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'.

Janh - typo in my earlier post - 6.4 salt should say 6.4g sodium. Still massively high for one bag though so still intrigued. Really doesn't help when they quote sodium on the packs and tell people to watch salt levels.

Another Guardian piece, from during the trial - look at this bit:

From the Telegraph piece:

the Guardian also says that they drove 27 miles to Dudley hospital past their local A & E department!

it also says that Mr Gay rang Social Services and asked if Christian 'was all there?'

Hmmmm

Well I'm even more unsure now after the Guardian article (sounds more dodgy). Just shows that perhaps none of us are able to judge this case, and trial by media doesn't work. I guess you need to be in the courtroom as a juror taking in every nugget of evidence to have an informed perspective on this

It's quite extraordinary how differently a report can slant something. The first reports I read really did make it seem that there was absolutely no doubt about this conviction.

It's interesting that their defence counsel were so sure they'd get off, that they didn't bother calling any character witnesses.

It'll be very interesting to see how the appeal goes. But I agree, you just can't make a judgement unless you're there in the courtroom- which I guess is why so often juries come up with verdicts which seem inexplicable to us because we haven't heard all the evidence. (Mind you, in this case, it looks like the poor old jury haven't heard all the evidence either.)

I'm annoyed with my bloody memory because I'm sure the first report I read had quotes from the police and whilst not incriminating didn't do their 'street cred' much good! (I know that wouldn't make them killers but they came across as uncaring)

All I know is if one of mine was critically ill - work would be the LAST thing on my mind!

But, Caligula, even with the unused/ignored medical evidence, how do you get round . He did give him salt!

I must say I find the mitigation thing quite puzzling. Could it be a bad move after the verdict by a rubbish defence team (if indeed the Gays turn out to be innocent) rather than an admission of guilt?

Hmm, yes, but was it the salt which killed him? Because it could be that he gave him salt (spontaneously or otherwise), but someone else quoted something which implies that it was a blow to the head which was the cause of death.

I honestly don't know with this one - they may or may not be guilty - but I'll follow the appeal with a lot more interest than I followed the original case. If they are going to be in prison, then I'd like them to definitely (beyond reasonable doubt) have done it.

My view here is that you don't have to an expert in looking after children to know that giving anybody salt in any quantity is dangerous. Doesn't mean they intended to kill him but it looks like manslaughter to me.

I thought that in order to be convicted the first time the standard of proof was already "beyond reasonable doubt". I know that there have been many miscarriages of justice, and the ones surrounding child welfare are highly publicised, but I can't believe that any intelligent rational adult, having already seen the publicity about that poor couple who accidentally poisoned their baby with salt a few years back, would administer salt as a punishment whether on the spur of the moment or not.

I don't like to think that people would be wicked enough to do something like this, but sometimes they do. I do realise that my viewpoint is coloured by the reports already made in the press, but the kind of remarks both of them are alleged to have said, and the fact that he admits administering salt as a punishment just keeps me feeling uncomfortable as this having been adopted as another example of the medical establishment getting it wrong.

Gumdrop - I'm with you!

Also - he did not die from the salt poisioning but from 'blunt force trauma' how did they explain that???

I'm (ahem) not a lawyer, but the defence QC saying, in mitigation, 'salt administration was spontaneous' doesn't necessarily imply the adoptive parents admitted it. Once they'd been found guilty, the defence QC was doing his best to reduce the sentence- that's his job. At that stage of the trial, the defence QC couldn't argue that they didn't do it, even if they didn't, because the court had found they did (IYSWIM); it was his job to accept the findings of the court but to minimise the impact on his clients. I think! Anyone who knows any real barristers might know better.

I think they work on the basis that they can present conflicting arguments; so if there's a broken window a. my client wasn't there b. even if he was there he didn't break the window c. even if he was involved in breaking the window it was an accident. Have a vague memory of this but could be wrong or not up to date.

I think the point of the Today report was that there is no proof the couple fed Christian salt. The prosecution did not present any evidence to back the claim up - merely insisted that they must have done it because he had high levels of salt in his blood. But there are potentially other causes of raised salt levels such as dehydration (happened to a friend of mine with newborn baby who wasn't feeding very well) or some sorts of illness.

Maybe they are guilty, maybe not, but it's very worrying that the courts are still, despite all the Clarke and Cannings cases, relying on doubtful evidence and unproven assertions. Judges should control how medical evidence is used and make it clear to juries when experts are making claims rather than giving hard evidence.

blunt force trauma may be inflicted by a wicked adult or may be the result of medical procedures - resuscitation, for example. There have been cases where parents have been accused, and convicted, of killing children when actually they were killed by a doctor's incompetence - prescribing contra-indicated drugs, for instance.

edam, you posted "I'll let you know if I hear any more about the social services involvement from my father. There is an investigation, of course, but I'm not convinced that they are usually constructive." on that old thread - don't suppose you did hear any more...?

No, haven't heard anything but will ask my father now the recent pieces have reminded me about this case.

Renaldo, the reports say that the head injuries occured in hospital - even the prosecution admitted that - which is why the initial charge of murder was reduced to manslaughter. As Edam says, the basis of the case seems to be that since Christian had high levels of sodium in his blood, the couple must have poisoned him....but now it seems there are other causes of high sodium levels which can occur naturally and that Christian was not a well boy.

As the mother of Ian Gay, I would like to put few facts straight. Firstly,Ian did not drive past a hospital when he took Christian to Russells Hall hosp. He did not know where the one in Redditch was, and there are no signs from the part of Bromsgrove where they lived. Ian knew Russells Hall very well, and the route was 17 miles, which he did in 20 minutes. A police driver took 27 mins keeping to the speed limit. He was told (after being at the hosp 5 hours) that he could not follow the ambulance to Birmingham Children's Hosp, and was advised to go home to the family, as Christian was sedated and stable. They rang the hosp the next morning, and were told that Christian was improving, but still under sedation, and so wouldn't know they were there. Angela worked just 10 minutes away from the hospital, and decided to go to work (she was actually conducting a course)but she would leave and go to the hospital if there was any change. Ian spent all that day at Christian's bedside. The same happened on the Tuesday, but Ian was arrested at Christian's bedside. Both of them spent the evening with Christian on Monday (while I babysat the other 2 children) and were told that Christian was improving, but being kept under sedation to stop him pulling out tubes etc. Ian was the main carer of the children, don't forget. I wonder if such a fuss would have been made about Angela if the roles hadn't been reversed?
Secondly, Ian described Christian as "like a vegetable, zombie-like" to Social Services, when he had rang them concerned that Christian seemed to be in a trance. This was 8 days into the placement, and Ian demanded to know if there was anything that they hadn't been told about Christian- they had no medical notes. This was on one day only, and Christian seemed fine the next day, so it was dismisssed as a physcological problem.
Thirdly, the sub-scalp bruising- which actually only showed up at post mortem. were dated as being between 48-72 hours old- Chrstian was in hospital for 4 days! This would appear to have happened during normal handling procedures at the hospital, either by resuscitation methods (Christian had a locked jaw, and had vomited,so it was vital to get an airline into him or perhaps during the retinal eye examination, when his head had to be held.) Ian was present at this and got very upset and complained that he thought Christian was being hurt, so Christian was given further sedation. The hemmorrhaging was due to the brain swelling. None of these "injuries" were due to "blunt force head injury"- the pathologist who stated this has been proved wrong in court. The other pathologists did NOT come to that conclusion after they had conducted subsequent post mortems.
Fourthly, the level of SALT in the packet of crisps was stated in court to be 6.4g by Walkers themselves. It was a 150g packet. Sodium levels have to be multiplied by 2.5 to get sodium chloride (salt)
At NO time did either Ian or Angela admit to giving Christian Salt. The remarks by Mr Roger Smith QC have been misinterpereted. Both Ian and Angela have always protested their innocence, and always maintained that they never did anything to harm Christian (or ever would have)
Ian and Angela were experienced in looking after nephews and nieces, some from babies, and could always have given up these children at any time- so why should they harm them!
They had been through so much red tape and interviews- to go through this, only to give up so easily would be very strange. Both had a lot a patience with children.
Lastly, the only thing that pointed to salt being administered or taken at all was the high sodium blood level, though this should have shown up in urine- which it didn't. Christian's kidneys were working normally. There was less sodium being excreted by his kidneys than was going in via the IV saline drip, so his salt levels were building up. A healthy child of this age should excrete any excess sodium. There was also no damage to his liver, his blood pressure was low, not high as it would have been with salt poisoning, and no damage to his stomach lining. In order to get such levels of sodium into his blood stream unnaturally, it would have to be in his stomach long enough to have been absorbed.
A miscarriage of Justice? I could go on, but I'll leave it for you to decide.

Just clearing up something else - the 'salt in the iv drip' case was a completely different family. It happened at Great ormond street hospital and the mother was recently convicted. It is a totally different circumstances to Christian's death.

Jacie, thank you for posting. This must be heart-breaking for you.

Jacie, so glad to hear from you. My heart goes out to you and your family in this terrible time. It seemed fairly clear to me when I first heard about this story that things might not be quite as clear as the media was protraying them to be. I mentioned on a previous thread on mumsnet on this subject that it smacked of another roy meadows type case. And in this particular case it seemed fairly obvious that social services hadn't done their job properly (informing ian and angela of Christians true medical problems) and are now trying to cover themselves by blaming it on others. Your explanations certainly seem to back this up. I suspec that a great part of the problem is that the jusdges and lawyers don't have enough basic scientific/medical knowledge to understand the evidence and make educated choices about the facts.

I hope that the appeal comes up soon and that angela and ian are completely cleared.

Is there anything that any of us can do to help you and your family until then?

Nice to know that opinions can change when presented with the other side of the story.
It was a great pity that this side was not heard at the trial, but I think a lot of people's minds were made up at the start, when the prosecuting council painted Ian and Angela in such a bad light, and of course the press picked up on that and ran it for all they were worth.
Despite the Judge reminding people that this opening speech was NOT part of the trial, the picture remained.
At that stage the prosecution does not have to back this up with a single peice of avidence- putting the defendant in the position of trying to prove their innocence. This is not the way the law is, and I think this part of trials should be under more control.
I am on Richard & Judy later today (Thursday) with Carl, Angela's brother, and also John Batt.
We promised Ian and Angela that we would not rest until they have been proved innocent, and everyone knows them for the caring couple they are- not the evil people portrayed.
Of course, I hear some cynics say-"She would say this, she's his mother." I defy anyone who actually knows them to come up with anything that backs up the "evil, selfish and wicked" labels that's been attached to them.
I would also add how glad I am that Donna Anthony's appeal is under way. What a tough time that poor girl has had- her whole life ruined by "experts" and their "opinions." I hope that she will find happiness in the future.

Jacie good luck with it all. It's so scary that parents (and carers) are being so persecuted atm.