a 'genuine' murderer.

Sothall said Stephen was.

Please do not rely on the findings of courts
of law. They do not always coincide with the
truth.

The truth is incontrovertibtle.

Sally knew she was innocent.

So did Stephen.

The experts had other opinions

The courts and assessment of expert opinion are to
do with something very different.

Public Order.

Please do no not be confused.

Sally Clark was, quote, a 'genuine' murderer.

Southall said Stephen was.

Please do not rely on the findings of courts
of law. They do not always coincide with the
truth.

The truth is incontrovertibtle.

Sally knew she was innocent.

So did Stephen.

The experts had other opinions

The courts and assessment of expert opinion are to
do with something very different.

Public Order.

Please do no not be confused.

Plese explain, feeling a bit slow here? I don't think Sally Clark is guilty, think experts have DUDS and I am with Bunglie, who is sian Jenkins?
Very confused??

Sian Jenkins was convicted of murdering his foster daughter Billie-jo Jenkins on the evidence of Southall. The evidence used by SOuthall is now known to have been dodgy (surprise surprise).

Donnie thinks he is guilty as it was reported in the press afterwards that he had hit his wife, and had lied about his qualifications. However should be noted that they only divorced after the trial- and that his duaghter's seem to think he is innocent. There has been a rough justice programme about his case as well. Who knows how accurate the press reporting was?

Snail is pointing out that courts sometimes get it wrong. SO people like Sally Clark are described as "genuine murderers" when they were nothing or the sort.

Also, he may have been a bad lot, but being a wife beater and a fraudster is not proof beyond reasonable doubt that you are a murderer.

at the time I was convinced, and still am , that he did kill his foster daughter.You are right jimjams in saying his wife only divorced him after the conviction, but as I recall she said he had been beating her and the children for years and she was convinced he was a killer too.I think Southall's evidence contributed to,as opposed to 'nailed', his conviction. Sorry Bunglie, I have no link here but am relying on my memory.I accept press reportage can and is often misleading, but his appeal failed too.True, being a wife beater and fraudster does not a killer make, but it makes me more ready to believe he did kill Billie-Jo than didn't.I hope Southall doesn;t become responsible for releasing a killer into the community - just my opinion.

donnie, I can not pretend to understand the case,what I am curious about is WHY was Southall giving evidence, this was not a case of MSBP or a suspicious cot death (was it?), so what exactly was Southall's role in it? I am not critisizing you or anything but can not understand this bit.
As snail says Sally Clarke was described by the press as a 'genuine Murderer' To me that is outragous because she was cleared, her husband was accused and it seems that she went through 'hell' in prison, and he did although he was free. How can you be a 'genuine murderer'?
I have realised on this thread that some people still think Sally is guilty, to my mind it is a case of 'mud sticks' and so do labels like MSBP. so Southall does have a lot to answer for.
I do not think that someone who really did murder their child is likely to go free just because Southall's evidence is "dodgy", I am sorry but I feel the term 'genuine Murderers' is misleading.
I accept that in this society, unfortunately people do kill their childre. But please don't hide it behind a 'syndrome' from which there really is no defense, because anything you do can be turned into a symptom of this so called syndrome. As far as I understand it is a pattern of behaviour, although I do have trouble with that. perhaps someone can explain that to me more fully?
Please why not call it what it is, (Attempted) Murder by smothering, poisoning or whatever. But these doctors seemed to have created a 'cover-all' syndrome for which there is no defense or cure for this syndrome. Even the symptoms appear to vary to suite the case.
I too hope that no one who has committed a crime and IS guilty, does not 'get-off' due to Southall being "dodgy". The chances of that I think are negligable.
I think Southall et al must be held accountable for what they have said and done in the past. The number of lives they have destroyed, and I do not say that lightly, they have harmed so many people emotionally, and not just by a guilty verdict, but just an accusation, as I am sure Stephen Clarke will testify.
How do we stop this now and stop it from happenning again? Donny, who else do you think is guilty and because Southall has something to do with their case you are afraid of them gettin off'them 'getting off'? Or is this just an isolated case?
Please, please don't think I am having a 'go' at you. from my point of view this is a discussion and I appreciate your input and I respect your point of view even if I do not agree with it. You can not have a a discussion with just one view point, as I said to 'frogs' so please will you explain to me why you feel upset about Sothall being investigated, if that is what you feel.

Question: Do you take your child less frequently to the doctor or do you worry more about taking your child to the dotor?

Just a personal question in light of reacent events and I wonder how it has affected other. don't panic your answers go no further than mumsnet.

Bunglie XX

PS I am sorry donnie that you felt unable to reply, but if you do I am here and I am ready to listen.

Hi Bunglie, let me explain: there is no similarity whatsoever with the other cases. Sion Jenkins was convicted of murder after his foster daughter was found battered to death with a tent spike in the garden.There was a great deal of forensic and circumstantial evidence against him. He appealed, but this failed. After the trial it emerged that he was a serial wife and child beater, and also that even though he was a headteacher or deputy head ( can't remember which), he didn't even have a teacher training certificate.God knows how he managed it but he did. Any way, I commented on the fact that I would be very concerned if he was to be released because as far as I am concerned he is guilty. Apparently Southall was called to contribute to the medical evidence in the trial, which is why the case may now be reviewed. It is nothing like the Cannings or Clarke cases where as far as I can make out there was never any evidence to start with.I hope this clarifies matters.

Actually Southall's involvement in this one is coincidence has nothing to do with why it's now going back to appeal - details here . That's about as an independent a source as you can get, but if you want the detail you could have a look at the original appeal judgement , or here for a slightly more readable (though not impartial) version of the story which exposes the "no qualifications" angle as a distortion (he was apparently qualified in education management, even if not in teaching).

Thanks for those links GillW. It took me a while to ge through them but I think I understand the case now, except Why Southall as an expert? was the child a patient of his or was he a police sugeon at the time or was he just one of those dotors who you use as an 'expert'in court appearances to 'make' a name for themselves I am sorry that is a bit of a cynical comment. I wonder though how many cases apart from MSBP cases he was an 'expert' in? It seems he is a 'Jack of all trades'!

The appeal, as GillW has pointed out, has nothing to do with Southall being discredited. I strongly suspect this is a miscarriage of justice. Sion Jenkins may have exaggerated his qualifications (but hey, it's not very unusual, and I've done it myself) but that doesn't mean he is a murderer. His wife hates him, it's true, my my husband's ex hates him, and he's not a murderer either.

Readers might want to examine the role of Dr Arnon Bentovim and the former Ms Marianne Tranter, now Mrs Bentovim, in all of this (Sion Jenkins case). Nothing is as simple as it seems. For example, take the confession of a vagrant with an obsession with black bin bags, ruled not relevant at the time. Hmmm.... .

Southall and Bentovim, both Munch Bunchers.

Even if Southall escapes with a reprimand he faces at least half a dozen more GMC accusations and Meadow is lined up too.

Don't forget forensic paediatrician Dr San Lazaro is coming up before Meadow.

It isn't child protection that's in crisis, it's paediatrics.

Munch Bunchers, snail?

[puzzled smiley]

I think snail means that Bentovim was another of the leading proponents of MSBP. If you do a Google search on Bentovim and Munchausen you'll find loads of references.