The Hounding of Professor Meadows by the Clark family

Professor Meadows was effectively acquitted yesterday by the Court of Appeal of the charge of serious professional misconduct brought to the Fitness to Practice Panel (FPP) of the General Medical Council (GMC) by Sally Clark's father. So ends a remorseless and zealous pursuit of this honest, hard working, sincere paediatrician by the family of Sally Clark which has wound its way through the highest Courts of the land over several years.

John Batt is a solicitor and family friend who knew Sally Clark as a child, he wrote abook which was published in 2004 " Stolen Innocence: The Story of Sally Clark " which is necessarily a partial account of the murder trial and subsequent appeals and Sally Clark's acquittal.

The whole of the case against Professor Meadows is his naive use of statistics both at the commital hearings and at the trial.

At the commital hearings he said in a witness statement ;

"For example, such a happening may occur 1:1,000 infants, therefore the chance of it happening twice within a family is 1:1m."

What he was doing was simply "squaring (multiplying 1,100 x 1,100), it is now common ground that this sttaistical treatment ... "is only valid if each of the deaths is truly independent of the other, that is without, at the very least, the shared genetic and environmental circumstances of the children being members of the same family."

At the trial he slightly refined the statement in the light of more precise information regarding the incidence of Sudden Ifant Death Syndrome (SIDS) ..."The most recent estimation of the incidence in England is that for a family in which the parents do not smoke, in which at least one has a waged income, and in which the mother is over the age of 26 years, the risk is 1 in 8,543 live births. Thus the chance of two infant deaths within such a family being SIDS is 1 in 73m." .. here he had "squared" 8,543 x 8,543 = 73 Mn.

The significance of this statistical prestidigitation slid past the Rolls Royce mind of Julian Bevan QC (who never met Sally Clark before the trial - and was replaced for the appeals) renowned as a prosecutor, and his Junior John Kelsey Fry, the other medical witnesses and the press as did the need to question Prof. Meadows remarkable statistics, subsequently described by the Royal Statistical Society as “statistically invalid”.

Probably the most outrageous thing that happened at Sally Clark's trial only became evident when the jury had given it's verdict.

At the conclusion of the trial, the judge allowed Robin Spencer QC who led the prosecution to announce that Sally Clark had received treatment at the Priory Hospital for alcohol problems. This had been revealed when Police found receipts for payment for the treatment when searching their house, long before amy charges had been laid.

In a curious agreement approved by the judge, the jury were denied hearing anything about Sally Clark's alcoholism, binge drinking or evidence concerning her character. Julian Bevan QC, that ornament of the Bar, traded with Robin Spencer QC for the defence in pre-trial hearings, silence on the alcohol problems Sally had suffered, which it was agreed had no direct bearing on the case, with an agreement not to introduce character witnesses for Sally. The world of high pay, high pressure solicitors who charge hundreds of pounds per day for their time, expertise and legal and technical skills, where taking half bottles of vodka to work and slipping out to Marks & Spencer for gin and tonic mixer drinks is outside most newspaper reader's experience.

The press of course had a field doy and stories they had been ferreting out and nursing for this day tumbled off the presses...

The Sunday Mirror: “Fall from grace for the woman with everything;” the Daily Mail, “Driven by drink and despair, the solicitor who killed her babies;” Manchester Evening News: “Pregnant days after murdering baby son.” ,”Baby killer was 'lonely drunk” headlined the Daily Telegraph.

Det. Insp. John Gardner, who led the investigation, said he was pleased with the verdicts and hoped that Clark could finally come to accept responsibility for what she had done. It had been the most difficult of tasks, he said, to confront a parent and accuse her of killing her own children. “Most people believe it is an unbelievable act. It is harder to accept when you have a woman who has advantages in life.”

Mr Gardner said of Clark's husband: “I don't know how much he knows, how much he suspects, or whether he has almost turned a blind eye to what has gone on.”

The Manchester Evening News displayed the family home under the headline - The Death House.

However, during the trial there had been a most remarkable intervention in the proceedings by the jury.

On being recalled to give evidence during the trial Dr Williams, a Home Office consultant forensic pathologist was asked to answer questions about blood samples taken from the body of Harry (the second child to die) in a written question submitted by the jury he said “…the chemistry of blood is so unreliable after death as to be of no diagnostic value…”. Of the post mortem blood sample “…it was submitted for toxicological examination and would have been sent for viral studies”.

This was a the jury that John Batt described in his book as “…most in their teens, or early twenties, one man perhaps one woman is over 40. 3 have difficulty reading the oath. They look as if they have been beamed up to an alien planet by Scotty in Star Trek”.

It was these (to Mr John Batt) apparent simpletons, who penetrated the obfuscating fog of legal terms, medical terminology, and pedantic process. It was these 12 peers, good and true, who identified the simple clear need to answer a simple clear question. A question they framed in writing and presented to the judge. Harry died, blood samples were taken, what did they show?

Faced with this clear simple question, Dr Williams, the Home Office consultant forensic pathologist produced a simple response. He lied.

Cross examined by the defence, Williams claims that the appropriate microbiology reports had been provided to the prosecution (and therefore available under disclosure to the defence). This was untrue.

The significance of the question, the actual reports and its findings eventually yielded to years of terrier like digging and pestering of statisticians, pathologists and paediatricians by her devoted and unswervingly faithful husband Steve Clark and legal defence team. On Monday 11th February 2002 the post mortem microbiology report on Harry eventually surfaces from Macclesfield Hospital. It is reviewed by leading pathologists who say that the evidence of 8 sites of Staphylococcus aureus infection in Harry's corpse and the presence of polymorphs within the cerebrospinal fluid show that Harry's death was caused by overwhelming staphylococcal infection and that no other cause of death can be sustained. It later emerges that these samples had been sent at the time to the national reference forensic laboratory at Colindale for further testing. The significance of Dr Williams remarks in answer to the jury's apparently innocent question at the trial about post mortem blood results become crystal clear.

Nonetheless it is twelve months later at the Royal Courts of Justice on January 28th 2003, that the Court of Appeal meets a second time to consider Sally Clark's case. Clare Montgomery QC (who has replaced Julian Bevan QC, that treasure of legal education), explains that there is a clear case of non-disclosure of the microbiology report, that Harry died of natural causes due to Staphylococcal infection. Invited by the court to explain, Dr Williams refuses or at least fails to appear, this is announced by Robin Spencer QC for the Prosecution.

“My Lords, Dr Williams has decided not to appear as a witness…and the prosecution no longer seeks to uphold these convictions… The Crown does not seek a retrial”

Lord Justice Kay (who died recently and was preparing to preside over the appeal of Sion Jenkins who now faces a re-trial) delivers a short verbal judgement, later expanded in written form “…The statistic 1: 73 million is clearly inadmissible in law, could not have failed to mislead the jury, and should have never been allowed in evidence… Sufficient in itself to make these convictions unsafe. Dr Williams is responsible for failing to disclose a material document, which must have affected the outcome of the trial and is a serious matter. The appeal is allowed with costs. There will be no retrial.”

The matter however does not rest there .... The murders were imaginary, apparently the faulty construct of blinkered and obtuse and elderly experts, their apparent causes illusory, the consequences unimaginable to any parent. The capacity the of medical forensic profession for increasing the population of imaginary murders was not however stilled. Earlier, Professor David Southall had seen a Channel 4 programme concerning the Clark case, a colleague of Professor Meadow. He prepared a report which he submitted to the Police on the basis of seeing the programme, stating that Steven Clark, the father, has been involved in the death of his 2 children. This bizarre allegation which he refused to retract, and was repeated to the GMC Professional Conduct Committee was judged on June 5th 2004 by the General Medical Council who ruled that Prof Southall acted in a manner that was “inappropriate”, “irresponsible” and “misleading” in compiling a report outlining his accusations and concerns.

Subsequently on August 7th he was found found guilty of serious professional misconduct after accusing solicitor Sally Clark's husband of murdering their children.

The General Medical Council said the doctor can continue to practise, but has said he cannot work in child protection. He was supported by testimonials from 85 people including surgeons, nurses, social workers and a judge, who praised Professor Southall's work, and who said they believed he should be bale to continue working.

David Hall, professor of community paediatrics at the University of Sheffield, said: "He is a pioneer, a man who pushed the limits and went where others would fear to tread.

"David Southall is totally committed. We need people like him who challenge received wisdom, test new ideas and suggest new approaches."

Professor Southall pioneered the use of covert video surveillance (CVS) to detect cases of so called Munchausen's syndrome.

In an 8 eight-year study, starting in1986, he found that youngsters aged between two months and 44 months were being deliberately injured in cruel and sadistic attacks by their parents or step parents while in hospital.

The most common method of abuse was suffocation, but deliberate fractures and poisoning were also uncovered by CVS. Covert filming led to a total of 33 parents or step-parents of 39 children identified as at risk by doctors, social workers and psychiatrists,being prosecuted.

At the time Stephen Clark issued a statement in which he stated "the resultant lengthy investigation by Professor David and Social Services totally exonerated Steve, and dismissed Professor Southall's allegations as being entirely unfounded."

This was issued by Sue Stapely a PR professional who had from before the first trial orchestrated the publicity for the Clark family.

Subsequently they published a letter to the Lancet 26/7/05 whose Editor Richard Horton had written in an Editorial "Meadow should not be found guilty of serious professional misconduct', who also opined that, "The crucial error was legal not medical'".

They also issued a statement to the Lancet 1/7/05

The Clark family have been happy to hound Professor Meadows in his retirement (He is now 73) but they have a remedy to the clear , unambiguous, bold, statements of Professor Southall that Mr Stephen Clark killed his two children.

They can sue him for libel.

To date ... they have chosen not too.
----------------------------------------------------------
Stolen Innocence: The Story of Sally Clark byJohn Batt, Ebury Press 2004 ISBN 0091900700 336 pps. Amazon Books now remaindered £3.98


GMC v Meadow: judgment in full
Neutral Citation Number: [2006] EWCA Civ 1390
Case No: CO/5763/2005

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
The Honourable Mr Justice Colli