Sally Clarke has died....

[ZZMum]

Poor poor woman... how awful for her family after all they went thru...

Edam, I don't think that the RCPCH dooes try to demonise the victims of miscarriages of justice. I think that the press and public demonise and vilify.

Child protection unfortunately isn't always black and white, the grey areas are vast. There can, for obvious ethical reasons, be little research into this area making scientific evidence hard to come by. I may post a poll on chat asking about ear bruising...

Stating the limits of your competence should be part of writing any type of child protection report, ie I am xyz, I have this clinical experience and I have undergone this training. Conclusions should be stated to be based upon your findings and the information available to you at the time. It has been my experience that the reaction of ss and the police to similar incidents varies from area to area and that sometimes the reaction is wholly out of proportion to the actual harm or risk of harm to a child but police and ss make their own decisions on this.

In the case that you describe re the salt poisoning doctors for the defence gave evidence that salt poisoning by the parents didn't fit with the clinical details.

I fully agree that the Victoria Climbie case was shocking in the extreme both in the abuse that the little girl suffered and in the way that the system let her down. I struggle to see how the sws and medics involved can ever deal with cp cases again.

Fine post Edam

And damn fool 'professionals' like those also doubly do children a disservice IMO. I heard/read something in the aftermath of the Clark and Cannings cases that other childcare practitoners are reluctant to stand as 'expert witnesses' due to the potential of negative effects on their reputations. So in effect a child could be suffering/killed by a carer and those who could assist the prosecution are so worried about besmirching their reps that thay won't stand up. Thanks RM et al.

Child protection is such a tricky area. I do feel that many from SW up are damned if they do and damned if they don't. However, in the cases mentioned below I cannot find any justification at all for getting as far as court and destroying a person.

Ladidah, oh yes they did launch a publicity campaign, when I've got a second I'll do a news search and find the wailing and protests for you.

I know doctors for the defence gave evidence, but it's beyond belief that the case went to court in the first place based on such a bizarre notion. My father happens to know the sw who placed the children with the couple who were falsely accused and imprisoned. He was convinced by the prosecution and suffering huge guilt over placing the children with Ian and Angela. That's what is so worrying - that otherwise intelligent professionals swallow such a load of codswallop and let peer pressure cloud their judgement. Any reasonable person looking at the claim dispassionately would ask, how the hell can you feed a toddler ? or anyone for that matter ? salt without them vomiting?

There seems to be some inherent misogyny in the courts system that starts from the assumption that the best interests of the child are defined by opposition to the parents. The best interests of the child may not, in some circumstances, be the same as the parents in all aspects. But that's not the same as insisting that the best interests of the child are always separate from their family. I don't know how it got like this, but it needs to be challenged and unpicked, just as institutionalised racism in the police was challenged.

it is so desperately sad she had suffered so much loosing her two babies is more than most women could cope with, and then to be sent to prison where she would not have been treated well at all by the other inmates god only knows how she survived that.

Her poor family, now it will all be in the media again and doubts will yet again be cast on her,and them there seems to be no end to the suffering for her and her family.

I read about her drinking, from what I have read she started binge drinking after the death of william her first child, perfectly understandable if you ask me.

What I think is most terrifying as a mother is that it could happen to any one of us.

her website \link{http://www.sallyclark.org.uk/here} has lots of information and facts its very sad and depressing reading. I hope her family are left in peace to recover from this and her little boy will know from the rest of his family how much his mother loved him

So so rip SC.

A very sad article.

Re why aren't we questioning her defence counsel, as I understand it, the reason they were so lacksadaisical about the defence (if that's the right word, it probably isn't), is because it was so obvious to them that she wouldn't be found guilty, that they didn't see the need to produce more experts. (I guess they didn't realise he'd do some mad erroneous statistical bollox either.)

I don't think you can blame lawyers for acting on the basis that the expert witnesses will be rational people with no mad agenda. Although nowadays, perhaps you can.

But Caligula, I don't understand why, after the false statement was made, it wasn't challenged in court. I've had a quick read from her webite, depressing reading though it is, and it doesn't mention it being specifically challenged in court.

I feel that although this sad case highlights the failings of Meadows it also highlights the limitations of an adversarial legal system and the difficulties that juries may face in understanding complex evidence presented in this setting.

I have a basic understanding of stats, but if I was on the jury that day I would have assumed that the eminent paediatrician "Professer Sir Roy Meadows" knew a hell of a lot more about it than I did and would have accepted his statement.

I imagine the defence assumed his figures had some basis. Only another "expert" would have been able to challenge him and who would have the confidence and credibility to face up to such a senior and respected specialist?

In my opinion, Roy Meadows should be behind bars for his evil lack of regard for the parents involved in these cases. If I ever meet him in real life I will spit in his face.

Something I have never wanted to do to anyone before now.

I really hope that everything possible is done to support her surviving son. Punishing Roy Meadows will not now achieve anything - that horse has bolted. He was somebody put in a position beyond his capabilities, and moreover didn't have the self knowledge to realise this and unfortunately this ended in tragedy.

Not surprised she started drinking - how would anybody be able to cope with what she went through. I am not religious, but I really hope that she has now found peace.

The statistics were wrong, but the lack of understanding of statistics also affected the jury and the media. Even if it was 1 in 73m, what does that mean? It means once in 73 million times, it can happen. So it can happen - sometimes. Intead, the court, the public and the media reacted as if "1 in 73m" means "can never happen". That has always irritated me.

Me too snowleopard. Even if the odds were correct Sally could have been that '1'.

SL, I've always said this about that 1 in 73 million figure - what are the odds of winning the lottery? Much worse than that... And yet someone wins nearly every week...

Yes but the stats RM used did make it seem extremely unlikely that those babies died from natural causes. I read today that the true figure is more like 200 - 1.

Makes me wonder how many other women in similar circumstances were wrongly convicted because arrogant fools like RM refused to question their assumptions?

It is really tragic and I do think that those who contributed to her death should be brought to justice, it won't help Sally Clark but it might stop this kind of witch hunt from happening again.

Even in the event that a mother did shake her baby to death surely this would not make her a criminal deserving of a jail sentence but more likely shows that she is in need of psychiatric help!

To say nothing of the fact that there are doubtless women still in prison serving sentences for so called murders which were actually cot-deaths

And fathers too, presumably?

Has anyone read the article in the Observer today? Apologies if this is mentioned earlier, I haven't had time to revisit the entire thread.

Apparently on release from prison Sally Clark and her family, and the same is true of Angela Cannings, were offered no help from any agency whatsoever. No social workers, no counsellors, etc. I find this totally appalling. This poor woman was falsely imprisoned for killing her sons, subjected to the most foul abuse whilst in prison and, when the justice system actually admits that they got it wrong, hands are washed and she is just tossed back out into "normal" life and expected to get on with it!

Did you know that Angela's daughter has been suffering from extreme separation anxiety and hasn't been to school for 3 years? And what are the authorities doing about it? Bugger all.

Sometimes I wonder what is meant by living in a civilised society.

MrsSpoon - I read the book. It was called 'Stolen Innocence' and was by her solicitor, John (I think) Batt. I was so angry on her behalf after I read it. I know this is controversial, but The 'Informed Parent' organisation also made the point that no reference was made in the case to the fact that both boys had been vaccinated very shortly before their death and that this might have precipitated an underlying condition.

Totally agree with you, Freckle. No humanity at all in her treatment.

what a piece of shit to sell a ' story' like this to the NOTW. A real lowlife parasite c**t IMO. Isn't it amazing how there is always someone willing and able to make a few quid from tragedy and suffering.

If you read her website it's really interesting to note that the defence were arguing that these deaths were not two cases of SIDS but that her first son, Christopher, died from a respiratory infection.

This made the statistic quoted by Meadows to be not only wrong but totally irrelevant to her case even if it were right iyswim. Ironically at her first appeal the judges used this as a reason to say that the jury could not have been influenced by it and so disregarded it's inaccuracy when considering her appeal. Madness!

I really agree with snowleopard about statistics and the general understanding of them by the public. Although the odds of winning the lottery are greater than 1 in 73 million, assuming you buy a ticket , as Caligula says people do buy tickets and hope to win and indeed almost every week someone does win. Unlikely does not equal impossible.

the 1 in 73 million was totally misquoted and used out of context it was from research by professor peter flemming of Bristol University and he is quoted as saying 'This statistic was never intended as an estimate of real risk. It was never meant to suggest that this was an unnatural occurrence. This statistic is of no relevance to a jury trying to understand whether babies had died naturally or unnaturally. It was used completely out of context and so, without explaining how it was arrived at, it is potentially misleading and dangerous.'

I dont understand statistics well but from what I have read it seems to suggest that the risk for a cot death is 1:850 but in fact that figure increases to 1:200 if there has already been one cot death in the family that is from CONI (care of next infant charity)

Sadly none of this helped/helps sally or her family now, the justice system failed her badly

Poor, poor woman.

I knew her slightly as she did her articles at the law firm I used to work for. She seemed lovely. And as for the heavy drinking, well, everyone at that firm drank heavily, I was no exception! It was a very drink-oriented culture.

I did cry for her and her three DSs today, as I opened the cards and presents from my three. There but for the grace of God.