angela cannings - denied compensation

[nasa]

a disgrace

here

Pinkmama...I am truelly amazed! thank you.

Can I take this opportunity to 'plug' the MAMA DVD. I really do think that every parent should watch it. the thread is HERE

Borrow it for free, it has interviews with Southall and the last known interview with Meadow's.

Sorry about that, but I think the more people who are aware that this is still going on, the fewer people will be in the Cannings situation, as it is going to take public awareness before this stops, and only this month another families dd is being adopted due to Meadows false theory.

I wonder for how long the government can continue to sweep this under the carpet. I know that over 20 women who have been convicted are waiting for their appeals and have been given leave to appeal. I can understand if they do not because of the cost. Even with legal aid you still put your house on the line if it is worth over £100 thousand. I think that should be altered, but why should you loose your home to pay legal costs to prove your innosence.

To date no cases in the civil court have been reviewed or leave of appeal granted.

Thanks nasa, I am just amazed and and and I want to shout and scream because there are hundreds if not thousands of people affected by this so called 'expert' witness Meadow's et al, and I can not understand how as a careing nation we let this happen on our own doorstep.
I realise that not many new it was going on until Meadow's was exposed, and the gagging orders have stopped so many from speaking out. But it is wrong IMHO. This family (and others like them, not forgetting Trupti Patel and Sally Clarke) needs help, counselling and all the support it can get after what they have been through. They have my admiration but that will not put a roof over their head.
I am beginning to wonder if it is not time that Mrs Hodge and my MP got a letter from me (again!)
as short of educating people as to what is going on, I can do very little, I feel helpless and wish I could do more.
I find it hard to understand that because it was obvious she was not guilty and her conviction was quashed without going through a whole load of appeals etc, she is now not entitled to any compensation...does that make sense emoticon??

I know bunglie it's a complete joke (an unfunny one). Especially in todays compensation culture where you're encouraged to sue anyone and everyone for the smallest thing. A ridiculous system that has let her down again IMO.

I'll just preface this with the disclaimer that I am not a lawyer , but do work as a forensic scientist and expert witness (not in field of child protection, though).

My understanding is that the government are not legally liable (morally liable, maybe, but that's a different story...) because they instructed an independent expert witness who was not a goverment employee.

If the police or prosecuting authorities want to instruct an expert in a field such as fingerprints or DNA analysis they would approach the FSS (Forensic Science Service) which is a government-funded institution. If an FSS expert cocked up on this scale, the government would presumably have direct legal responsibility.

But many specialised fields are not covered by the FSS, and in such cases the prosecution will instruct an independent expert in the same way as the defence would.

I don't know what the legal position is with regard to the responsibility of the instructing party in checking the expert's qualifications, but I know that there are complete charlatans out there who still get instructions, simply because there is far more demand for this kind of work than people qualified to carry it out. Sadly, if people become reluctant to do expert witness work, this situation is likely to get worse, not better, as reputable experts are under such pressure that the field is wide open to charlatans. Also it is difficult for anybody who is not a specialist to evaluate an expert's qualifications unless they work in that field themselves, so solicitors and police officers who need to instruct expert reports are in a rather invidious position.

As an independent expert myself I have Professional Indemnity Insurance against the eventuality of being sued, much as an architect would incase his or her buildings fell down, and all other experts I know have the same, either in their own right, or through their institution (if their main employer is eg. a university or hospital). Having said that, although I can see that being sued is a theoretical possiblity, I've never heard of it happening. I imagine it would be very unlikely to succeed, since an expert is the one person in a courtroom who is allowed to give an opinion, rather than confining himself to matters of fact. This means you'd probably have to prove negligence and bad faith of some kind, which would probably be quite hard.

Sorry if this sounds really dry and uncaring. FWIW, I am horrified by some of the things I have heard coming out of these cases, but sadly I suspect they are unique only in the awfulness of the ramifications for children and families.

Sounds like it's time to get indemnity insurance for being a mother.

Haven't pored over the whole thing but, frogs, is the expert witness himself not liable?

"This means you'd probably have to prove negligence and bad faith of some kind, which would probably be quite hard."

(Quote from frogs.)

I watched Bunglie's MAMA DVD late last night (haven't yet got around to giving her my thoughts, sorry, Bunglie) and it included Roy Meadow giving his "expert opinion".

On 2 occasions, on camera, he declined to answer and put his hand over the microphone. There were 2 very dodgy issues re negligence, ie

1. him overdosing small child with salt and

2. him checking how long it took with pressure on femoral artey of his own grandchild to see how long his leg took to turn blue.

This is your expert witness. Can't they sue him?

Poor Woman. Absolute travisty if she is not able to get compensation from some source or another

IMHO she should sue Meadows and anyone else involved in the horror they turned her life into.

The truth is that no amount would ease the pain and misery she went through but it should help them rebuild their lives financially at least.

I was also shocked when I heard the "3 cot deaths is murder" Meadows theory at how flippant it was. Just to dismiss a childs death like that without fully investigating it.

I'm not trying to defend any of this, JanH, and I hope it didn't come across as if I was.

I think the expert witness is at least potentially liable, hence the need for PII. In the case of Meadow, there would appear to be very serious questions regarding his professional impartiality and his judgement, not least the fact that he always seems to have been appearing for the prosecution. Most independent experts make a point of keeping a balance between prosecution and defence work, which puts one in a much stronger position wrt allegations of bias. The expert's duty is to the Court and not to whichever side has instructed him or her -- there doesn't seem to have been much awareness of that in the cases that Meadow has been involved in.

But a successful legal action would presumably need to show that he deliberately misled the Court, as opposed to being careless, just plain wrong or so obsessed with his own wonderfulness that he lost touch with reality. Proving that would at best be not straightforward in legal terms -- sadly the appalling effects on the families at the blunt end of his evidence wouldn't really get a lookin legally, however obvious it may seem to a normal person.

Noooo, frogs, sorry, didn't mean that at all!

(Was quoting you because you know what's what and I don't.)

I think "so obsessed with his own wonderfulness that he lost touch with reality" hits the nail on the head, sadly. No grounds then

I watched some of the DVD with DH last night, he has hardly been involved in this at all and I thought he was going to punch the TV at one point, he was so mad.

I can't see how the government can just Pontius Pilate-like wash their hands of responsiblity. Who instructed an incompetent independent witness? On what grounds was Mad Meadows called to give evidence? Who decided that he should be instructed? Someone in the Home Office, surely? Therefore, if Meadows himself isn't liable, the person who instructed him is. Otherwise, no-one's responsible. And I don't think anyone will buy that.

Maybe she could write a book about how the government mistreated her, and we could all go buy it to support her. Terrible. Can't imagine having to bury a child, let alone two, and then be charged for their murders. The really sad thing is nothing will make up for her losses. Maybe they could at least stand up in front of a news camera and say they are sorry... although I doubt it.

DH has just come through and mumbled something about reading somewhere that both the defence and the prosecution had to agree to the use of a particular expert witness. Anybody know if this is mince?

I can tell you that the defence and prosecution or Plaitiffs and defendants, in civil cases have their own expert witnesses, but they are encouraged to talk to each other before the start of the trial/hearing and exchange knowledge.

Meadows not only did not see the people he wasclaiming had murdered their babies or had MSbP but he also refused to see any doctor who had treated them or even look at their medical notes. He thought it might 'cloud his judgement' and he also stated' Parents who do things like this lie, so their is no point in talking to them as they will only lie to you'!

He had his theory, and it suited the social services to use it as there is NO defence. Any behaviour can be used and twisted around as a symptom of the so called illness.

I think if anyone is going to be sued then it would have to be the people like the local Authority in civil cases who employed Meadow's et al as an expert witness, but in a criminal case, you can not really sue the CPS! so I do not know. But why should it cost us money to get the justice that we deserve and loose homes in the process. It is wrong in my opinion that we should have to pay to right a wrong.

Thank you Janh for watching the DVD, I will be interested to know your thoughts, both good and bad. I thought it should both sides, or did you think it was biased in anyway?

I again take this opportunity to say if you want to borrow a copy of the DVD that Janh was writing about then please go HERE all you have to do is email your address to Janh and a copy will be sent to you to watch and I only ask that you pay the return postage (47p 2nd class) so the next person can borrow it.

I am sorry I am 'plugging' this MAMA DVD so much but I really do think that every mother should see it and as Edam said in one of her posting there for the grace of God go I or something like that, as it is something that could happen to the most innocent person just trying to get the right medical treatment for their child . I am sorry for going on about it but I would also like to thank Frogs (again) for his/her clear explanation as to an expert witness, as he/she did on the Southall Guilty thread. I think it is great that Mumsnet has so many experts of its own, and although they are just opinions they all add to make a good discussion. Thank you.

Finally I think Angela is bringing out a book, not sure for certain, but I for one will buy it for moral reasons if for none other, but I am sure it will be well worth the money.

I have watched dvd Bunglie so thank you for sending it out B & Janh. I was more intrigued by the interview with Roy Meadows. I appreciate his dealings with children would invariably affect their parents but how can he justify that his MSbP affects women. All through his interview he focused on "the mothers" and even seemed to try to be sympathetic to their alleged mental plight. Not much in the way of fathers being suspected of foul play in his eyes - would very much like to hear about his childhood relationships. Sounds a bit mysogenistic to me

Presumably MSbP diagnosis would benefit from some hormone testing?

I think you hit the nail on the head Jampots!
I would be interested to know your thoughts on the DVD as I would like to send them to Amy Sommers, the person I got the DVD's from and she sent me an extra one free. I think she was the writer/researcher but I thought it would be good if I could send her back some feedback as it is not available for sale in this country, except by the internet.
I agree with you, I found the interview with Meadow's the most interesting. I actually found his argument very convincing and wondered if others do to. It is only because I have been on the receiving end of his 'expert' testimony, seen him in action and under cross-examination, I feel that the Meadows who I saw was a very different person, in no way did he come across as a careing Granfather, although I think what he did to his grandchildren could be classed as abuse in itself!
Thank you for watching Jampots, I do appreciate it.
Bunglie XX

jampots, DH watched it with me and that's exactly what he thought too - it seemed to be a campaign against women.

Bunglie, I thought Meadow came across in the DVD as arrogant, patronising and blinkered! Next time I watch it I must concentrate harder on his words and stop being irritated by him!

Can I keep it for an extra day and watch it again?

Of course you can keep it for as long as you need to. I am sure that those waiting to see it will understand when they come to watch it. It is a lot to take in and I agree as I had to watch it twice, so no problem.

I'm a she, Bunglie, not a he! (or even an it)...

Gomez, no, the Prosecution and Defence don't have to agree on an expert, which is ultimately a good thing as it means that an incompetent or mistaken prosecution expert can at least be challenged in Court.

In my own field it's rare to find that the prosecution and defence expert have diametrically-opposed views, except in the case of a few well-known loose cannons. If both are reputable experts examining the same material, then really there should be at least a good bit of overlap, even allowing for differences in interpretation etc. Sometimes the judge will order/encourage experts to sit down before the trial and work through their differences -- some people I'm happy to do this with, and others I would refuse, because I have no confidence in their methodology and judgement. In the latter case it could come to a full-on confrontation in Court, but that is the exception rather than the rule. Generally if one expert is clearly on dodgy ground he/she will quietly withdraw the report.

I would imagine the Meadow debacle became possible because he had build up such a reputation and aura around himself, that anybody who tried to challenge him wasn't taken seriously. Juries and judges are real suckers for the 'distinguished professor spouting clever scientific stuff' routine, and it's quite hard to get past that, even when the person is clearly talking nonsense.

Thanks Frogs - just knew it had to be rubbish, intrinsically it sounded rot!