Prosecuting Innocents on Junk Evidence

Written by

in

adow, wrote the seminal paper on salt-poisoning. Meadow did not give evidence in the trials of the Gays, but he laid the intellectual groundwork for the prosecutions. His paper on salt-poisoning, like his work on cot deaths, is dross. Jean Golding, professor of epidemiology at Bristol University, has compared Meadow’s scientific method to “stamp-collecting”.

The system’s second mistake is its failure to ask whether a crime took place. The attorney-general should spare time to read the notes of the original meeting of the experts, chaired by the crown’s junior barrister, Andrew Lockhart, before the first trial of the Gays. Nowhere does anyone ask, “are we absolutely certain that we have properly ruled out natural causes?” Instead, foul play was assumed….

The system’s third mistake is to overvalue expert witnesses as demigods and write off friends and family as irrelevant. At the first trial, the crown’s lead expert on salt-poisoning was Professor George Haycock of Guy’s hospital. He did the calculations that said the Gays must have poisoned Christian with 4 teaspoons of salt. The Gays were convicted.

Enter Dr Glyn Walters, a retired chemical pathologist. He is an oldie with two hearing aids, but cross him at your peril. His calculations said: natural causes, a faulty or reset osmostat. Haycock told the Court of Appeal that he couldn’t knock down Walters’s numbers. The Gays were freed — but then told by the court that they had to face a retrial.

At no time did the crown ever put any weight on the good character of the Gays and their families. I got to know all of them a little after they were freed from prison. Their families are all patently good people. Ian and Angela are gentle and caring. She lost her womb to cancer when she was 16. That’s why they wanted to adopt.

How could it be that the expert Professor Haycock was relied upon so heavily at the first trial but dropped by the prosecution for the second? Meanwhile, the views of a score of the Gays’ family and friends were discounted at both trials. Could it be that one is a middle-class professor and the rest people with Black Country accents?

When a child dies of abuse, and the authorities have been judged to have bungled, all hell is let loose. A public inquiry often follows. But when the opposite wrong happens — a child dies of natural causes and their parents (natural or adopted) are falsely accused — nothing much takes place. So long as the system remains convinced that it hasn’t done anything wrong, we can be pretty confident that someone else will end up in prison for a crime that never happened.

Comments

  1. Mr Grumpy Avatar

    So, substantially ‘nice respectable couples don’t murder toddlers’. Sweeney talks about a ‘faulty osmostat’ as if this had been established by direct observation. In reality it’s apparently no less hypothetical than the prosecution’s explanation. I’m not quarrelling with the verdict, just saying, to reiterate my last comment, that a blanket decision to scrap such prosecutions would leave children at the mercy of infanticides smart enough not to leave bruises.

  2. P. Froward Avatar

    How ’bout they just don’t throw you in jail unless it’s been proven you did something wrong? This will, of course, leave unimprisoned those criminals smart enough not to do stuff that they can be proven to have been done, so I must in all candor admit the wisdom of just throwing fucking everybody in jail and having goddamn done with it, because that’s the only way to be sure.

  3. Dr.D. Avatar

    Sweeney is medically illiterate and dangerous to vulnerable children. He lies when he says that it is impossible to get salt into a child and his self serving experiment when he drank salt water and threw up proves nothing except his belief in the gullability of his audience. What you do is deprive the child of water until he will drink from a fish tank if he can and then give him liquids laced with salt. If you have medical training then put it down a tube. Sweeney is to medical reporting what Fisk is to journalistic integrity when reporting on Israel. He uses fallacious arguement, common abuse, gross misrepresentation of evidence and defamation to make his point. Whether the Gays killed Christian or not we might never know but I sure as hell know that little boy didn’t die of a sudden resetting of his ‘osmostat’ . Paediatricians are now wary of stepping into the child protection field because they are exposed to threats and unfounded complaints to the GMC. Sweeney viciously taunted a distinguished paediatrician who was the first to realise that mothers can harm their children whilst joining diligently in their care a phenomenon that is reported world wide.
    Children are more vulnerable to abuse than ever before because of Sweeney. I call this the “Sweeney Effect”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *