Salt poisoning couple say miscarriage of justice

[edam]

Radio 4's Today programme this morning had a piece on the couple who were convicted of killing their adoptive son by poisoning him with salt. Sounds horribly familiar from the cases of Sally Clark and Angela Cannings - the Home Office pathologist in the case (one of three who gave evidence) said there was no evidence the parents fed the child salt and their lawyers said the CPS had ignored the Appeal Court's finding in the Canning case that these cases should not be brought unless there was evidence, rather than an assumption that 'child dies, parents must have killed them'.

Sorry that should have said "the article was by his granma" about her daughter and grandchildren

Christian and his brother and sister were all neglected by their mother who is very young - His elder brother was already living with his granma

Christian was only on a trial visit at his new home. THe couple he was living with had a very priveleged live - big expensive life, privat yacht etc but no skills or experience of childcare

BEaring in mind social services were aware of Christians troubled background it is astonishing that he was not placed with a couple more experienced in looking after children

'Post-mortem examinations discovered 11 areas of "sub-scalp" bruising and the cause of death was given as blunt force trauma.'

There was bruising!

Just because there was no evidence to indicate how the bruising occured or that they did actually feed the boy the salt, does not automatically mean they are not guilty.

Their coments about the boy and their obvious lack of love for the boy along with the fact that the mother seemed to care more about her job than the boy, leads me to believe in my mind that they are guilty!

I don't think we can discredited the convictions of all parents accused of abuse, just because of the few cases that have been proved innocent lately! I find this new attitude to child deaths very worrying!

Bloody hell, Suedonim, that Telegraph article puts a completely different interpretation on the whole case.

Very worrying.

I'd be the first to say that politically the Telegraph is not my cup of tea but I find its coverage of health and parenting issues wider-ranging and less conventional than most of the other broadsheets. They have been especially thought-provoking on tragic cases like Christian Blewitt's.

Seashells, of course it doesn't mean that they are automatically not guilty, but the point of English law is that in every other area of life, you don't have to prove you're not guilty - the prosecution has to prove you are.

In child deaths, for the last 20 years, the principle of "innocent until proven guilty" has been abandoned and "guilty unless you can find an expert to discover a rare and previously unknown cause of death" has been instituted. As a parent and someone who believes in the principle of innocent until proven guilty, I feel very uneasy about that!

Seashells said:

I don't think we can discredit the convictions of all parents accused of abuse, just because of the few cases that have been proved innocent lately! I find this new attitude to child deaths very worrying!

Seashells - frankly I couldn't agree more! I'm going to sound like a middle englander Daily Mail reader now (which I'm not), but I think its political correctness gone a step too far

"Innocent until proven guilty" is now political correctness gone mad?

Oh well, in that case, let's just lock up every single parent who has ever had a cot death.

but, LittleREdRidingHood, there is a bit of a catch 22 here - most people wanting to adopt are doing so because they are childless, so of course they don't have experience. And the vast majority of children needing adoptive parents have had troubled starts in life, again pretty much by definition.
I believe there is some support in terms of parenting preparation and support from social services (though I may be completely wrong and knowing how stretched SS are probably inadequate) but at the end of the day if you are going to place children with adoptive parents you are just going to have to let them get on with it and hope for the best. After all birth parents don't have experience of looking after newborns before their babies arrive!
Have to say I am not sure what to make of this one. Horrible tragedy whatever.

No-one's discrediting ALL cases - just the ones that look dodgy!

Past cases of alleged child harming where multiple expert witnesses didn't agree were supposed to be the ones up for review, weren't they? And it wasn't supposed to happen any more. That aspect of it is very worrying - I don't think the disagreement between them was highlighted during the trial.

Are there really 6.4g of salt in one packet of crisps? That's over a teaspoonful. And salt and sodium are measured differently. Also I thought the level in his blood was nearer 30g than 10 (hence the 4 teaspoonfuls)?

LRRH, the wording in that link has changed since the day of the verdict. (The BBC news page does that all the time.)

And certainly couples willing to adopt three siblings almost certainly wouldn't have children of their own already. Plus apparently they often had their nephews and neices to stay for weeks on end.
The head injuries were apparently inflicted after the boy went to hospital...don't know how though.

Caligua,

This one looks pretty sound and not at all dodgy, and yet some posters appeared to be assuming that all was not well with the conviction

also agree with seashells

HMC, have you read the Telegraph article?

When I read the BBC version, I thought it looked sound as well, but the Telegraph version puts a completely different slant on it.

Intrigued by the 6.4 g salt in the crisps. On the pack of Ready Salted (Walkers) I am currently eating it says 0.2g sodium, which works out at 0.5g salt.

can you just clarify - is this case where the children were adopted and this child wasn't 'perfect' enough and when he was in hospital fighting for his life his 'mother'(?) went back to work and his 'father'(?) didn't go to the hospital 'because he wouldn't know me anyway'?

The husband says the hospital told him that Christian wouldn't know he was there. Also he had the other 2 children to look after. But, yes, that's the case.

No I haven't read the Telegraph coverage, but if someone could do a link I would like to take a look at it

That explains the 10/30 then, snugs - if 0.5g salt=0.2g sodium, then 30g salt=12g sodium.

Would like to know where the 6.4 came from.

Here , hmc (suedonim linked to it below).

The link is lower down under my name, HMC.

I need to read up on this because the very first article I read about this case, the couple sounded horrendous.

If they did indeed admit to giving him salt - they can't claim ignorance surely - they're both intelligent people.

I'll see if I can find the Telegraph link myself.

Ummmm - okay I have read the Telegraph article and agree that there might be significant doubt.

Now where was that humble pie. Any one got a spoon so I can eat it?

It is interesting though just how differently the case has been reported in various newspapers and news websites

Aha - Guardian piece on the verdict - this has . Maybe that's where I got it from.