Excerpt:
"
Doctor Steven Watkins stated in the British Medical
Journal in 2003 that Sally Clark had been convicted
by a mathematical error.
During her hearing, judges were told that vital medical evidence, which could have cleared her,
was kept secret in her original trial and that tests
on her son Harry showed it was likely he actually
died from a bacterial infection.
"
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.
The original Google captured page has been deleted, but the captured permanent copy can be found at this website.
.
http://jkn.com/View?j=784939.998232583196
.
BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT
http://plus.maths.org/issue21/features/clark/index.html
.
1 comment:
Like you, I find the comments made by Terry Hamblin sickening. Typically, being a man, he cannot understand the bond of mother and baby and how that can affect a mother if for some reason the baby dies. Even without a court conviction, Sally would have probably been blaming herself, not because she deliberately killed her child but because she wasn't there when things went wrong. That wasn't her fault but that's probably not how she felt. To then have a court convict you, even for the wrong reasons, would only go to enforce the 'bad mother' label she had placed on herself. Sally may well have thought about that constantly during her time in prison where there would be little else to take her mind off it. No subsequent acquittal would erase that feeling of self-blame.
It is about time that society accepted that sometimes cot deaths happen without it being anyone's fault. Occasionally this happens more than once to a family and one day we might understand why but we simply don't know everything about infancy yet. 50 years or so ago it would have been accepted as fate. I think that before a mother can be convicted of infanticide there should be eyewitness proof because 'beyond reasonable doubt' in such cases as these is simply not good enough.
Post a Comment