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'.

Jacie - thanks for your posts. I wish you and your family all the very best with the appeal.

I think it is important to identify the individuals who pursued this case. Often we hear about "the prosecution" and "the police" and "the doctor", but what we're really talking about is a group of people who got together to falsely accuse and prosecute someone.

When people tell lies about others, we should use the words "conspiracy" and "plot" to describe their activities. I would like to know the names of the people behind this malicious prosecution, because when such miscarriages of justice are overturned the perpetrators' identities are usually lost in what's called 'the system'.

But someone in Social Services decided to withold details of Christian's medical problems from the couple hoping to adopt him. Someone among the medics decided to falsely accuse Ian and Angela of killing him. Someone in the police decided to arrest them and charge them. Someone in the CPS decided to pursue the case despite all the evidence of a pre-existing medical condition in Christian. Someone decided to lies about Ian's and Angela's characters in court, and to spin a scenario so far from the truth that it is criminal in its deceit.

All these 'someones' are not robots - they're people who wield power and decided to abuse it for their own illegitimate reason... whether to promote their own theories or interests, or to cover for their own mistakes, or to enhance their own careers prosects, or maybe just plain malice.

No doubt if they're found out they will all start to blame each other; but that is, of course, precisely what conspirators do when their crimes are exposed. We should call a spade a spade and not allow 'the system' to pretend it has made mere mistake. Lies are deliberate. It's called perverting the course of justice, and it's a criminal offence.

So, names, anyone, for future reference?

CJo, I couldn't agree more. We never hear about what happens to the people who caused miscarriages of justice, do we?

CJo- Our families do know most of the names, but you appreciate that we cannnot say anything that will harm Ian and Angela's appeal, however much we want to shout it out and name names! Evidence does sometimes have a way of disappearing. There may come a time a bit later-

Jacie, I understand. I think that if all goes well for you at the appeal and the media report, they need encouraging to name the culprits. There is now a history of people being falsely accused on dodgy medical opinions, convicted, then proved innocent down the line, but the same thing keeps happening despite rulings to the contrary (in Cannings). I've been observing it since the day Sally Clark was convicted, and it strikes me that each time the media reports the overturning of a false conviction, and even reports the disgraceful circumstances of the original prosecution, the one thing they keep missing is to report the names of those who did it. Why should this be so? They do of course report the names of the falsely accused all the way through.

I believe it is so because it is easier to write about "the prosecution" or "the police" or "the pathologist" etc, particularly if the culprits lie low on the day to conceal their involvement from public scrutiny (they usually do ). I only know the names of some who stitched up Sally Clark because I've read John Batt's book 'Stolen Innocence'. Detective Inspector Gardiner led the police. Robin Spencer QC led the prosecution. We now know that the police spread a malicious false rumour about Sally among the medical witnesses before the trial, and that the prosecution told many lies about Sally's character and invented fictitious motives for murder in court. We also know that Spencer and the CPS knew the original accusation against Sally was false just before they went to trial, which is why they changed it from shaken baby syndrome to smothering at the last minute. If when Sally was freed the media had told us that Gardiner lied to the witnesses and the Spencer lied to the jury, and named the CPS officials who knew the original charge was bogus yet went ahead, things might have been different for Ian and Angela, who have been similarly framed.

While individuals in the criminal justice system know they will be able to hide behind that 'system', we will be here over and over again. The media need priming to report the names the moment the truth gets out. I believe this is vital to making those who abuse their power think twice about it in future.

Just over a year ago. Really hope that the appeal gets to the truth of this.