Mother wrongly jailed over the deaths of her sons is found dead
Sally Clark, the mother wrongly jailed for murdering her two baby sons, has died at the age of 42, four years after being released from prison. The cause of death is not known although her family's solicitor said last night that Mrs Clark, whose body was found at home yesterday morning, had not been in good health. In a statement last night, her family said that she had never got over her conviction in 1999 and subsequent prison term. They described her as a "loving and talented wife, mother, daughter and friend".
At her trial, the prosecution contended that Mrs Clark, a depressive alcoholic, had smothered her 11-week-old son, Christopher, and, 14 months later, shook Harry, his eight-week-old brother, until he was limp and lifeless. While facing trial for murder Mrs Clark discovered that she was pregnant again. Ten days after giving birth, her new son was taken away from her and placed with foster parents.
After being convicted and given two life sentences, Mrs Clark spent more than three years behind bars. At her appeal new medical evidence emerged and she was found to have been wrongly convicted. Professor Sir Roy Meadow gave evidence at her trial, claiming that the probability of two natural unexplained cot deaths in the family was 73 million1. The figure was disputed by the Royal Statistical Society and medical experts who said that the odds of a second cot death in a family were about 200-to1. Sir Roy was later found guilty of serious professional misconduct and struck off the medical register.
After her release, Mrs Clark's husband, Stephen, was accused in 2004 of murdering his two sons by Professor David Southall, a leading paediatrician. Mr Southall was found guilty of serious professional misconduct and barred from child protection work for three years.
Last night a statement by the family said: "Sally was found dead at her home this morning, having passed away during the night. The matter is in the hands of the coroner and it is too early to provide any further information. "Sally's family very much hopes that the media will refrain from making any inquiries or attempts to contact them at this painful time. "Sally, aged 42, was released in 2003 having been wrongfully imprisoned for more than three years, falsely accused of the murder of her two sons. Sadly, she never fully recovered from the effects of this appalling miscarriage of justice."
Angela Cannings, who spent 18 months in prison after a wrongful conviction for killing two of her babies, said last night: "I'm really speechless, I'm so angry. This lady suffered so much - now she's died, I'm just shocked and stunned." Her lawyer, Bill Bache, added: "If Sally Clark's ordeal was in any way connected with her death, as it may well have been, than all those who have contributed to this miscarriage of justice will, I hope, be examining their consciences and reflecting on what they've done."
The Times serialised the book Stolen Innocence: A Mother's Fight for Justice - Sally Clark's Story" by John Batt in 2004. In one of the extracts, Mrs Clark described the pain of being separated from her third son shortly after giving birth to him. "The precious baby I have borne for nine months and felt the same all-consuming love for the moment he came into this world is taken from my arms . . . I am not allowed to see him unsupervised. I am watched while I change his nappy. It is more than distressing, it is an unbearable pain at the core of my being." The child was subsequently returned to the family.
Report here
(And don't forget your ration of Wicked Thoughts for today)
3 comments:
Hi,
This is an open letter to Prof Hamblin who has blocked replies at his blog.
.
.
.
http://mutated-unmuated.blogspot.com/2007/03/sally-clarks-death-preventable-tragedy.html
.
.
.
Professor Hamblin,
Your erroneous original thoughts still stand here. Yes, the Internet is a big place, but not for an 8-year old grieving boy whose name is on your blog.
I actually have more respect for Roy Meadows who has maintained a respectful silence (who carried out his job to the best of his ability, armed with the technology at the time) than I have for you, a person armed with hindsight who says:
“Perhaps Clark was possessed by guilt that she really had killed her kids.”
One of her babies died of a staph infection. How do you justify this argument, which you posted 24 hours after her death? How can she kill her baby by staph? You and I are both armed with hindsight.
One of these “kids” is an 8-year-old boy who is likely to be reading your message.
You also say: "Sally Clark has died in suspicious circumstances."
As a medical professional, how can you suggest these are the circumstances 48 hours before a post mortem?
OK, I accept this is doctor’s jargon for “sudden death” but to the layperson (including an 8-year old boy) this means foul play or murder. How would you explain that supposition to the other occupant of her house when he reads this message at your blog?
If I were you and I chose to leave the original post here indefinitely, I would be looking to compensating this little boy in monetary terms. I think you should admit your error by sending this boy (the deceased's son) a cheque for an amount no less than £100,000 as compensation in the event he reads these inaccurate and malicious slurs against his late mother.
Regards,
Coral
Hi,
.
.
http://jkn.com/View?j=784939.998232583196
.
.
With hindsight, this eminent Professor, Terry Hamblin, posted this message into his blog
.
http://mutated-unmuated.blogspot.com/
.
24 hours after Sally Clark’s death. He deleted it, then reposted the same message 48 hours after her death. He then deleted it for good, but there was a Google cached copy, which has also been deleted. A permanent snapshot copy can be viewed here:
.
.
http://jkn.com/View?j=784939.998232583196
.
.
It is now on record that the deliberately erroneous, arrogant opinions of Professor Terry Hamblin may have marred potential referrals to him, which could be considered to be unsafe and not in the public interest in the event of his being called upon as an expert in his field.
This is the original Google captured page, which has been deleted.
.
.
.http://216.239.59.104/search?q=cache:CJL9FZLd_24J:mutated-unmuated.blogspot.com/2007/03/sally-clarks-death.html+Terry+Hamblin%2BSally+Clark&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=uk
.
.
Regards,
Coral
Seems ironic that David Southall, the professor who accused Sally Clark’s husband of murdering his child whilst he was away from home, has been involved with smothering experimentation WITHOUT PARENTAL CONSENT.
parliament
EDM 2767
WORK OF PROFESSOR DAVID SOUTHALL
17.10.2006
That this House notes that according to the report written by
Professor David Hull for North Staffordshire Trust about the work of Professor David Southall in the report written for the University Hospital of North Staffordshire by Professor McLeish and Dr Durbin, Professor McLeish said that Professor Southall `pursued multiple clinical research studies that were poorly designed and therefore were unlikely to produce new knowledge of worth. More worryingly he appears to have had insufficient regard for the ethical standards that should surround all clinical studies in babies'; believes that such comments are important comments that require proper consideration; is surprised that the University
Hospital of North Staffordshire is unable to find a copy of this report; calls for the hospital to find a copy of this report and publish its contents; and further calls for an independent judicial or Parliamentary inquiry into the research and clinical activities of Professor David Southall, the failure of the regulatory system to prevent unethical experiments on babies managed by Professor Southall and the misuse of child protection and judicial procedures both to prevent parents from raising complaints about his research and procure children for his research.
Guardian
Monday August 28, 2006
Guardian
Detectives have stepped up an investigation into claims that the leading paediatrician David Southall left a child brain damaged as a result of a controversial breathing experiment 15 years ago.
South Wales police have broadened their inquiry into an allegation that Professor Southall assaulted the boy by carrying out the test and are asking dozens of parents whose children may have come into contact with the paediatrician over the years to come forward if their child suffered any injuries as a result of his treatment. Professor Southall has denied that his treatment has harmed any child.
In a letter to parents last week, Detective Inspector Chris
Mullane, of the force's child protection unit, said further
inquiries could be opened as a result of the responses from
parents. The letter says police are investigating an allegation of assault on a boy that may have occurred while he was undergoing treatment by Prof Southall at the University Hospital of Wales. It asks parents:
"Has your child been treated directly or indirectly
by Professor Southall ... Did your child suffer any injuries or
adverse effects from that treatment ... Have you reported this matter to the police or any other body?"
The investigation began after the parents of Ben McLean alleged that he had been left brain damaged by Prof Southall's experiments at the University Hospital of Wales in 1991.
The child's mother, Davina McLean, believes that without their informed consent, her five-year-old son was given carbon dioxide to breathe and his airway was occluded during a sleep study. She claims that she and her husband were forced to take part in the study after Prof Southall said they were suffering from Munchausen's syndrome by proxy, and warned that unless they allowed Ben to take part he would be taken into care. Prof Southall has also denied these claims.
When Ben left hospital he was placed in foster care, but a year later a court found the McLeans had not harmed their child. Ben, now 20, lives with his parents and has severe speech and learning difficulties. Mrs McLean told the Guardian: "We are pleased that other parents out there who may have concerns are being contacted. All we want is justice for our son."
Prof Southall has attracted praise and controversy during his long career. Last year he was found guilty of serious professional misconduct and banned from child protection work for three years after wrongly accusing the husband of Sally Clark of killing their baby sons.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/england/realmedia/midlandstoday
South Wales Police Heddlu De Cymru
Working with the Community Cydweithio Gyda’r Gymuned
Public Protection Unit
Central Police Station
King Edward VII Avenue
Cathays Park
CARDIFF
CF10 3NN
Telephone (029) 20527272
10th August 2006
Dear XXXX
South Wales Police are currently investigating an allegation of assault on a young boy that may have occurred whilst undergoing treatment by Professor David Southall at the University Hospital of Wales.
I have been given your details by Mr William BACHE, Solicitor, who assures me that he has your authority for me to make contact with you.
I would be obliged if I could be provided with certain replies to the below questions. I must emphasise that South Wales Police are not carrying out an enquiry into Professor Southall, but are investigating one allegation of assault carried out in our force area. It may well transpire that further enquiries are carried out in the future if document dictate that to be the appropriate course of action. Please reply via email if you wish or I have enclosed a
S.A.E.for your convenience.
1. Has your child been treated directly or indirectly by Professor Southall.
2. If yes please outline the document of that treatment.
3. Did your child suffer any injuries or adverse effects from that
treatment.
4. Have you reported this matter to the Police or any other body
such as the GMC (please specify).
5. If you reported the matter to the police
i) which force
ii) when
iii) have you details of an investigating officer or any other
means of reference
iv) Result of the Police investigation
My apologies for being brief and to the point, but I am sure you appreciate the complexities of this enquiry.
Yours faithfully
Chris Mullane
DETECTIVE INSPECTOR
chris.mullane@south-wales.pnn.police.uk
DAILY EXPRESS TUESDAY FEBRUARY 6 2001 Page 30
Scandal of 'smothered' babies in cot death test
Police investigate experiments on little children with lung problems
EXCLUSIVE
BY LUCY JOHNSTON
AND JONATHAN CALVERT
SECRET hospital cot death experiments in which doctors planned deliberately
to `smother' babies are being investigated by police.
The research project, devised by some of Britain's leading child specialists, envisaged using tiny infants with severe breathing difficulties.
The babies' faces were to be covered with a mask attached to a breathing machine and their mouths `smothered' for up to 10 seconds on five occasions.
It is not clear whether the scheme was ever fully carried out, but it appears that some parts did take place.
The controversial procedure, approved by an ethics committee, was regarded as safe. The infants would be secretly monitored by doctors as they got older. If they died of unrelated illness, pieces of their lungs, brains, livers, and hearts would be sent to a pathologist in Sheffield Children's
Hospital for analysis and comparison with the project data.
The study was designed to help discover whether cot death was
caused by breathing and heart abnormalities and involved children across the country.
In a highly unusual move, doctors decided they would not seek
written consent from parents because they did not want to cause alarm.
The study, named the Sudden Infant Death Project, was planned to be carried out at three hospitals: Rotherham District General, the Doncaster Royal Infirmary and the Barnsley District Hospital during the late Eighties and early Nineties.
A spokesperson for the Rotherham District General Hospital said:
"Our consultant has said that the study did go ahead so I'm pretty sure it did."
A spokeswoman for the Doncaster Royal Infirmary said it could not
comment on the matter "because it is subject of a police inquiry".
The Daily Express has evidence the experiment could also have been conducted at other hospitals. Two sets of parents believe their children were brain damaged after being put into similar experiments.
The two children, whose brains were developing normally, now have speech and co-ordination problems and severe learning difficulties.
The parents have not been able to find out what happened while their children were in hospital.
The British Medical Journal paper records the experimentation in smothering. What higher authority could confirm this evil practice?
bmj
BMJ
Post a Comment