LOUISE MASON
Now to be the subject of vengeful child stealing?
On Friday, November 19th, 2004, Louise Jane Mason, a 35 year old mother of six, walked free from Londonderry Crown Court (Northern Ireland) after being acquitted of causing her four week old youngest daughter grievous bodily harm. Less than 24 hours earlier, the jury had returned a unanimous verdict of “not guilty” on the more serious charge of causing her grievous bodily harm with intent, two years and one month earlier.
It was the end of what Ms Mason described as “two hard years” of legal struggle to prove her innocence. Yet, for her, the struggle may be only just beginning as she starts the campaign to win back custody of the baby, now two, and her four year old sister who have been in the care of the social services since 2002 and who, she fears, may be put up for adoption within the next few weeks - despite her acquittal.
In fact, Ms Mason, who has now sought Portia’s help in highlighting her case, says she was told by social services before the trial began that, regardless of the outcome, her children would be put up for adoption, ending the minimal contact she currently enjoys with them - an hour and a half, supervised visit, once a month.
She is also beginning an equally difficult battle - to find out exactly what did happen to her infant in the hours before she was admitted first to Derry’s Altnagelvin hospital and later to Northern Ireland’s leading paediatric hospital, the Royal in Belfast, where her daughter was diagnosed with a serious kidney injury and internal bleeding. She has since made a full recovery and is a healthy, lively two year old. Ms Mason has already offered several times to take a lie detector test to confirm her innocence, but the authorities have not taken up her offer.
The nightmare began in the early afternoon of October 19th, 2002, when Ms Mason became concerned that her daughter was “very pale” and had given an “abnormal cry”. She suspected colic, and took the baby to a woman friend’s house. There, her (then) friend and a number of other visitors agreed the baby looked ill, and she phoned the emergency doctor, who advised her to bring her to a local health centre.
The child’s condition worsened on the journey as she became very cold. On examining her, the doctor, Ken O’Flaherty, told the court he decided “within seconds” to admit her to Altnagelvin hospital where medical staff described her as a “very sick baby”,whose temperature did not register, implying that his prompt action had probably saved her life. She was transferred to Belfast the next day as it was thought she’d need surgery for the bleeding in her kidney area and there was no paediatric surgeon available at Altnagelvin.
Over the next few days, Ms Mason, who says she was “in shock” was told, in turn, that the baby had a tumour; that she had a cancer, probably leukaemia; and finally that she had suffered a serious injury to the kidney, resulting in a rare condition. In evidence to the court, only ONE of six medical witnesses would confirm that this was definitely, in his view, “non accidental.” Medical opinion also varied on when it had been caused - ranging from 12, to the favoured 6, to even one hour before admission to hospital.
Questioned under caution about the events of the night and morning before, a month later , Ms Mason answered all questions fully, despite being “in shock; in a state” and, in her own words, “wanting to get home to her daughters,” - and being under no legal obligation to speak at all. In fact, she had gone out for the evening - her first social outing since the birth - in the company of one of the brothers of her woman friend and other members of his family, to watch a darts match, while her friend babysat the girls in her own home. When she returned to their house, she sat and chatted with another brother before he walked her and the girls the hundred or so yards home to their own house. She had drunk a total of no more than three units of alcohol over the whole evening.
The next day, at around noon, the male friend she had gone to watch playing darts, called on Ms Mason to apologise for having a row with his mother in her company, saying he hoped it hadn’t spoiled her evening out. While he was there, she popped out to the local shop for milk and nappies, leaving him for, at the most, fifteen minutes, with her daughters. Apart from two very brief occasions when she had left the girls alone together in the room earlier that morning, it was the only time when her baby was out of her sight in the critical 6 hour period the doctors described. After he had gone, the baby seemed more unsettled and so began the chain of events which led to the trial.
During the seven day trial, the prosecution made much of Ms Mason’s circumstances. It was pointed out that the girls’ father had left the home three weeks before the baby’s birth. He had left her with debts. She was living far from her own parents. She had very little sleep the night before. Surely, it was put to her, she had simply “lost her temper” and “lashed out” at a crying baby? No, she replied. So who HAD done it? She didn’t know.
Yet in her own evidence Ms Mason said she was “happy” and “glad” to be alone with the girls, it was “a relief” when her partner left. She had a good support network of friends. She had received a grant and was doing up her home, which was described by a character witness, her local priest, Fr McCanny, as “lovely” and “comfortable.” The medical evidence said the baby was “well cared for” when admitted to hospital. She was of normal weight and development. Despite the claimed “non accidental” nature of the injury, there was no external bruising, no suspicious marks. A CAT scan disclosed no damage to the skeletal frame.
Ms Mason had joined the parenting programme, Sure Start, attending Mums and Tots groups. Yet this was to be held, effectively against her, as a sign of perceived inability to cope. Even in the summing up the judge pointed out that the baby had been bottle fed, whereas the elder five had been breast fed. What was the relevance of this? None. Did it carry implications of lack of commitment, lack of bonding? Yes. Was Ms Mason ever asked for any reason - medical or otherwise - why she had chosen to bottle feed? No.
The prosecution also dwelt on the suggestion that she must have been depressed. Yet she stated clearly that she was glad the relationship had ended and the girls’ father had moved out. She was not on any medication for depression or any nervous complaint. If she was not responsible for the injury, who was? Medical experts called by the court - one of whom had NOT examined the baby - said it would have been impossible for a toddler sibling to cause such damage, exert such force, whether by accident or otherwise. Many paediatricians would disagree. Her male friend was questioned by the police under caution and released without charge. In court, he denied any involvement in the injury. Ms Mason throughout refused to apportion any blame, telling the court “she didn’t know” what happened.
In the judge’s summing up, the jury was told that Ms Mason was “of good character” - at 35, she had no convictions of any sort, and as such was more likely to be telling the truth. Yet her previous personal life was also referred to in detail - that her eldest children, from her marriage, live with their father (though she has access and has been told that if she tried to move them from the country where they live, she will lose them completely). The same applies to her fourth child, by her ex fiancé. She has never been convicted of any wrongdoing involving these children. So why was it raised at a crucial time in the case, except to cast doubts and aspersions on the woman described by her priest as “non aggressive?”
In the end, the jury of 3 men and 9 women took just an hour and a half to find her NOT GUILTY of causing grievous bodily harm with intent, then the best part of a further 2 hours to reach a majority (10-2) NOT GUILTY verdict on the lesser charge.
Yet Louise Mason, proven innocent, faces the future without her daughters. Her identity cannot be disclosed nor her name used in the jurisdiction where she was tried and acquitted - though she fears that the events of the past 25 months, and the implications and inherent smears, may force her to move away. She is far from home, far from her parents – her father has terminal cancer - and from her older children, surrounded by a small but loyal group of friends, and supported by her strong Catholic faith.
Throughout the questioning and the trial, and among former friends, was always apparent the favourite legal suggestion that, if she would just plead guilty - guilty to a crime she maintains she DID NOT COMMIT, guilty to a crime a jury does not believe she committed - then she would receive all the help and support there is available. Justice?
Editors Note: It is obvious from this story (supplied by a friend) that wise jurors believed the evidence of her priest and friends and neighbours who know Louise best. Enough witch hunting has taken place, putting this woman through a terrible ordeal, she does not now need to be robbed of her children - but needs care and support.
www.slimeylimeyjustice.org