Post by ScotKaren on Jun 22, 2006 6:00:23 GMT -5
www.portia.org/chapter01/frame1.html
HELEN STACEY APPEAL DECISION
Tuesday, July 31st, 2001.
Comment by Tom Watkins.
Leave to appeal was granted on Wednesday 24th July, 2001 this then led straight into the appeal hearing on the same day, continuing into the next day. Judgement was given on the following Tuesday 31st July.
This was another appalling decision by the Court of Appeal but at least some progress has been made. Instead of claiming she shook him violently with the force equal to a drop from a first floor window or a bad car accident, this has now been reduced to ‘a little bit.’ I wonder whether if we keep shouting SHE DID NOT SHAKE HIM AT ALL this might eventually sink in. The judges virtually ignored the new evidence given by a neuropathologist that the haemorrhage could have started 24 hours before, preferring instead to claim as she did not summon help this was evidence of wrong doing. Well the time she spent on the phone to the cottage hospital which was criticised was to enquire about a fellow member of the Lions charity support group she belonged to who had been seriously ill. She had already visited and helped this person before, AS SHE HAD ALSO HELPED OTHERS. Judges though would not know anything about personally helping and caring for people, would they? What an absolutely terrible justice system this country has, it is a fob to those superior beings who get pleasure from feelings of hate, spite and vengeance aimed not only at their victim but that person’s family.
Even the reduction in sentence from life to seven years demonstrates the enormous spite still involved, before the original trial she was told twice that if she would plead guilty she would get 4 years. She could have been free before now, it took enormous bravery to stand up to their pressure.
Parts of the media again have gone on and on and on that she was a prostitute. Well, prostitution is not a criminal act, it is a social misdemeanour (and the subject of much hypocrisy) and all this took place OVER 20 YEARS AGO (last conviction 1978) when she was a teenager. Also involved was a man then over 40 years old, convicted of living off her earnings he was also the cause of their first child being taken into care and the one conviction for shoplifting. The media seem to have amnesia about this and give her no credit for her rebuilding her life after this early period. They seem to think that filth and venom is the only way to sell newspapers. I wonder just how many people have this attitude and serve as jurors.
The most probable reason for the death of baby Joe is natural causes, a congenital defect. Zealots would have us believe they know different when it is obvious they do not. Helen Stacey is innocent and that is clear to anyone who really gets to know her and is willing to study the evidence. Misdiagnosis is not uncommon. An example of this was plain to me during the year 2000. A marketing manager that I did business with had been complaining of headaches for some months. Around July an operation was done on his sinuses. In September I got a call from his superior to ask if I had work underway for him as he had been rushed into hospital. He was dead one week later from an aneurysm, a haemorrhage of the brain.
Below is the original story posted up in autumn 1998. You can also read a trial analysis.
Helen Stacey, the real story.
by Tom Watkins and Ken Norman
(written in 1998)
Helen 41, was convicted at Norwich Crown Court in July 1998 of the murder of a baby in her care by a majority verdict of just 10 jurors. She was accused of shaking the child and causing his death and sentenced to life.
The press made much of Helen’s earlier life. She had been a wayward teenager marrying a man 23 years her senior at the age of 18. This man with convictions for dishonesty, was convicted of living off her immoral earnings within months of their marriage. Helen gained 4 convictions for prostitution and 1 for shoplifting during this part of her life. There were 3 children born during this period, all taken into care. Again she was the subject of venom in the media, but was not the man also responsible? Was he completely useless and blameless? At his age he should have known better, why is it this woman who takes all the blame?
In her mid twenties Helen came to her senses, divorced her first husband and set out to build a better life. She did a secretarial course and obtained temporary work, eventually getting a permanent job with a large insurance company. There she met John, her present husband.
In spite of what the newspapers said, John confirms he did know of her past and was very proud of the way she had strived to build a new respectable life for herself. He also says that friends and neighbours say that the picture portrayed in the press and on TV is not the Helen they have come to know and love. (Even complete strangers have come up to him in the street saying they are sure she is innocent). The marriage was a good one, full of happiness, and in 1996 she gave him a baby daughter. It was after this birth they decided Helen should apply to become a child minder and disaster struck.
Again she has been accused of deliberately lying on the application form, but like most wives, she asked her husband what she should put down. John, because of his job, was aware that the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act (1975), 'wiped the slate clean' after specified periods , and told her there was no need to declare her earlier life. (He was wrong in that an exception is made for those caring for children).
There is no proof that Helen caused harm to the child, Joseph. There is expert evidence on the Internet in a letter from Professor Kessler, Professor and Chief (Emeritus) Surgery, (Neurosurgery) at Allegheny General Hospital, Pittsburgh. He is referring to Louise Woodward, but in proving that her conviction is false, he does the same for Mrs Stacey. Sub-dural haematomas (a collection of blood below the dura, the membrane covering the brain) he declares, are not as a rule rapidly occurring events. He describes various forms of haematomas, then later goes on to say that usually a patient has had a bump on the head which they have forgotten; hours, days, or weeks later they begin to have headaches and begin to deteriorate. Another science paper talks of sub-acute haematomas developing symptoms within 2 - 10 days. There are more like this.
There is a case on record in Wales where a father was charged after the death of his baby. Researchers discovered that the child, too young to support itself, had been placed in a car seat that rocked. An older brother had also enjoyed rocking the child, but with too much enthusiasm causing fatal head injuries. Newspapers mentioned that Joseph had been in a bouncy chair. There are far too many “ifs” here for the conviction to be beyond all reasonable doubt.
Here are some medical questions, relating to the conviction of Helen Stacey: could this have been a ruptured aneurism; were there viraemias (overwhelming viral infections) which might not show up at post mortem; was this an unsuspected late haemorrhagic disease of the newborn (the baby was five weeks premature; there is a possibility that convulsions might have caused retinal haemorrhage. It may also be associated with cardiopulmonary resuscitation, accidental trauma and a variety of illnesses such as blood dyscrasias and infections, or with a variety of eye diseases. There is a hypothesis that retinal haemorrhages are caused by resuscitation attempts (the baby Joseph was given electric shocks while the ambulance stopped en route to the hospital).
One of the measures during resuscitation is to extend the head backwards, i.e. tilting the chin up in the air and bending the neck. If there was an attempt to intubate (inserting a tube through the mouth or nose into the trachea) there may be need to press on the cricoid at the front of the neck to help steer the tube in the right direction. Were these things attempted? In the emergency of attempting to resuscitate Joseph, were there bruises to the neck which in the eloquence of the prosecution helped to bring Helen’s conviction for murder?
Had the baby ever been in a high chair, buggy or babywalker? Had it tipped over? Had Joseph’s older sibling attempted to rock him? Did he travel to Helen’s home and elsewhere in a baby car seat? Was it the right size? Was it facing backwards? Did the car have to brake suddenly? These are all relevant possibilities, which were either not presented to the jury or were ignored by a group of people who may have been completely without medical knowledge.
Helen was never alone with Joseph on the day of his death, his young sister was there throughout the day and Helen's mother and a neighbour made calls. There was no history of ill-temper and the mother of a child who had been cared for by Helen gave evidence that during 20 - 30 sessions there had been no hint of difficulty.
In a letter to Portia, Helen writes "I wish I could say I knew what happened to Joseph, but I cannot. I hope to God that someone can."
John has had the wife he loves so much taken away from him. This has ruined his life (and injured his health, he was taken to hospital with chest pains during the trial), their daughter constantly asks for her mummy. John's father died within two weeks of Helen being charged from a massive heart attack (killed by the shock). John is now dependent on the help of his 78 year old mother and his sister to help look after their child.
Further comment by Tom Watkins
What drew my attention to this case was the murder charge. There was no intent, no premeditation, no malice aforethought, so surely this could only be an unintentional manslaughter case. What evidence I could find in the public domain however, did not even convince me of this. Helen was convicted on the basis of possibility or probability, not certainty. Had the charge of murder been brought because of Helen's earlier life? She had stood as tall as any of us for the past 15 years or more.
I emailed the Crown Court Service asking for a trial transcript, here is the reply:
"Thank you for your enquiry. As it appears that you are not a party to the trial, you will probably need to obtain the permission of the judge who heard the case. To do this, you will need to contact the court where the decision was made, as we do not have any centrally held details of any court cases here at Headquarters."
I've no quarrel with the messenger but "permission of the judge", that phrase made me angry. All major trial transcripts should be available via the Internet.
Next I decided to search for other unlawful death cases in newspaper archives; I found the following:-
A MAN in Wolverhampton struck another outside a nightclub and killed him; sentence 18 months. A MAN in Bisley strangled his female partner, first with his hands and then with a belt; sentence 3 years. A MAN in Bristol stabbed his wife 30 times, (yes, thirty times!); sentence 5 years. A MAN in Reading strangled his wife; sentence 6 years.
So why was Helen sentenced to LIFE, with I understand a minimum term of 11/12 years. Then, I found out why - she insists she is innocent (and is also a woman). She wrote, "they offered to reduce the charge to manslaughter if I would plead guilty, I refused, because that would mean I had done something I did not do". What a dirty, filthy trick! Pure spite! Words escape me. Why should she plead guilty to something she has not done? Is this REALLY British Justice? Who was responsible for this decision?
I contacted John, Helen's husband, via the Portia Trust. The judge could hardly refuse him a transcript of his wife's trial. He told me the court had already quoted £30 per hour and a total bill running into thousands of pounds. They don't intend an appeal, do they?
Well I joined Portia and set up this Web site and I've recently been corresponding with Helen (1998). First sent to Holloway, she is now incarcerated in Bullwood Hall, Essex. She wrote to Ken Norman on 3rd October 1998, "Bullwood Hall is a slightly better place, I am locked up 20 hours a day for my protection. I am terrified, life is hell". She described her cell in her first letter to me as, "size 5ft x 9ft, door blue, small glass window, walls are a dirty cream, floor is grey lino, a small table, chair, and cupboard. Two notice boards on which I have put photos of John, Monique and Heidi my dog".
On the 17th October I got another letter, she said solicitors had sent her a form to apply for a reduction in sentence but she had sent it back unsigned, "in the wording it said I lost my temper and that it should be manslaughter, I am not admitting to manslaughter when I did nothing".
More facts
The child died on May 13th 1997. I now learn that that the baby was taken to the hospital casualty department around the 29th December previous. He stopped breathing twice, but was revived by the hospital staff. He was then kept in the hospital on oxygen. His parents were told he must not be left alone during the first year of his life and he must not be in a smoky atmosphere. So why was he left with a child minder only 5 months later, especially when she and her husband both smoked? None of this came out during the trial. There were witnesses who would have testified that Helen was a loving caring person, however the defence was prevented from calling these people because the prosecution said they were going to call them. They didn't, so preventing them from being heard. In court the prosecutor gave the jury an ultimatum, they must choose, either the parents killed the baby or Helen. Is this a reasonable thing to say? A tactic aimed at winning a contest, nothing to do with establishing the truth. Talk about rough justice!
Was Helen stitched-up because of her earlier life?
I think so. An article in the Boston Globe led me to believe that information about Helen had been leaked by the police/prosecution before the end of the trial to the press. Who else got to know? Did the medical experts collude before the trial and decide what they were going to say?
The attitude taken by some writers was 'How dare she rebuild her life with a new family'. Well they should try talking to John her husband, a very nice person. He lost his first wife through bereavement, but what has now been done to him is much worse. Emotional, he is absolutely certain Helen is innocent. People should try listening to little Monique their small daughter say, "mummy coming home, mummy coming home, mummy coming home."
I noticed in an eastern counties newspaper that the head of the law chambers that defended Helen was quoted as saying that he was surprised by the guilty verdict.
I visited Helen for the first time in Bullwood Hall prison on 20th April 1999. I found her a delightful person with a lovely bubbly personality. We talked nineteen to the dozen. The one and a half hours went very fast. I found she had just been given enhanced privilege status and given an in-cell TV, I'm sure she is a model prisoner.
During the conversation I said to Helen that I hadn't thought at first that she was innocent, but thought she had been far too harshly treated, it had been a moment of madness, 5 seconds in which she had lost control. "Tom," she said, "If I had been guilty I would have pleaded guilty to manslaughter. I would have got four years, with parole I could expect to be released after two, I have almost done half of that now. If I had been silly enough not to have pleaded guilty then, I would certainly have signed the form sent to me last autumn by solicitors, pleading for a reduction in sentence. But why should I say I did something I did not."
She also added that the minor convictions at the start of this article were 21 years ago. A period when she was young and under the influence of her first husband, a period of her life she very much regretted and long ago had thought was behind her. She too believes she has been blamed because of it. Her early life had become public before the trial. Did that affect the outcome?
At the time of Helen's arrest she was a member of the North Walsham Lions Club and heavily involved in fund-raising for charities and had awards for 100% attendance at meetings.
I am sure Helen Stacey is innocent.
LESS HATE, LESS SPITE, MORE COMPASSION IS NEEDED.
If this story upsets you as much as me, print it out and send it to your M.P. (along with the next story).
Read the trial review ------
click on the link above for the review
HELEN STACEY APPEAL DECISION
Tuesday, July 31st, 2001.
Comment by Tom Watkins.
Leave to appeal was granted on Wednesday 24th July, 2001 this then led straight into the appeal hearing on the same day, continuing into the next day. Judgement was given on the following Tuesday 31st July.
This was another appalling decision by the Court of Appeal but at least some progress has been made. Instead of claiming she shook him violently with the force equal to a drop from a first floor window or a bad car accident, this has now been reduced to ‘a little bit.’ I wonder whether if we keep shouting SHE DID NOT SHAKE HIM AT ALL this might eventually sink in. The judges virtually ignored the new evidence given by a neuropathologist that the haemorrhage could have started 24 hours before, preferring instead to claim as she did not summon help this was evidence of wrong doing. Well the time she spent on the phone to the cottage hospital which was criticised was to enquire about a fellow member of the Lions charity support group she belonged to who had been seriously ill. She had already visited and helped this person before, AS SHE HAD ALSO HELPED OTHERS. Judges though would not know anything about personally helping and caring for people, would they? What an absolutely terrible justice system this country has, it is a fob to those superior beings who get pleasure from feelings of hate, spite and vengeance aimed not only at their victim but that person’s family.
Even the reduction in sentence from life to seven years demonstrates the enormous spite still involved, before the original trial she was told twice that if she would plead guilty she would get 4 years. She could have been free before now, it took enormous bravery to stand up to their pressure.
Parts of the media again have gone on and on and on that she was a prostitute. Well, prostitution is not a criminal act, it is a social misdemeanour (and the subject of much hypocrisy) and all this took place OVER 20 YEARS AGO (last conviction 1978) when she was a teenager. Also involved was a man then over 40 years old, convicted of living off her earnings he was also the cause of their first child being taken into care and the one conviction for shoplifting. The media seem to have amnesia about this and give her no credit for her rebuilding her life after this early period. They seem to think that filth and venom is the only way to sell newspapers. I wonder just how many people have this attitude and serve as jurors.
The most probable reason for the death of baby Joe is natural causes, a congenital defect. Zealots would have us believe they know different when it is obvious they do not. Helen Stacey is innocent and that is clear to anyone who really gets to know her and is willing to study the evidence. Misdiagnosis is not uncommon. An example of this was plain to me during the year 2000. A marketing manager that I did business with had been complaining of headaches for some months. Around July an operation was done on his sinuses. In September I got a call from his superior to ask if I had work underway for him as he had been rushed into hospital. He was dead one week later from an aneurysm, a haemorrhage of the brain.
Below is the original story posted up in autumn 1998. You can also read a trial analysis.
Helen Stacey, the real story.
by Tom Watkins and Ken Norman
(written in 1998)
Helen 41, was convicted at Norwich Crown Court in July 1998 of the murder of a baby in her care by a majority verdict of just 10 jurors. She was accused of shaking the child and causing his death and sentenced to life.
The press made much of Helen’s earlier life. She had been a wayward teenager marrying a man 23 years her senior at the age of 18. This man with convictions for dishonesty, was convicted of living off her immoral earnings within months of their marriage. Helen gained 4 convictions for prostitution and 1 for shoplifting during this part of her life. There were 3 children born during this period, all taken into care. Again she was the subject of venom in the media, but was not the man also responsible? Was he completely useless and blameless? At his age he should have known better, why is it this woman who takes all the blame?
In her mid twenties Helen came to her senses, divorced her first husband and set out to build a better life. She did a secretarial course and obtained temporary work, eventually getting a permanent job with a large insurance company. There she met John, her present husband.
In spite of what the newspapers said, John confirms he did know of her past and was very proud of the way she had strived to build a new respectable life for herself. He also says that friends and neighbours say that the picture portrayed in the press and on TV is not the Helen they have come to know and love. (Even complete strangers have come up to him in the street saying they are sure she is innocent). The marriage was a good one, full of happiness, and in 1996 she gave him a baby daughter. It was after this birth they decided Helen should apply to become a child minder and disaster struck.
Again she has been accused of deliberately lying on the application form, but like most wives, she asked her husband what she should put down. John, because of his job, was aware that the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act (1975), 'wiped the slate clean' after specified periods , and told her there was no need to declare her earlier life. (He was wrong in that an exception is made for those caring for children).
There is no proof that Helen caused harm to the child, Joseph. There is expert evidence on the Internet in a letter from Professor Kessler, Professor and Chief (Emeritus) Surgery, (Neurosurgery) at Allegheny General Hospital, Pittsburgh. He is referring to Louise Woodward, but in proving that her conviction is false, he does the same for Mrs Stacey. Sub-dural haematomas (a collection of blood below the dura, the membrane covering the brain) he declares, are not as a rule rapidly occurring events. He describes various forms of haematomas, then later goes on to say that usually a patient has had a bump on the head which they have forgotten; hours, days, or weeks later they begin to have headaches and begin to deteriorate. Another science paper talks of sub-acute haematomas developing symptoms within 2 - 10 days. There are more like this.
There is a case on record in Wales where a father was charged after the death of his baby. Researchers discovered that the child, too young to support itself, had been placed in a car seat that rocked. An older brother had also enjoyed rocking the child, but with too much enthusiasm causing fatal head injuries. Newspapers mentioned that Joseph had been in a bouncy chair. There are far too many “ifs” here for the conviction to be beyond all reasonable doubt.
Here are some medical questions, relating to the conviction of Helen Stacey: could this have been a ruptured aneurism; were there viraemias (overwhelming viral infections) which might not show up at post mortem; was this an unsuspected late haemorrhagic disease of the newborn (the baby was five weeks premature; there is a possibility that convulsions might have caused retinal haemorrhage. It may also be associated with cardiopulmonary resuscitation, accidental trauma and a variety of illnesses such as blood dyscrasias and infections, or with a variety of eye diseases. There is a hypothesis that retinal haemorrhages are caused by resuscitation attempts (the baby Joseph was given electric shocks while the ambulance stopped en route to the hospital).
One of the measures during resuscitation is to extend the head backwards, i.e. tilting the chin up in the air and bending the neck. If there was an attempt to intubate (inserting a tube through the mouth or nose into the trachea) there may be need to press on the cricoid at the front of the neck to help steer the tube in the right direction. Were these things attempted? In the emergency of attempting to resuscitate Joseph, were there bruises to the neck which in the eloquence of the prosecution helped to bring Helen’s conviction for murder?
Had the baby ever been in a high chair, buggy or babywalker? Had it tipped over? Had Joseph’s older sibling attempted to rock him? Did he travel to Helen’s home and elsewhere in a baby car seat? Was it the right size? Was it facing backwards? Did the car have to brake suddenly? These are all relevant possibilities, which were either not presented to the jury or were ignored by a group of people who may have been completely without medical knowledge.
Helen was never alone with Joseph on the day of his death, his young sister was there throughout the day and Helen's mother and a neighbour made calls. There was no history of ill-temper and the mother of a child who had been cared for by Helen gave evidence that during 20 - 30 sessions there had been no hint of difficulty.
In a letter to Portia, Helen writes "I wish I could say I knew what happened to Joseph, but I cannot. I hope to God that someone can."
John has had the wife he loves so much taken away from him. This has ruined his life (and injured his health, he was taken to hospital with chest pains during the trial), their daughter constantly asks for her mummy. John's father died within two weeks of Helen being charged from a massive heart attack (killed by the shock). John is now dependent on the help of his 78 year old mother and his sister to help look after their child.
Further comment by Tom Watkins
What drew my attention to this case was the murder charge. There was no intent, no premeditation, no malice aforethought, so surely this could only be an unintentional manslaughter case. What evidence I could find in the public domain however, did not even convince me of this. Helen was convicted on the basis of possibility or probability, not certainty. Had the charge of murder been brought because of Helen's earlier life? She had stood as tall as any of us for the past 15 years or more.
I emailed the Crown Court Service asking for a trial transcript, here is the reply:
"Thank you for your enquiry. As it appears that you are not a party to the trial, you will probably need to obtain the permission of the judge who heard the case. To do this, you will need to contact the court where the decision was made, as we do not have any centrally held details of any court cases here at Headquarters."
I've no quarrel with the messenger but "permission of the judge", that phrase made me angry. All major trial transcripts should be available via the Internet.
Next I decided to search for other unlawful death cases in newspaper archives; I found the following:-
A MAN in Wolverhampton struck another outside a nightclub and killed him; sentence 18 months. A MAN in Bisley strangled his female partner, first with his hands and then with a belt; sentence 3 years. A MAN in Bristol stabbed his wife 30 times, (yes, thirty times!); sentence 5 years. A MAN in Reading strangled his wife; sentence 6 years.
So why was Helen sentenced to LIFE, with I understand a minimum term of 11/12 years. Then, I found out why - she insists she is innocent (and is also a woman). She wrote, "they offered to reduce the charge to manslaughter if I would plead guilty, I refused, because that would mean I had done something I did not do". What a dirty, filthy trick! Pure spite! Words escape me. Why should she plead guilty to something she has not done? Is this REALLY British Justice? Who was responsible for this decision?
I contacted John, Helen's husband, via the Portia Trust. The judge could hardly refuse him a transcript of his wife's trial. He told me the court had already quoted £30 per hour and a total bill running into thousands of pounds. They don't intend an appeal, do they?
Well I joined Portia and set up this Web site and I've recently been corresponding with Helen (1998). First sent to Holloway, she is now incarcerated in Bullwood Hall, Essex. She wrote to Ken Norman on 3rd October 1998, "Bullwood Hall is a slightly better place, I am locked up 20 hours a day for my protection. I am terrified, life is hell". She described her cell in her first letter to me as, "size 5ft x 9ft, door blue, small glass window, walls are a dirty cream, floor is grey lino, a small table, chair, and cupboard. Two notice boards on which I have put photos of John, Monique and Heidi my dog".
On the 17th October I got another letter, she said solicitors had sent her a form to apply for a reduction in sentence but she had sent it back unsigned, "in the wording it said I lost my temper and that it should be manslaughter, I am not admitting to manslaughter when I did nothing".
More facts
The child died on May 13th 1997. I now learn that that the baby was taken to the hospital casualty department around the 29th December previous. He stopped breathing twice, but was revived by the hospital staff. He was then kept in the hospital on oxygen. His parents were told he must not be left alone during the first year of his life and he must not be in a smoky atmosphere. So why was he left with a child minder only 5 months later, especially when she and her husband both smoked? None of this came out during the trial. There were witnesses who would have testified that Helen was a loving caring person, however the defence was prevented from calling these people because the prosecution said they were going to call them. They didn't, so preventing them from being heard. In court the prosecutor gave the jury an ultimatum, they must choose, either the parents killed the baby or Helen. Is this a reasonable thing to say? A tactic aimed at winning a contest, nothing to do with establishing the truth. Talk about rough justice!
Was Helen stitched-up because of her earlier life?
I think so. An article in the Boston Globe led me to believe that information about Helen had been leaked by the police/prosecution before the end of the trial to the press. Who else got to know? Did the medical experts collude before the trial and decide what they were going to say?
The attitude taken by some writers was 'How dare she rebuild her life with a new family'. Well they should try talking to John her husband, a very nice person. He lost his first wife through bereavement, but what has now been done to him is much worse. Emotional, he is absolutely certain Helen is innocent. People should try listening to little Monique their small daughter say, "mummy coming home, mummy coming home, mummy coming home."
I noticed in an eastern counties newspaper that the head of the law chambers that defended Helen was quoted as saying that he was surprised by the guilty verdict.
I visited Helen for the first time in Bullwood Hall prison on 20th April 1999. I found her a delightful person with a lovely bubbly personality. We talked nineteen to the dozen. The one and a half hours went very fast. I found she had just been given enhanced privilege status and given an in-cell TV, I'm sure she is a model prisoner.
During the conversation I said to Helen that I hadn't thought at first that she was innocent, but thought she had been far too harshly treated, it had been a moment of madness, 5 seconds in which she had lost control. "Tom," she said, "If I had been guilty I would have pleaded guilty to manslaughter. I would have got four years, with parole I could expect to be released after two, I have almost done half of that now. If I had been silly enough not to have pleaded guilty then, I would certainly have signed the form sent to me last autumn by solicitors, pleading for a reduction in sentence. But why should I say I did something I did not."
She also added that the minor convictions at the start of this article were 21 years ago. A period when she was young and under the influence of her first husband, a period of her life she very much regretted and long ago had thought was behind her. She too believes she has been blamed because of it. Her early life had become public before the trial. Did that affect the outcome?
At the time of Helen's arrest she was a member of the North Walsham Lions Club and heavily involved in fund-raising for charities and had awards for 100% attendance at meetings.
I am sure Helen Stacey is innocent.
LESS HATE, LESS SPITE, MORE COMPASSION IS NEEDED.
If this story upsets you as much as me, print it out and send it to your M.P. (along with the next story).
Read the trial review ------
click on the link above for the review