Her Father's Report

CHILD ABUSE OR BAD MEDICINE
This report of Sally's trial has been written by her father, Frank Lockyer, QPM (Queen's Police Medal), a retired chief inspector of police:

Following the tragedy of Sally's conviction the kindness, sympathy and support offered has been overwhelming. Newspaper reports covered only the four prosecution days of a 17-day trial and it concerns me that the public cannot possibly know the full facts. They cannot be aware that five eminent paediatric pathologists gave evidence in support of Sally or that midwives, health visitors, friends and neighbours, not to mention husband Steve, all confirmed that they had rarely seen a stronger bond of love between a mother and her children. Nevertheless it is encouraging that so many are perceptive enough to write that "there is something wrong somewhere." I am anxious that a balance is put - as indeed it was to the court but astonishingly rejected by ten members of the jury.

Baby Christopher was born on September 22, 1996, and found dead in his Moses basket at 11 weeks. Death was certified as "natural causes" and Sally and Steve decided that the best bereavement therapy was another baby. Harry was born on November 29, 1997, and eight weeks later suddenly collapsed in his bouncy chair. The only common factor, which may or may not be relevant, is that both deaths followed shortly after vaccination. [There is research into the possibility that these vaccinations can cause death within a few days if infants have certain genetic defects.]

Mindful of a possible genetic problem Sally and Steve asked for specialist pathological examination - as did the hospital paediatrician. Unfortunately this was ignored and the post-mortem was performed by the local Home Office pathologist, Dr Williams.

After four weeks' delay, during which Sally and Steve had made several enquiries as to progress of the autopsy, both were arrested. Dr Williams reported retina and brain damage attributed to "baby shaking". The case was later referred to Professors Green and Meadow, a team well known in the profession and media for their campaign that up to 40% of cot deaths are in fact abuse, who thought it "likely" but were cautious enough to then recommend the cause of death as "unascertained."

This prompted a review of Christopher's death, following which the original certificate of natural causes was replaced by smothering. Consequently in July 1998 Sally was charged with the murder of both babies - a prejudicial move when neither case stood up alone.

Over the next 14 months the Prosecution culled support from Drs Smith and Keeling and the Defence assembled eight eminent paediatricians and pathologists, each expert in a particular specialisation.

Three days before the trial, Professor Green was brought to London to meet the defence expert, Professor Luthert, the leading retinal surgeon in Europe, at Moorfields Hospital, following which Professor Green admitted that his original diagnosis of baby-shaking was wrong. He made a further statement that his original statement and evidence at the committal should be totally disregarded. But he then put forward the possibility that Harry had been smothered, which had cautious support from Smith and Keeling though Dr Williams not only maintained his orginal diagnosis of baby-shaking but also disagreed that there was any evidence of smothering.

In the case of Christopher the Prosecution was based on blood traces in the lungs and a slight cut inside the lip as evidence of smothering. Despite that, 14 months earlier Dr Williams had found nothing suspicious and had certified "Natural causes." At the trial Professor Green claimed blood traces in the lungs whilst at the committal he had said there was NO blood in the lungs. He explained the discrepancy by saying he had been busy at the time and had not had time to look properly!!

The Defence attributed the blood staining as being from the nose-bleed suffered a week before and the cut lip to resuscitation in the ambulance, a not unusual mishap. Professor David, the independent consultant, thought the symptoms consistent with a pulmonary ailment and remains convinced that "natural causes" cannot be ruled out. Bruising on the leg was post-mortem and attributable to hand-held resuscitation. This was the medical evidence on which Sally was convicted of abuse of Christopher.

In the case of Harry, as explained, the trauma/retinal injuries at first thought to be shaking was conceded by both sides (except Williams himself) to have been caused during the post-mortem. There was an old fracture of the rib suffered at 1-4 weeks of age, that had healed naturally which, though unexplained, is not unknown in young babies and had caused no discomfort and certainly had nothing to do with death. The Prosecution relied on slight hypoxia as evidence of possible smothering which was not only dismissed by Dr Williams himself but also by the Defence medical team as present in all cot deaths to some degree and which is part of the dying process. That was the medical evidence on which Sally was convicted of abuse of Harry.

It was agreed by ambulancemen, nurses and hospital doctors that there was not a mark on either baby on arrival at the hospital. It was agreed by all the Defence medical team that the abuse alleged by Williams could not be occasioned without leaving marks. It was agreed by the clinic staff that both babies were bonny and thriving when regularly examined, including a few hours before death. It was agreed by midwives, health visitors, neighbours, the daily nanny, and husband Steve that there was at all times a strong bond of love between mother and child. It was agreed by the medical witnesses on both sides (again except Williams) that the cause of both deaths was "unascertained." The public cannot have known this as the newspapers reported only the Prosecution evidence. Neither could they know that Williams' pathology was described variously as "a blood bath"; as "cavalier, proved wrong in every area"; "never seen so many inconsistencies in a pathology report"; "no weight can be attached to any of the findings in a lot of contradictions."

This was summarised by counsel as "That catalogue of errors of findings and interpretations fills me with horror that this is the foundation of this woman being charged with murder."

Yet Sally was convicted on both counts and is now serving two sentences of life imprisonment. How could this have happened?

Faced with no motive, no aggressive act and no cause of death, the speculation must be that 10 members of the jury who convicted were swayed by the sheer prejudice of the statistic cited by Professor Meadow - that two cot deaths are a 73 million to one chance. He is not even a statistician. Or the "one-liners" innocently offered by Steve and Sally themselves when interviewed by the police. They agreed that Sally took time to settle up North until she made friends; that ideally they would have waited for a family until her legal career was established, but her biological clock was ticking and they decided on a family; that, yes, Sally did like to look smart and wondered whether she would get into her dresses again. All this trotted out by the Prosecution as a depressed mother, a career girl with a comfortable life style who did not want a family! Or, maybe the jury were swayed by inferences that Sally was rather too upset at the hospital; or after waiting four weeks she was rather too anxious for the autopsy report; or that she demonstrated Harry's collapse wrongly; or the exploitation of minor discrepancies on the sequence of events on the night. Inferences in the Prosecutor's speech but never supported by evidence.

The consensus is that, backed by five eminent specialist professors, the Defence won the medical arguments and the jury's verdict astonished everyone present. The speculation is that the jury did not understand the medical evidence and took soundbites, reaching a majority decision on the disbelief that "lightning could strike twice" - plus the damning statistics from Professor Meadow, a paediatrician not an epidermologist, which are universally refuted even by the authors of the report from which the purports were made.

Statistics vary according to source but the loss of two babies is more common than supposed - even two cot deaths. Pathology, particularly paediatric pathology, by someone not specially qualified as this was, is not a precise science and the complex issues provoke much controversy. Cot deaths are usually those with no obvious cause and no unusual features but contrary to reports Sally and Steve have never claimed two cot deaths - indeed Christopher was certified as "respiratory infection". The figures from the Care of Next Infant charity (CONI) are one cot death in every 8,500, but after one cot death the risk of a second actually increases to one in 200. The formula 1:73 million (five times more chance of winning the lottery) is dangerous nonsense. At least, it was dangerous to Sally and will be for every grieving mother hereafter when, folllowing a double death, it is transposed as the chance of a mother telling the truth being 1:73 million.

Professors Green and Meadow are men with a mission who advance their isolated theory that up to 40% of cot deaths are murders. "Think dirty," advised Green in a recent "Daily Express" feature, which so upset the CONI organisation.

The report of the confidential enquiry into stillbirths and deaths in infancy (CESDI) published on February 1, 2000, after a thorough examination over three years, assessed maltreatment, including deliberate harm, as well as neglect or extremely poor care, as probably in the region of 6%, which confirms the "up to 40%" claim as dirty thinking indeed.

So what have we here? Sally convicted of murder on the evidence of pathologist Williams who, in the case of Christopher, had some 14 months earlier ignored the evidence he now cites as murder; then in the case of Harry, stands alone that he was shaken, which is not even supported by the other Prosecution medical witnesses and certainly refuted by the Defence. Next, in the case of Harry, we have Green who for 20 months persisted that he had been shaken but who, 72 hours before the trial, admitted that he was wrong and substituted smothering - and was then contradicted by Williams! A conundrum perpetuated by Drs Keeling and Smith, the other two members of the Prosecution team, who could not be certain whether death was natural or unnatural and thought it should be "unascertained." Meanwhile, the hypoxia on which the smothering theory is based was dismissed by the Defence team as present in all cot deaths as part of the dying process. The Prosecution's medical evidence changed completely between committal and trial, prompting one paediatrician to say in court that he had never previously been involved in a case where so many of the Prosecution's medical findings crumbled to dust!

I'm afraid I cannot do justice to this unbelievable story in less than 2,000 words. "Unbelievable," as before this experience had anyone told me this story I would not have believed it. As her father my belief in her innocence is open to the jibe ". . . well, he would, wouldn't he?" I take comfort from the fact that everyone who knows Sally, who saw her preparing for her babies, and saw her joy at their birth and her grief at their deaths, shares my belief in her innocence. They were my grandchildren and there is no way I could condone abuse. I never underestimated the prejudice of the Crown Prosecution Department's tactics in charging two deaths to be heard together. I did underestimate the credulity given to the bogus statistics and cosmetic trimmings, as against the weight of the evidence that there was not a mark or "mechanical " injury to either child nor a cause of death. But I am biased of course - you must make up your own minds.

Yes, following the death of Christopher, Sally did have a breakdown leading to depression when one of her escape routes was occasional binge drinking. Nothing of the scale made of it in the newspapers and in no way did she drink whilst nursing her babies - as accepted by the judge in excluding all reference during the trial. I'm afraid it has become a feature of big trials, particularly where conviction is unexpected or appeal likely, that someone puts the boot in to influence public opinion.

No, lest you wonder, there is no question of infanticide. Sally is clear that she will not pretend she murdered her babies just to escape on probation.

Yes, we now have our third baby, further evidence if it is needed that she wanted children. After initial worries with immunity deficiency which may or may not be relevant, he thrives - but he needs his mother as a family.

My priority now is to further an appeal and have Sally released. Then to campaign that the autopsies for baby deaths should be done by a paediatric pathologist. Too many mistakes are being made and parents wrongly put under suspicion. Our postbag bears witness to that and also confirms that the incidence of two baby deaths in one family ridicules the statistics of Professor Meadow as wholly fallacious which, repeated as it was in every media report, was so prejudicial not just for Sally but also for future mothers.

If you have knowledge of infant cot deaths, or of two infant deaths in one family (cot or otherwise) then please write to me, Frank Lockyer, 2 The Meadows, Milford, Salisbury, SP1 2SS or to the Portia Campaign.

Finally. such does this country regard its "sacred cow" the jury system, that it is not easy to launch an appeal. It cannot just be said that the jury got it wrong - there has to be new evidence of perverse procedure. So please retain this summary for future reference as, should the pending appeal not be successful, we may need to enlist your help in a campaign.

A dedicated site for Sally is now in existence at http://www.sallyclark.org.uk/

TOP