Murder Trial

[outofpractice]

What do you think about the murder trial of the mother accused of killing her 3 babies? Imagine how absolutely devastating it would be if she is innocent, to go through the trial after all her bereavements? Do you think she did it?

don't know but it's a bit suss don't ya think?

Her mum apparently lost 5 babies this way! Very suss. But if she didn't do it then I can't possibly imagine how it must feel to have 3 of your children die and then be accused of killing them!

I'm keeping an open mind on whether she did it or not - I'd prefer to think no mother could harm her children unless she was very seriously disturbed - and also, what is reported in the press does not give the full picture of the evidence for and against her. So I honestly find it hard to decide.
I noticed this morning the suggestion that Long QT Syndrome, which can cause sudden heart failure at any time, might be an inherited condition in her family (after the testimony of her grandmother). Obviously, if that is a new line of enquiry, then it should be checked out urgently. But I must admit I thought Long QT Syndrome struck in later childhood onwards. And I would have thought that, sadly, there would be some deaths of young adults from unexplained heart failure in her extended family, to corroborate this theory.

I think they will have no choice but to find her innocent. Surely in a court of law they have to find the person guilty 'beyond all reasonable doubt' and I would say that, although the whole thing is suspect there is definitely reasonable doubt. Did you see that her 80 year old grandmother flew in for the trail to say that she too had lost very young babies? I think that certainly casts doubt with the suggestion that there could be something genetic going on here.

I think you'e right, Marina, although I think there's been some suggestion that cot death could in some cases be a different form of long QT syndrome (different gene underlying it, presumably, giving a more severe effect). I think the grandmother's testimony would have been very likely to help the idea that there's a genetic basis except that we're talking about 40 years ago in an underdeveloped country, when I would have thought that neonatal deaths must have been really quite common. It's so tough to know, but I think Meid's right that it's hard to see how any jury can consider it's beyond reasonable doubt that she killed them.

Even if she did do it , she must be feeling really dreadful and needs help.If she didn't do it, the prospect is even more unbearable for her and she needs help.

This case upset me as its so similar to the other one with the two cot deaths.

Since I have heard no evidence relating to eg. bruises or other signs of abuse, this (I guess) is another case that hinges on statistics. No-one should ever be convicted on statistics alone.

Also I would have thought that if she had killed the babies, then they would have died at different ages (all were 3 months). And 5 dead babies out of 12 is way above the norm even for an underdeveloped country.

I could be wrong of course, but this looks like another overzealous prosecution to me.

Apparently there is a history of infant deaths on the father's side of the family too - so you'd have to suspect some kind of genetic predisposition.

I don't think she did it. Just read a bit on this in the Guardian and a genetic abnormality sounds the most likely explanation.

The other thing that worries me is that recently their have been so many cases where mothers have been wrongly accused of Munchausen's Syndrome by Proxy that these cases always ring warning bells. True cases of MSBP are extremely rare- but give a slightly unusual situation and everyone (especially SS) start assuming it must be the mother.

The absolute arrogance of the agencies never ceases to amaze me- they make their minds up without keeping an open mind. I'm afraid that 3 unexplained deaths would be enough for the agencies to assume that the mother must be responsible. I doubt the possibility of genetic problems would even have come into it.

And as the Sally Clarke case showed- given a genetic predispostion these unlikely events may actually become likely.

It would be nice to think that mothers rarely harm their children but the reality is it is far from uncommon

I realise that carriemac- but having three children die doesn't automatically mean the mother did it. If there is a genetic problem it moght actually be more likely that any child that she has will die shortly after birth rather than survive.

3 of my grandmothers children died- one at birth, one shortly afterwards and one in an accident. Traumatic and the reasons were known so she obviously didn't do it- but if for some reaosn the reasons hadn't been known- it still wouldn't mean she must have done it.

True cases of MSBP are rare- most people who harm their children don't have MSBP- they just harm them.