Post by ScotKaren on Jun 22, 2006 6:19:52 GMT -5
www.portia.org/chapter05/frame5.html
Another ridiculous witchcraft trial
If a baby is victim of a rare genetic defect which kills only one in a million persons, that is misfortune, not criminality. If that child's parents give birth to a second child, the risk of genetic defect is already there. And it is already there for a third, fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh child.
It is fatuous beyond belief to argue that the odds against these children dying in infancy are 1:1 million for the first baby, 1:1 billion for the second, 1:1 billion billion for the third, 1:1 billion billion billion billion for the fourth, and so on.
Yet on this fatuous medical evidence murder convictions are obtained.
This is a case in which, from the opening moments, a verdict of guilt seemed inescapable. To anyone not in court, the defence did not exist. Coverage by the national media was so biased that scarcely a sentence was given to the defence; did they produce any expert testimony, score any points against the prosecution, sum up effectively? The public knew only that the odds against Mrs Sally Clark's two babies having died naturally were declared to be one in 73 million. And, with that established, why should the reporter bother to take note of any defence - and why should the jurors listen to it, with minds already closed?
The only two expert witnesses whose words were widely reported, Professor Roy Meadow and Home Office pathologist Dr Alan Williams, are both believers in the new theory of forensics - by no means generally accepted - that Sudden Infant Death Syndrome does not exist; the term should cease to be used; infant deaths that cannot specifically be identified should be recorded as "Inexplicable", in other words, possible murder. When these men give evidence that there is no sign of SIDS, they may as well be declaring that a fairy is not present, for neither, to them, has existence. This aura of professionalism and certainty undoubtedly convinced the media there was no way that Sally could be innocent - and the effect upon most of the jurors must have been identical.
Sally, a 35-year-old corporate solicitor living at Wilmslow, was brought to trial at Chester Crown Court on October 12th, 1999, accused of murdering her two baby sons. She had not been remanded in custody (surprisingly) but came to court hand-in-hand with her husband Stephen, who is also a corporate solicitor, with little knowledge of criminal trials.
It was beyond co-incidence that she could have lost both children, Christopher and Harry, by natural causes within 14 months of each other, said the prosecutor in his opening remarks. He would bring evidence to show that the probability of such an occurrence was one in 73 millions.
[The chief prosecution witness was Professor Meadow, who had told a jury at the trial of Mrs Donna Anthony a year earlier that "a single cot death is a thousand-to-one misfortune, therefore two deaths in one family are a million-to-one chance and indicate murder." A couple of months earlier, the claim against Mrs Noe in Philadelphia was that "one cot death is a tragedy, two is a mystery, three is murder." It's all this inflation that's done it. I blame the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Whatever are the odds going to be in another ten years?]
It was alleged that Sally physically abused, then smothered, Christopher, aged 11 weeks, then shook eight-week-old Harry to death nearly 14 months later.
Christopher's sudden death in 1996 was initially attributed to infection but "striking similarities" when Harry died aroused suspicion and began a new investigation.
Christopher's lung tissue, which had been retained, then indicated bleeding into the lungs several days before death, "consistent with attempts to smother," said Robin Spencer, QC, prosecuting, adding that medical evidence in both cases pointed to murder, however attractive it was to blame cot death. "The idea that a mother could deliberately kill her own baby is almost too horrible to contemplate," but "you can be sure the unthinkable is the truth."
There were striking similarities which could not be explained, he added. Both boys died at approximately the same age [if 11 weeks nearly equals 8], both were found in Mrs Clark's bedroom in their baby-chairs [oh, a d**ning co-incidence that], she was alone with the children at the time they died [and presumably for much of the time while they were alive], at the same time in the evening, and there was medical evidence that both had been abused.
The jury - seven men and five women - were shown photographs and given details of their alleged injuries.
Mr Spencer said that although Mrs Clark had wanted to wait longer before starting a family she had appeared delighted [it would have spoiled his case to say she was delighted] by the birth of Christopher in September 1996.
Then, while her husband was at an office Christmas party on December 12, she telephoned for an ambulance, saying her baby was limp and lifeless. On the way to hospital she became so distressed that she herself required treatment, diverting paramedics who were attempting to resuscitate Christopher, he said. [Very suspicious this, if you are "thinking dirty," except that if she had remained calm it would have been considered even more d**ning]. A doctor noted later that she became hysterical on hearing that Christopher was dead, but her distress appeared "superficial and untypical." [You just can't win in this situation.] The ambulance had been called at 9.35 p.m. Death was pronounced at 10.40 p.m.
Dr Alan Williams, Home Office pathologist, in a routine examination noticed bruising; it was thought strange because babies do not suffer the sort of bumps seen in older children when they begin crawling [unless the bruises were caused during attempted resuscitation, in the ambulance. And there are illnesses which mimic bruising and some genetic flaws which cause symptoms apparently beyond the infant's age]. There was also a mouth injury, described by the prosecution as a "classic sign of child abuse" [or resulting from urgent mouth-to-mouth resuscitation. Quoting a TV documentary, it is not unknown to have ribs broken, the heart to be bruised, or fluid or blood to appear in the membrane around the heart after resuscitation attempts on an adult. On a tiny infant these injuries could be even greater].
But although the pathologist was suspicious he attributed death to respiratory infection and the child was cremated [so the evidence of abuse must have been very, very far from convincing]. Now, with the second death, Dr Williams had changed his mind, the court was told. [So, it was only that second tragedy which made the first death indicative of murder.]
Harry was born on November 20, 1997; he was three weeks premature, but apparently healthy. The parents were given support by Care of the Next Infant [which helps parents come to terms with a cot death, in the belief that subsequent children may also be at risk].
On January 21 a health visitor saw Harry at home and found him to be well. Five days later Harry was taken to the doctor for his first set of inoculations; "he did not react in any unusual way," said Mr Spencer. But at 9.37 p.m. that day [was it delayed adverse reaction? It is known that cot deaths can arise from over-reaction to viruses, etc.] a 999 call from Sally reported that he had stopped breathing and her husband was attempting resuscitation.
While the husband was downstairs preparing for a flight to Glasgow next morning, his wife had begun screaming for help.
"What happened in that crucial period before the 999 call only the defendant knows," said Mr Spencer [who then proceeded to guess]. Harry had taken a bottle between 8 and 8.30 p.m., according to his mother, and was put in a bouncy chair on his father's side of the bed. "Her husband had only been out of the room for about four minutes," said Mr Spencer, "when she looked across at Harry and saw that he had slumped forward. She got him out of the chair to resuscitate him."
When the ambulance arrived Sally was standing outside in an hysterical state. Harry was blue and there were no signs of life. He was taken to hospital and pronounced dead at 10.41 p.m.
Once the coroner's officer had been informed, a policewoman looked back at Christopher's death and was struck by the similarities [except that one child was allegedly smothered, the other shaken]. Dr Williams then diagnosed internal bleeding probably caused by being shaken to death. Harry was found to have eye injuries, a swollen spinal cord, evidence of earlier bleeding in the same area, and a fractured rib as well as a healed fracture [injuries possibly sustained during efforts to revive him; or due to osteogenesis imperfecta. And there is a third factor: who on earth knows how an unidentified genetic flaw affects the body?]
Sally recalled ordering Christopher's christening cake on the day he died. She took a bath with the baby lying nearby, for her GP had told her the humidity would be good for his cough. Despite a snuffle, Christopher had seemed to be in good health that evening, and was fed and in his basket in her bedroom.
She went to the kitchen to make tea, then went back upstairs to find that he had turned a "dusty grey" colour, and she knew something was terribly wrong. She picked him up and found him limp in her arms; "he didn't seem right."
A 999 call brought ambulance paramedics within a few minutes to find the doors locked. With Christopher floppy and limp on her shoulder, Sally, inside, was trying to find the keys in her handbag, and shouting: "I'm locked in; for God's sake help me. My baby's dying."
Eventually her neighbours let in the ambulance crew, mother and child were taken to hospital and she was told her son was dead.
An examination revealed that death was due to lower respiratory tract infection. She had no idea why blood was found in his lungs when tissue was re-examined 14 months later. [At the trial of Maxine Robinson the Prosecution claimed that in a cot death the pathologist would have expected to find far more haemorrhaging in the lungs and areas of the body. Professor Bernard Knight's response was to describe this as 'sheer nonsense', adding that 30% of all SIDS fail to show pleural and thymic petechiae. It seems that Maxine was considered guilty of child-murder because there was too little lung-haemorrhage, while the accusation against Sally is that this haemorrhage existed. Heads or tails, you're guilty.]
Sally said she had organised a christening for Christopher and had bought Christmas presents from him to his father.
Within a few months of this tragedy she conceived again, and Harry was born three weeks premature, slept less than Christopher and cried more. She was delighted to have him, although he was "a little devil." [An innocent remark during interrogation which was twisted to become proof that she murdered him.]
"We decided that having another baby might ease the pain," but she was fearful of losing her second son and took him from room to room with her.
Harry had been well-fed at around 7.30 p.m. on the night he died. Her husband had put him in a bouncy chair and gone downstairs to make a bottle when she looked around and saw that the baby's head had slumped. "I screeched out. . . . We had had some resuscitation training, but I couldn't do it, because it brought back too many memories." [Exactly the same response as that made by Maxine Robinson after a previous death. Perhaps this is the norm.] "They took me to the same room at the hospital. I recognised the room."
Describing her utter despair, she said: "I could not believe that something like this could happen twice. I was meant to have children and love them too much."
In reply to questioning she told the prosecutor that she had not detected bruising on Harry's legs and arms, or damage between his lip and gum, which were found by the pathologist. [She could not have found them if the injuries were sustained during frantic efforts at resuscitation by paramedics in a speeding ambulance.] She denied an allegation of smothering the child while he put up a fight. [But the allegation is that he was shaken to death.]
That night, said Mrs Clark, she was apprehensive about her husband going on a business trip to Glasgow.
"I'm saying you had to do something before your husband went away the next morning - kill Harry," challenged the prosecutor. [Why? Surely it would have been safer to do it after he had gone - and it would have become another of those alleged 'striking similarities.']. Crying, she replied: "I loved him to bits and I didn't harm him in any way. I loved them more than anything, together with my husband."
She broke down when Mr Spencer suggested that she had initially harmed both infants and eventually smothered them. [There is great confusion in newspaper reports as to how the children were supposed to have been killed. One allegation is that she shook Harry, causing internal bleeding then death. It would seem very unlikely that shaking could result in bleeding around a swollen spinal cord; without far greater haemorrhage within the skull as the head flopped from side to side - and of that there appears to be no evidence. At the trials of Louise Woodward, Helen Stacey and others, there was "expert" evidence of severe and prolonged shaking followed by impact equivalent to a 15ft fall on to concrete, and yet these same witnesses agreed that death might have taken 12 hours. Here it was presumably instantaneous. There would have been screams of terror from Harry audible to his father who had only left the room four minutes earlier and was in the house.]
Mr Spencer asked: "You smothered Christopher, didn't you?" - "No." "He put up quite a struggle, didn't he?" - "I did not smother my baby. I loved him." [The mental picture of a baby struggling for its life would be very hard for a jury to erase, which is why the point was laboured. To the prosecution it's all a game.]
She also denied harming Christopher a few days before his death, when the family spent a weekend in London. He had been suffering from a respiratory virus, she said [and this was confirmed at the autopsy. Excessive reaction to viral infection is one recognised pathway to cot death].
Sally read two letters she had hand-written as if from Harry to his grandparents. One referred to "Mummy looking at me with goo-goo eyes" and his father letting him watch his first football match.
The second, written to her father and his second wife 15 days before Harry's death, said: "Thank you both for the lovely Christmas presents. The teddy has pride of place in my nursery and the tiger sits on my cot. I fear that I have caused a fair bit of disruption in the Clark family. I can't say that we are in any kind of routine. I like to sleep and look angelic most of the day, but at night I prefer to stay awake and keep Mummy and Daddy awake with me. The health visitor is pleased with my progress and has assured Mummy that I will sleep longer once I have caught up, given that I was quite tiny at birth." Both were signed, "Lots of love, Harry."
Stephen Clark then gave evidence that Sally was a devoted mother, who loved her children. He denied "covering" for his wife out of loyalty, and said he had been the one keen to have children, but after his first son's birth all that Sally wanted was a family. Questioned, he said that if he thought she had harmed the children he would not have stood by her. "They were my sons too." Speaking of the terrible ordeal the couple had been through, he said he knew she would do nothing to harm the children. "If for one moment I thought Sally had done anything to hurt either of the children I would not still be with her today. She loved those boys and would do nothing to hurt or harm them."
She had, said the prosecution, "liked to look glamorous, slim and well-dressed, but was stuck at home, either pregnant or with a new child, feeling fat, and with only a couple of friends for support."
After eight hours' deliberation Sally was convicted by majority verdict, 10-2 [so two jurors were not convinced of guilt].
In his comments to the press afterwards, Det. Insp. John Gardner said he could only speculate on reasons for the murders. "Most right-thinking people will believe it is an unbelievable act." [If a defendant made an unbelievable claim it would simply not be believed, but for the prosecution, exaggerated claims succeed.]
The only point of interest to the media, apart from odds of 1:73 million, was the headline-creating angle, "Alcoholic mum kills two babes."
Before the trial began it had become obvious to the defence that the prosecution was stirring dirt to get a valid case, so the judge at a pre-trial hearing, was asked to exclude any reference to drink. He agreed, saying it had no relevance to the charges, and the prosecutor concurred.
It meant that when the smears began, after conviction, they could not be answered. The truth - and it can be verified - is that there was no drink problem whatsoever until Christopher died. Her problem then was one of bereavement depression with occasional binge drinking - an escape route, not alcoholism as such. Sally then took treatment, and recovered - helped by a second pregnancy. The problem had vanished once again, and did not return until arrest brought temporary renewal. It is certain that Sally had not been drinking at the time of the two tragedies, or the medics, on the spot within minutes and with her in the ambulances, would have taken note.
As for the eight or nine bottles of wine she was reported to have bought on the morning of Harry's fatal illness, these were in fact two bottles, both intended for a party a few days later. There is a special news agency that puts out smear stories on behalf of the police, immediately after messy convictions, and this would seem to be an example of their output.
In an interview not published until after conviction Sally said that all her life she had believed in British justice. "I'm a solicitor [though not in criminal law], so naturally I thought that people who were innocent would not have anything to worry about. But now I find myself fighting the legal process. I am not a murderer. I have lost two babies in cot death and that is extremely unusual. But it does happen. You only have to talk to the Sudden Infant Death Syndrome support groups to find out how often cot deaths happen."
The verdict was almost inevitable from the opening invented statistic. One overheard comment was: "Mum, she probably did it. Two babies dead is very suspicious and 1:73 million is very long odds." The response was, "It's just a made-up number."
During the 17 days after conviction, before sentence was passed, Sally had suffered a mug being smashed into her face in Styal jail; the Press reported that she had received two black eyes, but this was their invention, or that of the prison officer who informed them.
This is an extract from a letter received from Mrs Sally Clark:
I am still in a state of shock and disbelief, as are my legal team, family and friends. I loved my two little boys and did not harm them in any way. We have all been horrified by the comments made by the prosecution and the press. As a mother and a lawyer I found the prosecution expert evidence both inaccurate and inconsistent. At the end of the day even the prosecution witnesses said that they would put down the causes of death as "unascertained." Only Professor Meadow felt more strongly. Whilst I knew that a guilty verdict was a possibility I had put it to the back of my mind on the basis that the truth would prevail. Even now I cannot understand how and why I was convicted. I would not wish to harm anyone but I hope that Professor Meadow can sleep soundly knowing what he has done to Stephen and myself.
Here is a quotation from an email sent by a health services correspondent - I do not have permission to identify him:
The evidence I found positively offensive was Professor Meadow's ludicrous statistic. His 1:73 million odds were patently wrong and completely unscientific (for a start, how can Meadow who, no more than anyone else, cannot tell you the cause of cot deaths, calculate the odds of three such deaths? According to him they must be in the order of 560 billion to one.
Also see for the latest information www.sallyclark.org.uk/
Another ridiculous witchcraft trial
If a baby is victim of a rare genetic defect which kills only one in a million persons, that is misfortune, not criminality. If that child's parents give birth to a second child, the risk of genetic defect is already there. And it is already there for a third, fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh child.
It is fatuous beyond belief to argue that the odds against these children dying in infancy are 1:1 million for the first baby, 1:1 billion for the second, 1:1 billion billion for the third, 1:1 billion billion billion billion for the fourth, and so on.
Yet on this fatuous medical evidence murder convictions are obtained.
This is a case in which, from the opening moments, a verdict of guilt seemed inescapable. To anyone not in court, the defence did not exist. Coverage by the national media was so biased that scarcely a sentence was given to the defence; did they produce any expert testimony, score any points against the prosecution, sum up effectively? The public knew only that the odds against Mrs Sally Clark's two babies having died naturally were declared to be one in 73 million. And, with that established, why should the reporter bother to take note of any defence - and why should the jurors listen to it, with minds already closed?
The only two expert witnesses whose words were widely reported, Professor Roy Meadow and Home Office pathologist Dr Alan Williams, are both believers in the new theory of forensics - by no means generally accepted - that Sudden Infant Death Syndrome does not exist; the term should cease to be used; infant deaths that cannot specifically be identified should be recorded as "Inexplicable", in other words, possible murder. When these men give evidence that there is no sign of SIDS, they may as well be declaring that a fairy is not present, for neither, to them, has existence. This aura of professionalism and certainty undoubtedly convinced the media there was no way that Sally could be innocent - and the effect upon most of the jurors must have been identical.
Sally, a 35-year-old corporate solicitor living at Wilmslow, was brought to trial at Chester Crown Court on October 12th, 1999, accused of murdering her two baby sons. She had not been remanded in custody (surprisingly) but came to court hand-in-hand with her husband Stephen, who is also a corporate solicitor, with little knowledge of criminal trials.
It was beyond co-incidence that she could have lost both children, Christopher and Harry, by natural causes within 14 months of each other, said the prosecutor in his opening remarks. He would bring evidence to show that the probability of such an occurrence was one in 73 millions.
[The chief prosecution witness was Professor Meadow, who had told a jury at the trial of Mrs Donna Anthony a year earlier that "a single cot death is a thousand-to-one misfortune, therefore two deaths in one family are a million-to-one chance and indicate murder." A couple of months earlier, the claim against Mrs Noe in Philadelphia was that "one cot death is a tragedy, two is a mystery, three is murder." It's all this inflation that's done it. I blame the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Whatever are the odds going to be in another ten years?]
It was alleged that Sally physically abused, then smothered, Christopher, aged 11 weeks, then shook eight-week-old Harry to death nearly 14 months later.
Christopher's sudden death in 1996 was initially attributed to infection but "striking similarities" when Harry died aroused suspicion and began a new investigation.
Christopher's lung tissue, which had been retained, then indicated bleeding into the lungs several days before death, "consistent with attempts to smother," said Robin Spencer, QC, prosecuting, adding that medical evidence in both cases pointed to murder, however attractive it was to blame cot death. "The idea that a mother could deliberately kill her own baby is almost too horrible to contemplate," but "you can be sure the unthinkable is the truth."
There were striking similarities which could not be explained, he added. Both boys died at approximately the same age [if 11 weeks nearly equals 8], both were found in Mrs Clark's bedroom in their baby-chairs [oh, a d**ning co-incidence that], she was alone with the children at the time they died [and presumably for much of the time while they were alive], at the same time in the evening, and there was medical evidence that both had been abused.
The jury - seven men and five women - were shown photographs and given details of their alleged injuries.
Mr Spencer said that although Mrs Clark had wanted to wait longer before starting a family she had appeared delighted [it would have spoiled his case to say she was delighted] by the birth of Christopher in September 1996.
Then, while her husband was at an office Christmas party on December 12, she telephoned for an ambulance, saying her baby was limp and lifeless. On the way to hospital she became so distressed that she herself required treatment, diverting paramedics who were attempting to resuscitate Christopher, he said. [Very suspicious this, if you are "thinking dirty," except that if she had remained calm it would have been considered even more d**ning]. A doctor noted later that she became hysterical on hearing that Christopher was dead, but her distress appeared "superficial and untypical." [You just can't win in this situation.] The ambulance had been called at 9.35 p.m. Death was pronounced at 10.40 p.m.
Dr Alan Williams, Home Office pathologist, in a routine examination noticed bruising; it was thought strange because babies do not suffer the sort of bumps seen in older children when they begin crawling [unless the bruises were caused during attempted resuscitation, in the ambulance. And there are illnesses which mimic bruising and some genetic flaws which cause symptoms apparently beyond the infant's age]. There was also a mouth injury, described by the prosecution as a "classic sign of child abuse" [or resulting from urgent mouth-to-mouth resuscitation. Quoting a TV documentary, it is not unknown to have ribs broken, the heart to be bruised, or fluid or blood to appear in the membrane around the heart after resuscitation attempts on an adult. On a tiny infant these injuries could be even greater].
But although the pathologist was suspicious he attributed death to respiratory infection and the child was cremated [so the evidence of abuse must have been very, very far from convincing]. Now, with the second death, Dr Williams had changed his mind, the court was told. [So, it was only that second tragedy which made the first death indicative of murder.]
Harry was born on November 20, 1997; he was three weeks premature, but apparently healthy. The parents were given support by Care of the Next Infant [which helps parents come to terms with a cot death, in the belief that subsequent children may also be at risk].
On January 21 a health visitor saw Harry at home and found him to be well. Five days later Harry was taken to the doctor for his first set of inoculations; "he did not react in any unusual way," said Mr Spencer. But at 9.37 p.m. that day [was it delayed adverse reaction? It is known that cot deaths can arise from over-reaction to viruses, etc.] a 999 call from Sally reported that he had stopped breathing and her husband was attempting resuscitation.
While the husband was downstairs preparing for a flight to Glasgow next morning, his wife had begun screaming for help.
"What happened in that crucial period before the 999 call only the defendant knows," said Mr Spencer [who then proceeded to guess]. Harry had taken a bottle between 8 and 8.30 p.m., according to his mother, and was put in a bouncy chair on his father's side of the bed. "Her husband had only been out of the room for about four minutes," said Mr Spencer, "when she looked across at Harry and saw that he had slumped forward. She got him out of the chair to resuscitate him."
When the ambulance arrived Sally was standing outside in an hysterical state. Harry was blue and there were no signs of life. He was taken to hospital and pronounced dead at 10.41 p.m.
Once the coroner's officer had been informed, a policewoman looked back at Christopher's death and was struck by the similarities [except that one child was allegedly smothered, the other shaken]. Dr Williams then diagnosed internal bleeding probably caused by being shaken to death. Harry was found to have eye injuries, a swollen spinal cord, evidence of earlier bleeding in the same area, and a fractured rib as well as a healed fracture [injuries possibly sustained during efforts to revive him; or due to osteogenesis imperfecta. And there is a third factor: who on earth knows how an unidentified genetic flaw affects the body?]
Sally recalled ordering Christopher's christening cake on the day he died. She took a bath with the baby lying nearby, for her GP had told her the humidity would be good for his cough. Despite a snuffle, Christopher had seemed to be in good health that evening, and was fed and in his basket in her bedroom.
She went to the kitchen to make tea, then went back upstairs to find that he had turned a "dusty grey" colour, and she knew something was terribly wrong. She picked him up and found him limp in her arms; "he didn't seem right."
A 999 call brought ambulance paramedics within a few minutes to find the doors locked. With Christopher floppy and limp on her shoulder, Sally, inside, was trying to find the keys in her handbag, and shouting: "I'm locked in; for God's sake help me. My baby's dying."
Eventually her neighbours let in the ambulance crew, mother and child were taken to hospital and she was told her son was dead.
An examination revealed that death was due to lower respiratory tract infection. She had no idea why blood was found in his lungs when tissue was re-examined 14 months later. [At the trial of Maxine Robinson the Prosecution claimed that in a cot death the pathologist would have expected to find far more haemorrhaging in the lungs and areas of the body. Professor Bernard Knight's response was to describe this as 'sheer nonsense', adding that 30% of all SIDS fail to show pleural and thymic petechiae. It seems that Maxine was considered guilty of child-murder because there was too little lung-haemorrhage, while the accusation against Sally is that this haemorrhage existed. Heads or tails, you're guilty.]
Sally said she had organised a christening for Christopher and had bought Christmas presents from him to his father.
Within a few months of this tragedy she conceived again, and Harry was born three weeks premature, slept less than Christopher and cried more. She was delighted to have him, although he was "a little devil." [An innocent remark during interrogation which was twisted to become proof that she murdered him.]
"We decided that having another baby might ease the pain," but she was fearful of losing her second son and took him from room to room with her.
Harry had been well-fed at around 7.30 p.m. on the night he died. Her husband had put him in a bouncy chair and gone downstairs to make a bottle when she looked around and saw that the baby's head had slumped. "I screeched out. . . . We had had some resuscitation training, but I couldn't do it, because it brought back too many memories." [Exactly the same response as that made by Maxine Robinson after a previous death. Perhaps this is the norm.] "They took me to the same room at the hospital. I recognised the room."
Describing her utter despair, she said: "I could not believe that something like this could happen twice. I was meant to have children and love them too much."
In reply to questioning she told the prosecutor that she had not detected bruising on Harry's legs and arms, or damage between his lip and gum, which were found by the pathologist. [She could not have found them if the injuries were sustained during frantic efforts at resuscitation by paramedics in a speeding ambulance.] She denied an allegation of smothering the child while he put up a fight. [But the allegation is that he was shaken to death.]
That night, said Mrs Clark, she was apprehensive about her husband going on a business trip to Glasgow.
"I'm saying you had to do something before your husband went away the next morning - kill Harry," challenged the prosecutor. [Why? Surely it would have been safer to do it after he had gone - and it would have become another of those alleged 'striking similarities.']. Crying, she replied: "I loved him to bits and I didn't harm him in any way. I loved them more than anything, together with my husband."
She broke down when Mr Spencer suggested that she had initially harmed both infants and eventually smothered them. [There is great confusion in newspaper reports as to how the children were supposed to have been killed. One allegation is that she shook Harry, causing internal bleeding then death. It would seem very unlikely that shaking could result in bleeding around a swollen spinal cord; without far greater haemorrhage within the skull as the head flopped from side to side - and of that there appears to be no evidence. At the trials of Louise Woodward, Helen Stacey and others, there was "expert" evidence of severe and prolonged shaking followed by impact equivalent to a 15ft fall on to concrete, and yet these same witnesses agreed that death might have taken 12 hours. Here it was presumably instantaneous. There would have been screams of terror from Harry audible to his father who had only left the room four minutes earlier and was in the house.]
Mr Spencer asked: "You smothered Christopher, didn't you?" - "No." "He put up quite a struggle, didn't he?" - "I did not smother my baby. I loved him." [The mental picture of a baby struggling for its life would be very hard for a jury to erase, which is why the point was laboured. To the prosecution it's all a game.]
She also denied harming Christopher a few days before his death, when the family spent a weekend in London. He had been suffering from a respiratory virus, she said [and this was confirmed at the autopsy. Excessive reaction to viral infection is one recognised pathway to cot death].
Sally read two letters she had hand-written as if from Harry to his grandparents. One referred to "Mummy looking at me with goo-goo eyes" and his father letting him watch his first football match.
The second, written to her father and his second wife 15 days before Harry's death, said: "Thank you both for the lovely Christmas presents. The teddy has pride of place in my nursery and the tiger sits on my cot. I fear that I have caused a fair bit of disruption in the Clark family. I can't say that we are in any kind of routine. I like to sleep and look angelic most of the day, but at night I prefer to stay awake and keep Mummy and Daddy awake with me. The health visitor is pleased with my progress and has assured Mummy that I will sleep longer once I have caught up, given that I was quite tiny at birth." Both were signed, "Lots of love, Harry."
Stephen Clark then gave evidence that Sally was a devoted mother, who loved her children. He denied "covering" for his wife out of loyalty, and said he had been the one keen to have children, but after his first son's birth all that Sally wanted was a family. Questioned, he said that if he thought she had harmed the children he would not have stood by her. "They were my sons too." Speaking of the terrible ordeal the couple had been through, he said he knew she would do nothing to harm the children. "If for one moment I thought Sally had done anything to hurt either of the children I would not still be with her today. She loved those boys and would do nothing to hurt or harm them."
She had, said the prosecution, "liked to look glamorous, slim and well-dressed, but was stuck at home, either pregnant or with a new child, feeling fat, and with only a couple of friends for support."
After eight hours' deliberation Sally was convicted by majority verdict, 10-2 [so two jurors were not convinced of guilt].
In his comments to the press afterwards, Det. Insp. John Gardner said he could only speculate on reasons for the murders. "Most right-thinking people will believe it is an unbelievable act." [If a defendant made an unbelievable claim it would simply not be believed, but for the prosecution, exaggerated claims succeed.]
The only point of interest to the media, apart from odds of 1:73 million, was the headline-creating angle, "Alcoholic mum kills two babes."
Before the trial began it had become obvious to the defence that the prosecution was stirring dirt to get a valid case, so the judge at a pre-trial hearing, was asked to exclude any reference to drink. He agreed, saying it had no relevance to the charges, and the prosecutor concurred.
It meant that when the smears began, after conviction, they could not be answered. The truth - and it can be verified - is that there was no drink problem whatsoever until Christopher died. Her problem then was one of bereavement depression with occasional binge drinking - an escape route, not alcoholism as such. Sally then took treatment, and recovered - helped by a second pregnancy. The problem had vanished once again, and did not return until arrest brought temporary renewal. It is certain that Sally had not been drinking at the time of the two tragedies, or the medics, on the spot within minutes and with her in the ambulances, would have taken note.
As for the eight or nine bottles of wine she was reported to have bought on the morning of Harry's fatal illness, these were in fact two bottles, both intended for a party a few days later. There is a special news agency that puts out smear stories on behalf of the police, immediately after messy convictions, and this would seem to be an example of their output.
In an interview not published until after conviction Sally said that all her life she had believed in British justice. "I'm a solicitor [though not in criminal law], so naturally I thought that people who were innocent would not have anything to worry about. But now I find myself fighting the legal process. I am not a murderer. I have lost two babies in cot death and that is extremely unusual. But it does happen. You only have to talk to the Sudden Infant Death Syndrome support groups to find out how often cot deaths happen."
The verdict was almost inevitable from the opening invented statistic. One overheard comment was: "Mum, she probably did it. Two babies dead is very suspicious and 1:73 million is very long odds." The response was, "It's just a made-up number."
During the 17 days after conviction, before sentence was passed, Sally had suffered a mug being smashed into her face in Styal jail; the Press reported that she had received two black eyes, but this was their invention, or that of the prison officer who informed them.
This is an extract from a letter received from Mrs Sally Clark:
I am still in a state of shock and disbelief, as are my legal team, family and friends. I loved my two little boys and did not harm them in any way. We have all been horrified by the comments made by the prosecution and the press. As a mother and a lawyer I found the prosecution expert evidence both inaccurate and inconsistent. At the end of the day even the prosecution witnesses said that they would put down the causes of death as "unascertained." Only Professor Meadow felt more strongly. Whilst I knew that a guilty verdict was a possibility I had put it to the back of my mind on the basis that the truth would prevail. Even now I cannot understand how and why I was convicted. I would not wish to harm anyone but I hope that Professor Meadow can sleep soundly knowing what he has done to Stephen and myself.
Here is a quotation from an email sent by a health services correspondent - I do not have permission to identify him:
The evidence I found positively offensive was Professor Meadow's ludicrous statistic. His 1:73 million odds were patently wrong and completely unscientific (for a start, how can Meadow who, no more than anyone else, cannot tell you the cause of cot deaths, calculate the odds of three such deaths? According to him they must be in the order of 560 billion to one.
Also see for the latest information www.sallyclark.org.uk/