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?

Munch Bunch is term applied to the doctors and related professionals who have promoted or sustained the MSBP phenomenon. There's a letter from Dr Harvey Marcovitch in the BMJ signed by 17 of them. They didn't like being complained about. Note that Southall and Meadow are in there. It's only a matter of time before some of the others have to face the GMC. It's under way for at least a couple of them already. Here's the link.

bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/324/7330/167/a

San Lazaro was involved in the Newcastle Nursery nurses case wasn't she? Is that the one the GMC are looking at?

From yesterday's Express - another verion of the story the Standard had last week:

This doctor was supposed to heal my little girl, instead he nearly destroyed our lives

ROSIE DURKIN was just one year old when she developed a bad cough that led to breathing problems. Her mother, Justine, had no qualms about taking her to the doctor and then to the hospital. There she met a consultant, Professor David Southall, who she thought would help make Rosie better.

But instead, without Justine's knowledge, she had been flagged as a potential Munchausen's Syndrome By Proxy (MSBP) sufferer - a woman who would harm her own child in order to draw attention to herself. Southall secretly videoed her and that video evidence was used to take Rosie and her brother away from Justine.

Now, eleven years later, that same doctor has been slated by the General Medical Council.

After watching a television interview with Sally Clark (the solicitor cleared of killing her two sons after spending three years in jail) and her husband Stephen, Southall told police that Stephen Clark had killed their two little boys.

Southall will now have to wait until August to see if he has been struck off the medical register. But he is not the only one on standby.

Waiting in the wings are Justine Dirkin and six other families itching publicly to air their cases against the man they allege grossly abused his power to tear their families apart.

Among them are other mothers secretly filmed by hidden cameras set up at North Staffordshire Hospital in the early 90s to catch women Professor Southall suspected of suffering from Munchausen's Syndrome By Proxy.

In all the furore surrounding the once highly regarded paediatric consultant, these videos have always been the jewel in the crown of his case. Though this surveillance caused such outrage he was forced to abandon it, he claimed the films showed "irrefutable proof" that 34 of the 39 parents he suspected had tried to harm or even kill their children when they thought they were unobserved.

While it's true the filming caught some parents hurting their children, others claim they were the victim of the most dreadful mistake.

Justine Durkin is one of those videoed mothers who has now come forward to say that, far from proving her guilt, the film of her showed no evidence that she had harmed Rosie, or invented phantom illnesses. Yet she suffered the agony of having both Rosie and her son, Joe, taken away from her and put into care.

Justine is only now trying to build a proper mother-daughter relationship with Rosie, 13, who elected to come to live with her 18 months ago, but she grieves every day for all the years she missed with her and Joe, now 14. "Rosie decided she really needed her mum, which was wonderful but both of us had to go on a steep learning curve as we got to know each other properly, " says Justine. "What I feel about Professor Southall cannot be printed. Striking him off the medical register would not be enough. He should be held accountable for what he has done in the criminal court."

Justine, 34, who lives in an 18th-century farmhouse near Retford, Nottinghamshire, with her new partner - security consultant Rob Ellerby, 31 - filed her complaint in 2000. If the GMC, whose professional conduct committee found Professor Southall had behaved in an irresponsible and misleading way and abused his professional position, decides not to strike him off, hers will be one of the first voices of protest.

Her ordeal began in 1993 when Rosie developed a persistent night-time cough which seemed to affect her breathing. Justine had split from her husband and moved from Stokeon-Trent to live with her parents in Yorkshire.

Her father convinced her to take Rosie to the GP who referred her to Doncaster Royal Hospital for tests. One evening Justine was in the shower when her mother banged on the door in a panic. "When I got to Rosie she was face down on the floor and had turned blue, " she says.

Though the baby soon recovered, Justine took her to hospital where the paediatrician suggested she go to North Staffordshire Hospital to be monitored in a special sleep laboratory run by Professor Southall and his colleague, Dr Martin Samuels. "After our first night there Dr Samuels told me Rosie had a lower than normal rate of oxygen and could become a victim of cot death. Years later I discovered he had written 'Mother - MSBP?' in my records that day before any proper investigation had been done.

SHE adds: "I have many of the characteristics of mothers they say have MSBP but I don't know anyone who hasn't. They include women whose marriages have broken down, whose parents are divorced, who are on anti-depressants, are overweight or anorexic, live in a council house or come from a privileged background - the list is endless."

Justine was sent home with a monitoring device for Rosie. Several weeks later Dr Samuels phoned to say he had found a drastic drop in oxygen levels and that it looked like Rosie had a serious heart disorder. Back at the hospital for 24-hour monitoring, she was introduced to Professor Southall. "He is charismatic with a kind of aura about him, " says Justine. "Consultants are aweinspiring because you think they are going to sort your child out. It was only later I realised he never asked me many questions about Rosie's history or did any X-rays.

"I had to keep Rosie permanently on the bed as still as possible. She wanted to play on the floor and got wrapped up in the wires attached to her, so it was really hard. Now I know it was all for the cameras, which is appalling. Keeping a toddler in effect tied to a bed for five days seems to me to amount to child abuse. "I got very wound up. I couldn't even step out of the room without her screaming the place down. I kept saying I wanted to know if she was all right and if I could go home but Southall told me, 'If you take her home you will be responsible for her dying'."

After two days there had been no incidents recorded by the monitor. What Professor Southall did next, which he does not dispute, would be deemed entrapment if it was employed by the police or journalists. "Southall told me that Doncaster had referred us because they thought I was fabricating Rosie's illness.

He said, 'You have got to understand we need to get the evidence to show them or they will pass it on to the social services'. He said, 'We don't have much time left', and, 'You don't understand how we work'. I was shell-shocked. Until then I was convinced Rosie was really ill. Now I think he was trying to push me into smothering her or pressing on the monitor to give a false reading - but it never happened."

When Justine returned to Doncaster Royal, an even worse nightmare greeted her. Two social workers were waiting to take Rosie away, saying Professor Southall had found irrefutable evidence she was suffering from MSBP. Justine says: "I shouted, 'Over my dead body. If you touch her, I'll rip your head off '." The social workers threatened to call the police and Rosie, now terrified, sobbed in her mother's arms.

Eventually Justine complied but asked if she could settle Rosie in with her foster parents.

Her eyes fill with tears as she recalls that awful parting: "I tried to concentrate only on keeping her happy. I got her ready for bed then I had to leave her in the arms of the foster mother.

It was heartbreaking."

Joe, then three, was taken to his father's house. His father put him in temporary care a month later. Justine still believed she was accused of making things up and had no idea she had been filmed. When she learned of it she felt relief. She knew she had done nothing wrong.

However, Professor Southall alleged she had punched Rosie in the face, slapped her hand and deprived her of food. The evidence was not strong enough for criminal charges but was shown to the Family Court in Leeds in May 1994. The punching incident turned out to be when Rosie had lunged for Justine's can of Coca-Cola. Simultaneously reaching to push the child's hand away for fear she would cut her finger, Justine accidentally made contact with her chin. The slapping was two taps on the back of the hand after Rosie had spilled drink down herself and the food deprivation turned out to be Justine eating the hospital dinners Rosie rejected while giving her her own sandwiches.

The judge ruled there was no evidence of MSBP yet the hearing carried on for nine weeks. "I began to feel empty inside, " says Justine. "I knew I would lose. In a child custody case you don't need factual evidence - it's all possibilities and probabilities. Everything you think would be impossible to happen actually does happen."

Her ex-husband was granted a residency order for both children and Justine was allowed supervised visits for two hours a week. After a year they were allowed to stay at her parents' home for short visits and gradually restrictions were further relaxed.

Meanwhile, Justine's relationship with her boyfriend broke up and she fell pregnant by another man and married him. Convinced social workers would take the baby away, she had a termination but was soon pregnant again and gave birth to Aidan, who is now six.

Her relationship with his father also broke down but for the past three years she has found happiness and stability with Rob.

She could have applied to have the residency order changed but that would have entailed a battle with her ex-husband and by then the children were settled in Stoke. Joe, who now represents Great Britain in cycle speedway, still lives there but spends many weekends and holidays with his mother.

"All normality had been taken away from me, " says Justine. "You question every move you make. I was scared to pick the children up because everything I thought I had done right before had been deemed wrong. It's soul-destroying. When Aidan fell over, injuring his nose, the first thing I said as I walked into casualty was, 'I didn't do it'.

"Looking back, I don't know how I coped visiting Joe and Rosie because it was so upsetting. I was ordered to undergo counselling by the court to come to terms with what happened but it made me very angry.

"The most painful thing is not having been there when they needed me. Rosie would phone me and say, 'Mum, I really need you'.

It's remembering the look on her face when she first saw me and I knew I couldn't stay.

It's not taking them for their first day at school, getting their hair cut. It's all the little things you can never get back. It has been 11 years and I have lived the trauma every day."

Justine recognises that gathering evidence on abuse can be difficult. "I agree that medical professionals sometimes have to take drastic measures - but where do you draw the line?

"There must be strict guidelines governing what they can do and the people doing the work should not be the ones who draw them up. I believe the system of closed family courts must also be changed."

As Rosie - now a pretty and self-assured teenager - arrives home from school, Justine grins with delight, as if this everyday occurrence is still very special and precious.

"I'm still scared of doing something wrong but it's an amazing feeling having her here, knowing she's staying - but it's also a painful reminder of all that we have missed."

===

From Evening Standard - 28/06/2004 (1269 words)

This was the ES follow up to their article. Marcovitch (one of the 18 who sent that BMJ letter and who is the RCPCH spokespaediatrician) is backtracking on the crisis facing his profession. You bet he is. It really is a facing a crisis and when the public inquiry comes it will be slammed for not reining in its mavericks.

ANASTASIA STEPHENS

Paediatricians - doctors who deal specifically with children - are under extreme pressure following criticism of evidence given by Professor David Southall and Sir Roy Meadow in high-profile "abuse" cases. We asked Dr Harvey Marcovitch of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health where his profession goes now...

Q Recent high-profile cases in which childhealth experts have been discredited have proved disastrous for your public image. How do you plan to salvage it?

A My answer would be that paediatricians have not detected any difference in the way patients deal with them. Ninety per cent of paediatric work is to do with treating acute disease or caring for the disabled. The area of work you are referring to is very small and has created problems for only a few people who find themselves criticised by individual families.

Q There is evidence linking unexplained infant deaths to smoking and their sleep position. Haven't paediatricians been all too ready to suspect parents, instead of working with them to avert cot deaths?

A Paediatricians know as well as anyone else that 90 per cent of cot-death cases have an innocent explanation. Paediatricians have contributed to all of the written material offered to the public and parent support groups relating to cot death. I'd say that hundreds of research papers contributed by paediatricians in the last decade have helped to explain most of the causes.

Q Why has the Royal College been so reluctant to criticise Professor David Southall, the paediatrician who accused the husband of Sally Clark of murdering their two sons based on "evidence" from a TV programme?

A As a college of paediatrics, our responsibility is to ensure the health of children is enhanced by the proper training and accreditation of doctors.

We're not a disciplinary body, nor can we tell paediatricians what they should or shouldn't do. That's the role of the General Medical Council.

Q Professor Sir Roy Meadow, the discredited paediatrician who gave evidence at the Angela Cannings case, came up with the theory of Munchausen's Syndrome by Proxy - where mothers harm their children to draw attention to themselves. With Sir Roy's reputation in tatters, isn't this theory looking increasingly preposterous?

A Sir Roy's evidence has not been accepted in three court cases - but that's different from saying he has been discredited.

And while Sir Roy named the syndrome, he was not the first person to describe it. All UK paediatricians say Munchausen's Syndrome by Proxy exists. The problem is possible misdiagnosis or whether misdiagnoses are as rare as we think.

Q When the opinions of paediatricians lead to innocent parents being jailed or separated from their children, how can parents put their trust in you?

A By law, paediatricians must report to the social services if they suspect abuse. This includes any child they believe has been harmed or is at future risk of harm. It is the social services who investigate and make any subsequent decisions about separating parents and children.

All a paediatrician can do is make sure any evidence they provide is fair and just.
Q As reported in the Evening Standard, Professor Southall lied to a mother called Justine Durkin that her daughter had a life-threatening disorder to get them into hospital for five days to view them both with a secret camera.

He was hoping to get evidence of Munchausen's Syndrome by Proxy. Can such a deception really be considered acceptable practice?

A I can't comment on unproven allegations.
Q Child-health experts play a vital role in screening for child abuse.
What needs to be done if paediatricians are to protect children while avoiding the terrible mistakes that hit the headlines?

A We can aim continually to improve the training of junior doctors in paediatrics and refine the scientific evidence on which court evidence is given.

The Royal College of Paediatrics is constantly embarking on initiatives to make sure this happens.
Q Do you ever worry that controversy over the Southall and Meadow cases will lead other paediatricians to become too cautious in their recommendations and err on the side of suspect parents rather than their at-risk children?

A No I don't worry. It's very rare for a paediatrician to give evidence in criminal cases, which is the issue here.
More commonly, paediatricians are asked to give advice in family court cases. We've heard Dame Butler-Sloss, Head of the Family Division at the Court of Appeal, say we are completely fair and we are greatly assured by this.

Q Have you ever, through lack of solid evidence, left a child with parents you feared were abusive?
A I'd say it's more common to be in a position of uncertainty than in a position of certainty, which is why criminal proceedings are rare.

It's not for a paediatrician to decide if a child remains with their parents - those decisions are made by the social services.

Q There's a desperate shortage of paediatricians prepared to get involved in child abuse cases.
How can more be encouraged to come forward?
A Every NHS trust is supposed to have a paediatrician who supervises how they deal with child protection and one in three posts are not filled. There are two reasons for this. The first is that this duty has to be done on top of their normal workload. Secondly, paediatricians are deterred by the criticism and complaints that come their way. However, the College is trying to reassure young doctors just how important this role is for children.

Q Around 1.8 million children in the UK are thought to be overweight and a further 700,000 children, obese. What can paediatricians do to curb the problem?

A Two months ago we presented a report to the Government on childhood obesity that laid out the many ways we think it should be dealt with. Curbing the problem is the responsibility of parents, the children themselves, the advertising industry, food manufacturers and the Government. They now know what to do and it's up to them to do it.

Q Should parents be given a choice on what vaccines their children are given - if they want them vaccinated at all?
A Parents have a choice you can opt for any preparation that has been licensed for use. Vaccines have saved many children from polio and from two of the major causes of meningitis. As far as the MMR debate is concerned, single vaccines aren't available because they've not been shown to be effective by UK authorities.

Q Who knows best when it comes to a child's health - the expert or the parent?
A All medical care has to be a collaboration between the doctor, the family and the child. All that doctors can do is give advice based on their knowledge and experience. Parents can then decide how much they're prepared to accept it.

Q Can paediatricians really hope to live up to the levels of responsibility and trust invested in them by hundreds of parents and children every day?

A Yes - if they follow the rules on good medical practice outlined by the General Medical Council, undertake the training our college offers, continue their professional education long after they become consultants and share what they are doing with their colleagues so that their activities are transparent then the trust that my colleagues tell me people have in them will continue.

END
THE STORY OF JUSTINE DURKIN AS THE EVENING STANDARD ON 18 JUNE
Copyright 2004 Associated Newspapers Ltd.
Date: 28/06/2004 Publication: Evening Standard

Sorry I have been laid up for a few days with celluitis(sp?). However, I turn on the computer and start to read through all of this and I am rarely, as most of you realise, 'gobsmacked' I must admit when I first posted my story and heard about Meadows being exposed I thought, 'Great' but did not expect it to change anything, or for it to have affected too many people. As things have gone on, over the last 6 months, I am in disbelief!
How could a group of doctors, who we entrust the most precious thing that we have, our children, unto them, betray us like this? Why? I really do not understand WHY? Was is self-advancement in their proffession, or was it for money as has been sugested by one mother, when she told me how much they got for a court appearance as an 'expert'. How could they have hidden this from everyone for so long, and that includes me, as I said I thought I or at least my case was a mistake and I did not expect it to generate the support I have received.
I think I need to go and digest this some more (and then be sick )

I have had time to think about this, but only because I spoke to someone on the telephone, guess what? Not only did Meadows never see either of us, but we were both also seen by Bentovim. I think the term "Munch Bunch" is very applicable and I hope that action groups like MAMA, continue to put pressure on the GMC, but I am ashamed to say that I do not work that way, I would not know how to put 'pressure' onto them, but I do think that if it is obvious to me that this group exists, that it is damaging the paediatric profession, then it Must be time that they do something. I am not the brightest 'star in the sky' but the link is there for all to see. I think our MP's and everyone should know that it is time we 'cleaned up our paediatric services'. Our children are too precious and deserve the best treatment we can get for them, and they are not getting it and the mothers (especially of a 'special needs child' are in fear that if the 'badger or harrass their doctor they will be thought of as having MSBP. When did the maxim, 'Mother knows best', stop being true?

Sorry, I don't know how thaT 'WINKY' emoticon, got there, it was suposed to be close of inverted comma, followed by a close of bracket. I hope you do not think I am being tactless or insensitive. That was NOT meant to be there.

Just caught up again with the thread. Seem to be doing a lot of that lately.

Phewwwwwww!!!!!!!!!!

Lots there. cos/carrimac, don't know but seems to be the same person and i can't understand the name change.

Love the DUDS, saddened by the story's i have read and the heartache caused by misdiagnosies and angered by the fact these doctors are still practicing.

I was also very pleased to see Bentovim name is cropping up more often. Bentovim was involved in my case along with Meadows. He worked out of Great Ormond Street in 1991, great friend and collegue of Meadows, who was in Leeds. I can still remember the interview in his little office, he videoed it. I know this because they left myself and my husband in the room on our own with my daughter, they never let me be alone with her, i could not give her anything, not without buying it infront of them. They though i could contaminate a bar of chocolate or spike a juice with something.

got to pop out for a while.

Good to see you Post sue, I hope all is well and that you are coping OK. Send me an Email. OH Cheeseball says a "special 'hello'"

In 3 years of contact meetings for several hours twice a week I was not even allowed to give my children 'Punch and Judy' Toothpaste, which their foster carers did not give them, and I had to give the social services money to buy the children drinks etc. during contact meetings but I was not allowed to touch them. What reall finished it for me was that I was given a 'Christingle' (which is a satsuma, with nuts, or raisons and sweets on, with a candle in the top and tinsel around it.) It is not meant to be eaten but the candle is lit as a sign of peace in the world at Christmas. I was given two to give to my children and they were thrown in the bin by the social worker in front of them. How cruel can you get? To them it was a present from Mum and Dad, that had been thrown away and they were told off for trying to retrieve it. God - (perhaps the wrong word) but I really wondered that day what I had done so wrong to have my children punished like this.

Bunglie you ask "How could a group of doctors, who we entrust the most precious thing that we have, our children, unto them, betray us like this? Why? I really do not understand WHY?"

It's easy because they despise mothers. I am so lucky to have never been in the situation that you are in, but I have had enough meetings with peadiatricians etc to know that many (obviously not all) think mothers are stupid, dimwitted and unable to know what is best for their child. And their arrogance can make them behave appallingly (the drs I mean not the mothers!)

My son's peadiatrician has accused my friend's dd of abusing her younger sister. It's only because someone sensible stepped in that the allegations didn't go further. He also accused another mother I know vaguely of breaking her dd's rinbs (her dd has very severe disabilities) when in fact she had been resuscitated- and as anyone knows that can break ribs. No-one even had the dececy to tell the mother that the ribs had been broken - she only found out because she read her dd's notes- then the accusations started.

And this man -imo- isn't fit to practice- he's a well know alcoholic- and supposedly one of the most senior peads here. I keep well out of his way- luckily we tend to see his underlings.

But JimJams, why? I don't know what connection you've got with paeds (do you work with them?), but I totally believe you when you say they despise mothers. That seems to be a general cultural norm nowadays, but there are certain groups of people where it actually matters; if the milkman despises you, who cares, but if someone who has actual real power over you does, you're in trouble. What is going on with paediatrics which has fostered this culture of hostility to mothers? (I'm only asking you specifically because it sounds like you work with them and you've actually stated something which I believe to be true and horrific - sorry if I've missed some huge big clue further down the thread)

I caught the tail end of a discussion on woman's hour on radio 4 this morning in which various medical people were saying medics are terrified of training in paediatrics these days as it has developed such a bad reputation.I guess with people like prof sir roy meadows and dr southall is it any wonder? I had to take dd for a blood test today and I honestly did start to wonder if somehow the docs though I was responsible for the fact my dd was in the hospital, despite the fact that the blood test is to check on viral causes of a rash ( ie definitely nothing I could have caused) Am I paraanoid or do I really need to be this scared?

donnie, what do you make of the Sion Jenkins retrial so far?

The black binliner business is very strange. And surely if he had done it, there would have been a lot more blood than a handful of microscopic splatters - and wouldn't he have changed his jacket before he went back to the other girls in the car? And then destroyed it later?

The police made up their minds it was him and convinced his wife too. That reminds me of another case but I can't think what atm.

I haven't actually read of details of the case, didnt even know there was a retrial! I will have to find out before I pass judgment.I felt so strongly at the time that his past history of violence and lying showed what he must be like.But then again, maybe I am wrong...I will find out more.

This from the Times last weekend:

07/10/2004 06:36:17 AM EDT -- The Times

Billie-Jo expert 'grossly misled' murder trial

A LEADING paediatrician who accused the husband of Sally Clark of killing their two sons gave grossly misleading evidence which helped to convict Sion Jenkins of child murder, the Court of Appeal has been told.

Documents seen by The Times, which have been lodged with the court, contest crucial evidence given by David Southall at the trial of Jenkins for the murder of his foster daughter, Billie-Jo.

Professor Southall, one of the country's foremost experts on child abuse, already faces disciplinary action after accusing Stephen Clark of double murder based on the viewing of a television programme.

A disciplinary committee of the General Medical Council is to meet next month to decide whether he should be admonished, suspended or struck off the medical register.

In the latest public scrutiny of Professor Southall's working practices, lawyers for Jenkins have told the Court of Appeal that the paediatrician's evidence led to the schoolteacher's wrongful conviction for killing Billie-Jo.

Jenkins, now 46, was jailed for life by Lewes Crown Court for bludgeoning Billie-Jo, 13, to death with an 18in metal tent spike as she painted a patio door at their home in Hastings in February 1997. A crucial plank in the prosecution's case, supported by Professor Southall, was the forensic science evidence of 150 microscopic blood spots found on Jenkins's clothes.

The Crown said that the only way they could have got there was by blood spattering on to him as he battered the girl around the head in a fit of temper.

The appeal team claims that the blood spatters could have been caused by Billie-Jo's dying breaths as he cradled her, a scenario dismissed as "highly unlikely" by Professor Southall when he appeared at the trial.

The controversial paediatrician said that from his experience of children with severe head injuries, he believed that it was impossible for Billie-Jo to have expelled 2.3 litres of air, which he interpreted as being the amount necessary to produce blood spatter.

He said that his opinion was based on lengthy experience of seeing children on ventilators.

In a written statement put before judges at the Court of Appeal, Clare Montgomery, QC, for Jenkins, said: "It is now clear that Professor Southall's evidence about 2.3 litres was wrong and grossly misleading."

Ms Montgomery said that medical experts who appeared at the trial were "ignorant" of what was needed to show how the blood spots got on his clothes because "nobody understood the science".

She said they did not possess "sufficient training, skill or knowledge" to be able to state with certainty that the blood had got there as a result of Jenkins bludgeoning the teenager.

A legal source close to the case said yesterday: "Professor Southall's evidence is at the heart of the case.

"It was a very powerful point that the Crown made again and again, that Billie-Jo was dead and the appellant (Jenkins) never saw her breathing, knowing she was dead.

"She was almost certainly still alive but would not have been breathing normally.

In these circumstances an injured person would have been taking a breath and then appearing to stop."

Professor Southall, 55, who is based at the University Hospital of North Staffordshire, in Stoke-on-Trent, is a leading expert on Munchausen's syndrome by proxy, a condition which apparently drives parents to harm their children in order to win attention.

Considered a brilliant, pioneering paediatrician by some, but reckless and over-zealous by his detractors, Professor Southall has been the subject of a decade-long campaign to discredit his work. He faces a further seven GMC hearings over his use of video surveillance of abusive parents and ventilators.

The paediatrician's recent appearance before the GMC followed his decision to contact police and social services in August 2000 after watching a television interview with Stephen Clark to warn them that he believed Mr Clark to be a double murderer and a serious threat to the Clarks' third child, who was in Mr Clark's care.

His wife, Sally, was serving a life sentence for the murders at the time, but was released on appeal last year.

Professor Southall, who is currently in Africa, declined to comment yesterday.

I emailed the GMC on 16th June, and I had forgotten but yesterday I recieved this email back with two attatchments, if you would like to see these then just say and I will post them here.

Many thanks for your e-mail of 16 June about Dr Southall. I am sorry for the delay in replying.

The comments you make about the case against Dr Southall have been noted. I have also noted the exchange of views you refer to on Mumsnet.com/Talk? and am grateful to you for referring us to this resource. As you may have heard, our Professional Conduct Committee which was considering the case against Dr Southall had to adjourn and will resume its consideration of the case in early August.

For your information I attach the Committee's determinations so far which may be of interest.

Yours sincerely

Simon Haywood
Conduct Case Presentation Section
Direct Line: 020 7915 3443

the court of appeal judgment in the billie-jo jenkins case is due today. should be interested to see what comments are made about southall

Verditc is a retrial . Don't have any more details yet.

This is a summary I found of the basis for the CA's decision - the text of the judgment is not available on line yet.

"The fresh evidence had not been available at the trial or the earlier appeal and it undermined the earlier finding of the Court of Appeal that the only obstruction was in the lower airways. There was now evidence that, some time after the beginning of the attack, V's upper airway was blocked or substantially blocked thereby creating pressure in her lungs behind the blockage. The fresh evidence, if given at trial, might reasonably have affected the decision of the jury to convict and therefore the conviction was unsafe. R v Pendleton (2002) 1CrAppR 34 applied. The murder of V was a grave allegation and the public interest required that a jury should decide the matter on the basis of all the evidence now available. There were no reasons why a retrial would be unfair"

From yesterday's Sunday Times:

Sally Clark case doctor faces being struck off

PROFESSOR David Southall, the doctor who saw a television documentary and then wrongly accused a father of killing his two sons, could be struck off or suspended this week after an inquiry by the General Medical Council (GMC) found him guilty of giving misleading evidence and of dressing up his opinions as fact.

He had accused Stephen Clark -whose wife Sally was wrongly convicted in 1999 of murdering their two baby boys -after watching a Channel 4 Dispatches documentary which cast doubt on the conviction.

Clark complained to the GMC after hearing of Southall's intervention. His wife's conviction for smothering 11-week-old Christopher and shaking to death his eight-week-old brother Harry was quashed by the Appeal Court in January last year because vital evidence had been withheld from the trial.

Last month a GMC panel ruled that Southall, 55, had been "irresponsible and misleading" and will decide his punishment on Thursday. Although it can strike him off or suspend him, it could impose the lesser punishment of a public admonishment.

The Clarks are said to be pleased that the inquiry found against Southall but feel bitter that it has taken four years.

Southall, a paediatrician at North Staffordshire hospital, continued practising while the GMC assessed the complaint. If he is not struck off he faces inquiries into seven other complaints.

Meanwhile, a second medical expert in the Clark case also faces a GMC hearing. The appeal judges said that there were "serious questions" over the competence of Dr Alan Williams, the prosecution pathologist. Sally Clark's lawyers said that Williams misled the jury by failing to disclose the results of medical tests which suggested that Harry had died from a rare form of meningitis.

The case against Williams is expected to be heard in February.

I am not sure what to say about THIS ?

I firstly did not realise that he had already been suspended once, or did I read that wrong?

Secondly, he STILL has not acknowledged that he has done anything wrong. Surely unless he admits he made a mistake, and what a mistake! He says he does not accept the findings of the GMC so how can they place any for of 'conditions of working practice' or sanctions on him?

Why would the Hosp. want him?

I ask you, given a choice would you take your child or allow your child to be treated by Dr. Southall?

The hospital has a history of defending Southall and refusing to acknowledge fault even when there is serious criticism of his practice. He is clearly very powerful.

No, I woudn't take my baby anywhere near him. Although part of this tragedy is (a minor part compared to the suffering of babies, children and parents) that he is genuinely dedicated to the welfare of children. But has managed to do so much harm in the pursuit of his own agenda. Like many experts he seems to have become blinkered and supremely over-confident in his own opinions, presenting them as fact.

Yes, he has been suspended before, I think over the controversial trials of the CNEP incubation system for prem babies ? a system that has now been banned in this country. Parents said they hadn't been told their babies had been enrolled in a trial. The hospital and Southall claimed parents had signed consent forms but an investigation found poor record keeping and that junior nurses had been put under pressure to sign parents up. I think there were details on the other Southall thread.

Stop press - GMC have not struck him off but said he mustn't get involved in any more child protection work.