NO SUGGESTION OF JAIL FOR THIS GARBAGE

Just banned from doing it again -- and then only for 3 years!

A mother wrongly jailed for the murder of her two sons has said she has "great regret" after the General Medical Council ruled a pathologist who testified against her was guilty of gross professional misconduct. Sally Clark, jailed for life in 1999 and cleared of the murders in 2003, said her family would have been spared "agonies" over the last seven years if the failings of Dr Alan Williams had not gone ignored. The Home Office pathologist, of Plumley, near Knutsford, Cheshire, was an expert witness in her murder trial but was today found guilty of misconduct over tests he carried out on 12-week-old Christopher Clark in 1996 and his eight-week-old brother Harry two years later.

The 58-year-old, a consultant histopathologist at Macclesfield General Hospital, was banned from undertaking any Home Office pathology work or coroners' cases for the next three years. He gave evidence at Mrs Clark's trial but failed to disclose microbiology results of blood samples from his post mortem on Harry that could have helped her defence. Dr Williams was found by the GMC previously to have failed in his duty as an expert witness in relation to the bacteria results, which showed the presence of staphylococcus aureus. The Court of Appeal later quashed Mrs Clark's conviction after hearing the tests showed Harry could have died suddenly because of the presence of that bacteria.

Delivering the GMC verdict today, chairman Peter Richards said: "In evidence to the panel you agreed that those test results might possibly have assisted the defence. "Whatever your own views, even if reasonable, you had a responsibility as an experienced forensic pathologist to consider whether test results might need to be openly discussed before being discounted, in order to prevent any risk of a miscarriage of justice."

Dr Williams told the panel he had not considered the tests to be relevant and said if experts for the defence had wished to see them they should have asked for them.

Mr Richards said: "Your responsibility as the pathologist with an overview of the whole case was to state and progressively review the facts or assumptions on which your opinion was based. "You should not have omitted mention of findings which might detract from your considered opinion, for which, by the time of the trial, there was diminishing evidence."

here



(And don't forget your ration of Wicked Thoughts for today)