wrongfully convicted childminder update

[mummyrex]

From the Times today, two of the jurors involved in the trial of Keran Henderson have spoken out:

business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/article3071072.ece

business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/article3071113.ece

business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/article3071070.ece

you can find out more about the case and the campaign for justice at www.carers4carers.co.uk

I heard about this, looked it up after driving through the village, I'm not that far from it. I heard one of the jurors on tv, it all sounds very worrying and strange.

There is also an article in the Daly Mail www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=503360&in_page_id=1770

You are right to say that it is very worrying chopster. I was thinking of being a childminder as a way to be a mum to mine but also bring in a little money but wouldn't dream of it now.

Is she going to appeal?

I saw this, was just about to post it myself!

It's so obviously an unsafe conviction - in the sense that there is no way it can be beyond reasonable doubt.

On balance it doesn't seem likely to me that she did it, but more importantly, convictions are meant to be beyond reasonable doubt and this wasn't. It also seems to be another of those cases where the police have made up their mind that someone is guilty and gone all out to secure a conviction rather than actually being open to other possibilities about what happened.

You feel so, so sorry for the parents - first they lose their daughter, then they are convinced by the police that she was murdered by the person they trusted, and now they will have to deal with all this and with the possibility that their childminder may have been wrongfully imprisoned.

the thing is though, If it wasn't the childminder, who was it? Isn't it possible that the parents had something to do with it?

that sounds awful reading that back now, I jsut wonder if the parents were investigated as well.

No, the suggestion is that it was something medical - the little girl had had fits before.

The point is that experts are split on whether a certain type of injury can only be caused by shaking (as the prosecution witnesses argued) or whether it can also have a medical cause.
IIRC one of the expert witnesses in the Louise Woodward case who used to believe the former has now changed his mind and believes the latter.

I thought the conviction sounded shaky when it happened.

I do wonder, though, given that the medical experts don't agree, why the defence didn't call more medical experts of their own to provide the alternative view.

I think because it never crossed their mind that they were going to be found guilty given that no-one had actually seen her do anything to the baby.

Does money come into it as well? I have no idea how legal aid works and whether they had any, but presumably it doesn't just give you a blank cheque to get as many experts as you want? Must be someone on here who knows.

An alternative view was provided. It was made clear that whatever injuries had been sustained by baby Maeve could have happened days, weeks, even months before

I see, Katy, so that ties in with what the childminder says happened. I haven't read that much on it yet.

Have a look a the carers4carers link in Mummyrex's first post - it's the website put up by her family and supporters.

Nobody is allowed to just die anymore are they? Someone always has to have killed them.

This case will obviously be overturned. But why are these cases being brought to court in the first place? What are the CPS playing at? Some cases simply should not be brought, it is downright irresponsible and morally wrong to put someone through this process on so little evidence. They are encouraging this hysteria that wherever there's a body, there has to be a murderer. What is their motive?

Very good post, LittleBella, agree with every word.

I wonder whether misogyny is at the heart of this - blaming the mother or childminder for a baby's death.

I rather assume it's a sincere and laudable desire to protect children - coupled with ignorance.
Imagine if you are a policeman who has been involved in a number of real cases of child abuse, maybe been in court listening to experts describing how shaking a baby can lead to brain damage.
Then you get called to a house where a baby has died and you think 'Yep. I've seen injuries like this before. What an evil woman this childminder must be. Poor baby's family, not being able to see through her.'
Then by the time a single expert stands up and says 'Actually maybe the baby wasn't shaken' you're so certain of what happened and you've had so many scientists say 'yes, injuries like this are like the ones you get when you shake a baby' that you don't take any notice.
That's how I see it happening, anyway.

Yes I can understand individuals having irrational responses because of their own experience but Kathy, this is a whole system, where checks and balances and reason is supposed to prevail. Not gut instinct.

I think there is also an issue about there being a view prevalent in society at the moment that 'anyone can snap at any moment and shake a baby'. When we had dd two years ago we were given quite a staggering number of leaflets and cards saying 'You mustn't shake your baby!' (which it would never have occurred to us to do anyway).

However I'm not entirely convinced by this 'anyone can snap at any minute' line. When I think back to that 'what's the worst thing you've ever shouted at an unsuspecting baby?' thread, something I think that is interesting is that we had all (except for Enid IIRC!) "snapped" at some point but the snapping meant yelling something daft at our child, not shaking them. None of us really wanted to hurt our baby and we were actually using what we knew was a safe outlet - language.

However because there is this 'people snap all the time' view, it is considered pretty likely that a woman who has an amazing track record of working with children and no-one who has ever seen her be anything other than calm and patient, might have snapped so far that she actually kills a child.

I would be prepared to bet that in actual fact when people do kill children there have been plenty of warning signs first, rather than people going from 0 to 80 in seconds so to speak.

True Bella. I suppose if everyone in the system is coming from the same place as my hypothetical policeman.....

What are Mauve's parents saying about it all? Do they think she killed her or are they supporting her?

They supported her at first but then they were persuaded that she killed her.

Yes I find this "anyone can go mad at any time" idea really alarming and pernicious.

It encourages the view that we're all powder kegs of rage waiting to erupt, and we need to be kept a very sharp eye on to ensure we don't run amok. It stops us trusting each other and relying on each other and it isolates us from each other.

Just seen this other baby murder case, which I missed when it was on Newsnight the other week.

Seems even when there is even a pre-existing brain injury and a complete lack of forensic evidence to corroborate the prosecution's case (this one was supposed to have slammed the child's head against the banisters, but there was no blood or skin or hair on the banisters and only mild bruising to the head, no fractures) the police are still determined to believe it was murder and don't even bother talking to the doctors who were treating the child.

This is really, really terrifying.

What is going on? Why is the justice system so inadequate when confronted with these cases?

Ooh, there's a co-incidence, there is a programme on Radio 4 right now about the role of forensics in court cases. Now people!

I seem to remember Keren being discussed before - I think there is a Mumsnetter who knew her and said she found it very difficult to believe that she would be capable of such an act against a small child. the conviction does sound very unsafe for me, I hope they get to the bottom of it quickly for Keren's sake and the parents'. A real tragedy for all involved