Minette Marrin
Win tickets to the ultimate village fete with welly wanging and more
Sally Clark died on Thursday night of a broken heart. It was broken by the failings of the criminal justice system. Precisely what caused her heart to stop that night is something her family has not spoken about, but they hardly need to.
She died because she could not recover from the terrible wrongs that had been done to her. She is the woman who was jailed in 1999 — wrongly, inexcusably and largely on the expert evidence of Sir Roy Meadow — for killing her two baby sons. While awaiting trial she gave birth to a third son. She lost him, too; he was taken away from her, before she had been found guilty, and given to foster parents.
After losing an appeal and spending more than three years in prison, she appealed again because her husband had unearthed important evidence and her conviction was overturned in 2003. She went home and her long-lost son was returned to her but her ordeal was not over. A self-appointed expert, Professor David Southall, then publicly accused Sally Clark’s husband Stephen of murdering the two boys. Finally Southall was found guilty of serious professional misconduct, and the Clarks were at last left to try to recover. Mrs Clark never did.
It is a heartbreaking story. Imagine the misery and the despair, as a mother, of suddenly losing your newborn babies, one after the other, only to be accused of killing them, of suddenly being surrounded with suspicion and contempt. Imagine the agony of having your only surviving baby, only 10 days old, torn from your breast and given away to strangers in case you murdered him, too. Imagine the horrors of prison and the vicious abuse of fellow prisoners, who always persecute child killers. Sally Clark was so damaged by her time in jail that she was unable to speak about it. It would have been bad for a woman who was unbalanced enough to have killed her babies. For a woman who was innocent it must have been intolerable. Sally Clark could not bear it.
Her trial turned on whether two such deaths could possibly be a coincidence. Two points were crucial. One was the evidence of the expert witness, Professor Meadow, a man who has since become notorious for his part in this and other similar cases. He opined that the probability of two natural and unexplained cot deaths in a family was 73m to 1. He also, such was his sensitivity to the situation, compared the odds to that of a punter successfully backing a horse at 80-1 in the Grand National four years running. How terrible it must have been for Sally Clark to listen to this bluff stuff in court. Much later the Royal Statistical Society and other experts argued that the odds were in fact closer to 200-1; a less self-assured man than Sir Roy would not have blundered into statistics he neither knew nor understood.
The other point was the inexplicable failure of another expert witness, Alan Williams, the Home Office pathologist, to disclose centrally important medical evidence; his tests showed that one of the babies had lethal levels of bacterial infection in his blood, indicating that he died of natural causes but — incredibly — neither Mrs Clark’s defence team nor the jury were shown these results. It is only because her very persistent husband managed to unearth this crucial evidence later on, that his wife’s second appeal was successful and firmly rejected Meadow’s evidence.
Two years later Sir Roy was found guilty of serious professional misconduct and straying outside his remit of expertise by the General Medical Council and struck off the medical register. Both these judgments were later overturned on appeal — another blow for the Clarks, I imagine.
All this is bad enough. Quite apart from killing Sally Clark, the criminal justice system in this case has been brought into disrepute by incompetence, arrogance, inattention to detail, more than a whiff of cronyism, and above all a glaring lack of common sense. What makes it still worse is that it is not an isolated case. There are several other horrifying examples of parents wrongly accused of harming their children.
A recent one is the story of Christian Blewitt whose adoptive parents were accused of torturing and killing him by force-feeding him teaspoons of salt — something that common sense will tell you is almost impossible to do, because it instantly induces vomiting. Common sense would also wonder why two intelligent, sensible and normal people, who had recently been through all the scrutiny of adoption vetting, might want to hurt their little boy and in such a bizarre way; it is after all most unlikely. After a terrible four years of torment, in and out of courts and jails, the parents were finally acquitted in a second trial, after the jury accepted evidence that Christian had abnormal blood salt levels which could have killed him.
It seems that the system is incapable of learning from experience. Nearly 20 years ago, there was a very ugly case in Cleveland, in which many parents were separated from their children on suspicion of sexually abusing them; the evidence came from one obsessional woman doctor. The parents were found innocent in the end, but some of them didn’t see their children for years. In the inquiry that followed, the then Justice Elizabeth Butler-Sloss warned against excessive reliance on expert opinion without corroborative evidence. The same warning still needs to be made and heard.
In particular, too much deference is paid to expert medical witnesses. In a court of law one should be sceptical about everything and everybody, not least experts who may, as a result of their eminence, lack the modesty scientists ought to feel in the face of scientific complexity and uncertainty.
The best doctors are constantly aware of their own ignorance, and the way that theories and fashions in medicine are constantly changing. Because lesser doctors are not, however eminent and expert they might appear, every expert medical view in court should be corroborated by an independent expert, or thrown out (right or wrong). That, in turn, should be corroborated by other evidence, or ignored.
In the case of child abuse, moral panic seems to set in and people are tempted to believe the worst without proper evidence. The results are all too often tragic.

Minette Marrin is a journalist, broadcaster and fiction writer. She is a columnist for The Sunday Times, and has also written for The Sunday and Daily Telegraphs and The Spectator and The Asian Wall Street Journal. She regularly contributes to television and radio programmes
Follow our three athletes' progress in their preparations for the London Triathlon, and pick up training tips and more
Enjoy screenings of all the classic films you love, plus take advantage of two-for-one tickets
We explore leisure activities that are safe and suitable for all of the family
Times Online's new TV show helps you make the right decisions for your pet
Read our exclusive 100 Years of Fleming and Bond interactive timeline, packed with original Times articles and reviews
The latest travel news plus the best hotels and gadgets for business travellers


Why good girls pay good money for bad-girl baubles

Search The Times Births, Marriages & Deaths
2002/02
£59,995
The Midlands
F/1989
£36,000
Hollingworth At Ombersley
2007/57
£35,000
South East England
Great car insurance deals online
90K plus bonus plus options
Confidential
London
To £28k
Barclaycard
Various (outside London)
£
£40,000 - £50,000 + benefits
Lloyds Pharmacy
Coventry
£38k
Barclaycard
Various Locations
Live in One of London's Most Vibrant Areas
From £249,950
Beautiful Gardens w/ stunning Thames Views
Studios £33K, 1 Beds £60K, 2 beds £79K
Mortgages, bank acc & money transfers to help you buy abroad
Explore mystical Jordan
From £1030 for 7nts 4*
to USA's Most Cosmopolitan City; San Francisco!
£POA
Book Now for Winter 08/09 and Get 10% off!
Great travel insurance deals online
Contact our advertising team for advertising and sponsorship in Times Online, The Times and The Sunday Times. Search globrix.com to buy or rent UK property. Visit our classified services and find jobs, used cars, property or holidays. Use our dating service, read our births, marriages and deaths announcements, or place your advertisement.
Copyright 2008 Times Newspapers Ltd.
This service is provided on Times Newspapers' standard Terms and Conditions. Please read our Privacy Policy.To inquire about a licence to reproduce material from Times Online, The Times or The Sunday Times, click here.This website is published by a member of the News International Group. News International Limited, 1 Virginia St, London E98 1XY, is the holding company for the News International group and is registered in England No 81701. VAT number GB 243 8054 69.
Trial by the Press and the inability of public officials to understand either the remit or limits of their duties are part of a complex equation that can often lead, as is the case here, to a total miscarriage of justice. What is important is that we actually learn from each case and it is this very incapability displayed here of being unable to do that that has to be rectified, publicly, visibly and tangibly for the victims.
David , Manchester,
I am stunned by the death of a fellow sufferer. I too lost my life to a miscarriage of justice. No-one apologises how can they for calling you a murderer. No-one prepares you for life 'outside' there is no preparation you are caught in a time warp where everything you do is point-less. The justice system should be ashamed that they have caused a death by arrogance. I live a pointless existance, when once I was a useful professional.
amanda jenkinson, nottinhamshire,
The tragic Sally Clark case contains another statistical blunder. Even if the probability of a double cot death was 1 in 73 million this does not mean that the chances of Sally Clark being innocent would be 1 in 73 million. This error is known as the Prosecutor's fallacy.
Roy Meadows said that it would be like backing an 80:1 winner of horse races four times in a row. Well, a few luck people people DO win multiple bets in a row. This does not mean that everyone who wins four bets in a row is a cheat.
Steve Horn, Bo'ness, UK
It is sadness beyond belief that Sally has now died at the age of 42.
Is it normal to die at this age? No!
Do the medical authorities know the cause of her death? No!
On a visit to a family in England - a little village near Sandringham - the family told me that of 37 schoolfriends only 4 were still alive - also of this ame age group.
The question must be asked why are so many dying so young? And why do pathologists say - We dont know why?
When it came to punishing Sally for the death of children there was no doubts or maybes. Sally was found guilty of 2 murders.
Dr Denise Wolstenholme supports this tyranny and advises us that to believe Sally is innocent is wrong.
The tests in the Cleveland scandal showed half the mothers in the area abusing children and the torture stopped only when the deputy police constable was asked to arrest his boss for the same offence.
And what was this test to sho people sticking fingers into bums?
The test was for the doctor was the same! Aaaaargh!
John Fryer, Dinan, France
How tragic. Like so many others, Mrs. Clark was subjected to the worst nightmare of any real parent. "Expert" witnesses, especially in cases such as these, use tactics that border on the silly. Most of them are just narcissistic hate-mongers that spread their propoganda filth with "sensitivity" has their universal shield to block criticism.
May Mrs. Clark rest in peace, and be the mother she wanted to be in the next life. May Mr. Clark's grief not lead to another tragedy.
Matt, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA
Hope this doesn't mean the Criminal Justice System and thus the government have been absolved of culpability, and relieved of any obligation to make financially recompense. Not that it will help Sally Clark, but a record compensation payment of several million pounds might make them a little more careful in future. Face it, if a solicitor can be railroaded in such a miscarriage of justice, what hope is there for the rest of us? (Make that you; I've vowed never to set foot in the UK again.) Also, heads need to roll, starting with Prof. Sir Roy Meadow. Then those responsible in the police service, CPS, the Criminal Justice System, Social Services, Prison Service must be identified and punished. Time to clean the stables.
Andrew Milner, Yokohama, Japan
I have read with great sorrow, and not a little anger, the sad tale of the tragic parents. The column does contain another powerful message, that of the danger of slavish reverence to 'Experts'. Does this not have some relevance in the current 'Debate' on Climate Change?
John Bailey, maidenhead,
Such miscarriages of justice occur because there are usually little or no consequences for the prosecutors, witnesses, and judges that are responsible for them. This is a fatal flaw in the judicial systems of most countries, including the UK and USA. Unless or until this is corrected, everyone should be aware that they are vulnerable to false accusations. It is sad that normal, sane, innocent people must live an almost paranoid existence, but it is necessary and prudent.
Stefan Stackhouse, Black Mountain, NC, USA
Dr Wolstenholme.
A lot of what you say is true,but it does not alter by one iota the appalling negligence and utter stupidity of the authorities in this dreadful case.
Sally Clark was INNOCENT Doctor,and members of your profession share a huge part of the guilt for the harassment and torture of this poor lady.
Meadow is a disgrace to the medical profession, and the fact that he has been 'cleared' is a stain on the escutcheon of medical ethics in this country.
There are far too many pompous, overwheening, arrogant upstarts like him in the medical establishment.
Cases like this make me ashamed of my Country.
Michael Rigby, Blackburn, England
One cannot say if Mrs Sally Clark died as a consequence of her legal ordeal. It may have been the reason for her death, but one lacks the instruments to measure such effect to the point of inequivocally affirming that one thing took to another. To do so would be equivalent to Sir Roys wrong assessment concerning cot-death probability which drove justice in the wrong direction.
Human society proceeds through processes of trial and error, quite often unconcerned of the harm it may cause. By simple common sense and extrapolations accepted by most, the number of Sally Clarks far exceeds any prudent estimative.
I ask forgiveness from Sally, on behalf of those who sent her into prison, kept silence when it was required to question, or looked elsewhere to avoid the sense of guilt by omission. I praise her husband who had both the courage and the sense of loyalty to support Mrs Clark at the worst of times. As usual, tragedy throws light upon the extremes of human behaviour.
R Nunez, Caracas, Venezuela
We hear so much about human rights - it seems the people who don't deserve it thrive on their ability to use this system. What rights did Sally Clark have, at the end of it all, it boils down to the fact that her life was ruined by so called 'expert' witnesses, hired guns paid to do a job with no thought for the consequences. I hope her death will be on their conscience, somehow, I doubt it will. I feel for her family, for Sally the pain was too great, for her family it will live on.
Ross, Bacup,
- 1
- 2
- 3
Next