Sally Clark cleared

[MandyD]

Just saw on the News that Sally Clark, the solicitor jailed for murder of her two sons, has been cleared at her second appeal and released from jail. The court said that vital evidence was definitely witheld at the original trial. I remember that the prosecution stated that the odds of cot death occuring twice in the same family were 73 million to one. Since then research has proved that it more likely around 400 to 1.

It is frightening the flaws in the evidence. The second baby had an overwhelming infection, evidence that was withheld. Had that evidence been made available to the police, it has been said she would never have been jailed. How awful for that poor woman. Her husband has always supported her. That must say something.

My thoughts too Mears and MandyD.

Am I right in thinking that the second baby had meningitis? What a terrible time that poor woman has had - two babies dead, accused of their deaths, in jail for three years - I cannot begin to imagine her anguish.

I hope she is young enough to start a family, if that is what she wants. And I hope she gets a huge amount of compensation. I remember seeing pictures of her when she was first tried. Seeing her on the TV today, she looks nothing like those pictures now - so changed with the suffering she must have endured.

Tigermoth - she has a son, who the father has been looking after, but she has missed out on 3 years of his life!

Oh this is interesting, poor woman. I went to school in Salisbury and still have friends there who knew her, the consensus seemed to be that she didn't do it (I know, what would they know, but) She is the Salisbury solicitor isn't she? Imagine the awfulness of this, dealing with the grief, being accused, tried, found guilty and wrongly imprisoned for 3 years. How awful.

message withdrawn

The whole thing is incredible. As far as I can see, there was no actual evidence whatsoever at the time that she killed her sons. The case seemed to rest entirely on how unlikely it was for 2 siblings to be affected by SIDS. As RobinW says, why on earth would anyone want to deliberately withhold evidence which would see a mother who has lost 2 children going to prison?.

I think she is guilty, and got off on a technicality. One law for the rich and another for the poor IMO. Even if there was a staphlcoccal infection in the second baby why did it have head injuries?

Did it though ? I heard that was just press lies !!

I think it was the medical people who withheld the evidence rather than the police.

There's quite a detailed analysis of the evidence (published prior to yesterday's decision) here .

I doubt her ordeal is really over yet in any case. She now had to get to know her other child who is now 4 and probably can't remember a time when his mother was a regular prescence in his life. That isn't going to be easy - how on earth do you explain all that's happened to a 4 year old?

One of the things that struck me in the news report, was that one medical witness cited the odds of cot death occurring twice in the same family were 73 million to one; another study cited the odds at 100 to one and some experts apparantly put the figure at 4 to one. Don't know all the details of the case, obviously, but it seems to me that relying on these types of statistics as "evidence" is highly dubious.

Carriemac, did you read the link? The whole point of this case is the problem with the pathologist whose evidence was completely discredited over and over again (and who withheld evidence of the second child having an overwhelming case of bacterial meningitis). Also, I really don't think the press can be blamed for that. I remember hearing Sally Clark's husband interviewed on Woman's Hour a couple of years ago and was so impressed by him. I thought then there had been an awful miscarriage of justice and cannot imagine what she has endured.

Have just read the link GillW - Thanks for that !

Those medics should be struck off for their lies and incompetence ! Looks to me like the police decided she was guilty without any evidence then the dodgy medics constructde the evidence - then the jury got baffled by the excess of scientific explanation, most of which was irrelevant anyway, and found the poor woman guilty !

God - how do you get over that ? Poor woman, poor man and poor son !!

Oh I too really feel for what the whole family has been through and worry about how they can get past it. I also feel sorry for the people on the jury in her trial - they must feel awful too - obviously, nothing compared to what Sally has been through, but I still sorry for them having to come to terms with the consequences of their decision, evn though it was largely based on evidence being witheld and ircorrect evidence being given

but it does seem strange that the second baby had so many other injuries, especially the 'possible old fracture'to the limb.If she is entirely innocent then I am truly sorry for her ordeal but I just can't quite believe that she is.

Thanks for that link, Gillw, because I have to admit that until I read it, the reports I'd heard of injuries to both babies worried me quite a bit. I hope that the Clarks and their son can rebuild their lives, mourn their two lost children, and look to the future, all away from the glare of publicity. And I certainly agree that Dr Williams and Professor Meadow have a lot of conscience-examining to do.

donnie - my friend's dd had her collar-bone during birth - not sure how common that is but maybe the limb was damaged during birth - we all know how fragile tiny babies are anyway - I grabbed my own dd's leg rather vigorously when I almost dropped her on a tiled floor at 3 weeks old - I worried that I'd broken her leg then, but reasoned it was better a broken leg than a cracked open skull !! Does that mean I abused her ?

A 'possible' old fracture? What's that? Anyway, the drs seem to agree that IF there was any damage it could easily have happened during the autopsy (during which a tiny baby's body would literally be sawed apart). There was no tissue damage that would support the abuse theory. There seems to be no evidence whatsoever she was an abusive mother. I wonder what people think she was guilty of? The case was that the babies were smothered, not beaten or shaken to death, yet there was no evidence of smothering at all. I think it is very sad that she will have to look over her shoulder as well as cope with having to be a mother to her son, rebuild her marriage, etc etc. Her husband is an extraordinary man, I think.

I also didn't see any evidence of 'so many' other injuries in that report. Other doctors, more eminent than the pathologists, said the baby had no injuries, just a major case of bacterial meningitis.

Did anyone see her father on This Morning today? I caught the end of it but, from what I can gather, the four year old son has been living with his other set of grandparents and has not seen either his mother or father since the trial. They are to be reunited this weekend.

cas1968 according to a report I just read from PA the surviving son has seen his mother once a week on visits with dad to the prison, which is somethign I guess. Cannot imagine how she must feel. I do think that these stats on cot death likelihood are unhelpful to say the least. Seem to recall that she was presented as a bad mother because she liked a drink/wanted a career. It's very depressing how black and white the most complicated issues can seem when put across in court.

I thought the boy was living with his father and visiting his mother every week (in fact, I'm almost certain this is true, because I have read about the case). I suspect he has been staying with grandparents during the appeal. Completely agree that the fact that she worked and like a glass of wine was presented as proving she was a bad mother.

Carriemac, I'm so shocked by what you have written, especially the comment about rich and poor, makes my blood boil....

Having had experience of a similar thing I can assure you of something that if you are 'middleclass' the hospitals/police/social services come after you with everything they have got. They want to level it all out, don't want to pick on the 'workingclass' or 'ethnic minorities'.

Also if you are accussed of anything involving a child under the age of 5, you are guilty until proved innocent.

I could go on, but that is mine to deal with. But before you comment/judge people simply due to their status/wealth I think you should think about it very carefully.

Sorry for any ranting!

Also, they weren't exactly landed gentry. She was a policeman's daughter, his dad was a local councillor and he went to a comprehensive. They happened to be solicitors, that's all.

I read some really moving stuff about how she saw her surviving son once a week and he called prison 'mummy's house'. She chose all his clothes and toys from catalogues, decided on their house via estate agents' details, went through paint charts in prison to help decorate the house etc and even started looking at Ofsted reports to help choose a school for their son. He seems an incredibly lovign husband but was very clear about the fact that he wasn't a fool, and if he thought there was the slightest possiblility she had harmed his sons, he would have said so. I found that very convincing indeed. The evidence from pathologist Alan Williams was dreadful - and he was the one who withheld the proof that the baby had meningitis. Professor Meadows statistic of 1 in 73 million (which undoubtedly convicted her IMO) was immediately totally discredited.
One law for rich, one law for poor? How do you explain poor Victoria Climbie then?

On the radio this morning, someeone mentioned that this case should make supporters of capital punishment think long and hard. If the death penalty existed here, Sally Clark could have been executed before her second appeal.