Did she get a long enough sentance?

[pyjamagirl]

Shocked to hear that a CM was jailed for just 3 years after been found guilty of shaking her mindee to death.
Can't begin to imagine how the little girls parents are feeling today ,3 years for taking their little girl away.

news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30100-1292637,00.html

I used to work for an expert witness in a completely different field and he was very clear that his job was to give an independent account of his investigation and findings. But it seems that may not be the case for every expert. Amazing that there is no requirement for them to have any training at all.

If you follow this link you will find copies of the posters that are beginning to appear all around in support of Keran.

www.carers4carers.co.uk/posters.html

Please print a few off and put them around wherever you go.

I was reading something recently about the difficulties of getting a reasonable selection of people for jury service. So many people who are in responsible jobs or have a lot of committments ar exempt, we are left with a group of people who may not represent a good cross section of society, and may not be that well informed etc etc.

This, if it is true, is a bit worrying.

Good to see other MNers have come to the same conclusion about this case.

It is making me think of a documentary about Shaken Baby Syndrome that was on around July 2005. There was a young couple where the father had been convicted of murdering his son, and a medical expert was casting doubt on the verdict, explaining how very early babies who have trouble feeding (they sometimes forget to breathe at the same time) could end up with a blood clot on the brain which would look the same as if they had been shaken (IIRC). Anyway, what struck me in that was the attitude of the police - instead of saying 'Oh really? That could be important, please tell us more' their attitude was 'This doctor is really unhelpful. We're trying to get a conviction here and she could undermine it.'
The police in that case were clearly not interested in trying to find out what had happened - all they seemed to want was a conviction.

And as for this case.... yeah, I just don't see how on earth it can be 'beyond reasonable doubt'.

Upwind, I thought the same as you about what the judge said, though I am puzzled as to why he accepted a majority verdict.

Unfortunatley it is all about hitting targets and ticking boxes these days. They want to get a conviction at any cost so that they can hit their clear-up targets. Whether it is the right person, or a safe conviction is neither here nor there.

I wasn't shocked because I think she is innocent and I think the judge thought so too. Another Sally Clark methinks.....

I should have said I wasn't shocked at the length of the sentence as I think the judge thought she was innocent - but of course to be convicted at all if you are innocent is dreadful. The jury was obviously full of people who had never heard of Sally Clark...

"The jury was obviously full of people who had never heard of Sally Clark"

Yes you would have thought people would have been aware by now that there were problems with this sort of case, but I suppose an average man-or-woman-in-the-street who doesn't have young children might well not have paid very much attention to the Sally Clark story when it happened.