"Some patients consistently produce false stories and fabricate evidence," wrote the young Roy Meadow in his first medical paper characterising Munchausen Syndrome By Proxy (MSbP) in 1977.
Using the examples of two mothers, he coined the term - which has gradually gained wide acceptance - to explain the phenomenon of parents or carers who fake mysterious illness in children to gain sympathy themselves.
Almost 30 years later, it was on the basis of his own flawed evidence that the career of the freshly-knighted Sir Roy was plunged into disgrace.
Born in Wigan in 1933, Sir Roy studied medicine at Oxford and spent the first years of his medical career as a GP in Banbury. He was a devotee of the child psychologist Anna Freud, daughter of psychoanalyst Sigmund, and in later life described how it was from her that he learnt: "a child needs mothering and not a mother".
Sir Roy was able to follow in his mentor's footsteps when he was appointed Senior Lecturer at St James's University Hospital in Leeds and ten years later became the university's Professor of Paediatrics.
It was from this eminent position that he became relied upon as a professional witness to give precise, clinical evidence to juries trying complex and emotional cases of child abuse.
Professor Meadow's theory appeared to be vindicated in 1993 when his testimony was used in the case of Beverly Allitt.
Allitt - nicknamed the Angel of Death - was convicted of killing four children and injuring nine more on the ward at Grantham Hospital. Although no-one ever established a motive for her actions, Alitt was ruled to be a prime example of MSbP and was given 13 life sentences.
Professor Meadow's reputation reached a new high and he went on to testify in many other trials, frequently being called to give evidence in cases previously diagnosed as cot death.
His rule of thumb was "there is no evidence that cot death runs in families, but there is plenty of evidence that child abuse does". It was encapsulated in what became known as Meadow's law: "one cot death is tragic, two is suspicious, and three is murder."
Through the 1990s at least 80 women whose children had suffered apparent Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (Sids) were convicted of murder, manslaughter or infanticide on the basis of Meadow's law. Many more, had their children taken into care and in 1998 he was knighted for services to child health.
It was the next year, however, that his dictum - and his talent for condensing complicated medical and statistical evidence into juror-friendly soundbites - was first called into question, and then brought into ridicule.
In 1999, the solicitor Sally Clark was charged with killing her two sons Christopher - who died aged 14 weeks - and Harry, who died at eight weeks. Although medical opinion was split, with several leading paediatricians convinced that the children died of natural causes, Professor Meadow was certain that it was murder.
Addressing the jury, he testified that the odds against two cot deaths in the same family were 73 million to 1. He calculated the figure by squaring the 8,500-1 odds of cot death in a normal family. It was as likely, he said, as an 80-1 horse winning four consecutive Grand Nationals. This sensational and insensitive analogy was to become a suicide note for his career.
Mrs Clark, a loving mother who wept as she told the court "I could not believe that something like this could happen twice" was found guilty and sentenced to life in prison.
In the first appeal in 2000, the key statistic was described as being misleading. Crucially, it was argued that if a family suffers one cot death, it is more likely to suffer a second.
Judges, however, ruled that the probability figure was a "sideshow", and had not contributed to the jury's decision. Sir Roy responded by sending a paper to the British Medical Journal - A Case of Murder - in which he criticised the time being wasted on the appeal process.
Two years later, a second appeal was launched after it emerged that medical tests suggested at least one of the babies had died from a bacterial infections.
This time, the conviction was overturned and Professor Meadow's evidence was held up to fresh scrutiny. In the House of Lords, his methods were described as pernicious, ill-founded and his definition of MBbP called "theory without science".
Professor Meadow suffered a second blow when called to give evidence in the case of Trupti Patel, a pharmacist accused of killing her three children in 2003.
After a high-profile trial, in which the Professor's statistical evidence was torn to shreds by the defence, jurors found her not guilty within 90 minutes. The Solicitor General, Harriet Harman, effectively banned him from court work.
With his testimony in tatters, defence lawyers whose clients had been jailed partially on Professor Meadow's questionable maths began filing appeals.
The following December, Angela Cannings was freed on appeal. She had been jailed for killing two of her three babies after Professor Meadow's said that the chance of a double cot death was "extremely unlikely". There was no physical evidence presented in the case.
The General Medical Council began an investigation which resulted in the then retired Professor being stripped of his licence to practice in July last year. Sitting, battered leather briefcase at his feet, he faced three weeks of relentless questioning.
Although revealing himself a compassionate doctor, deeply touched by the suffering of children in his care, he was ruled to have failed in his duties. His testimony was denounced as "naive, grossly misleading, incompetent and careless".
Writing in The Times the following day, Dr Thomas Stuttaford gave warning that the ruling would be viewed with dismay by most doctors.
He said that Professor Meadow had been made a scapegoat for the social workers and doctors who had, over many years, adopted a politically correct approach to children's affairs which have destroyed families. He also warned that it would discourage doctors from stepping into court as expert witnesses.
Professor Meadow vowed to contest the decision and defend his reputation, a feat achieved today when his appeal was upheld and his punishment deemed disproportionate by a London High Court.
Mr Justice Collins ruled that Professor Meadow was guilty of nothing more than a simple, honest mistake.
The ruling will offer some form of protection to other expert witnesses who, it appears, will be given legal protection to prevent them from losing their day jobs if evidence they give to a court later transpires to be misleading.
It has also come in the same week as a report from Lord Goldsmith, the Attorney General, who has announced that three other parents may have been wrongly jailed in the past ten years.
Lord Goldsmith announced new measures to tighten legal restrictions on professionals whose evidence is used in court to back up the case for prosecution or defence.
Despite today's judgment, mothers who have spent time in prison and had their families and lives shattered by Professor Meadows are less likely to forgive.
Donna Anthony, who served six years in prison for murdering her children Jordan and Michael before she was cleared and freed by the Court of Appeal in April last year, said: "Personally, all I have wanted for the last seven years is a simple apology and for him to admit he got it wrong."
Professor Meadows was abroad today. In a statement, he said he was relieved by the judgement, and said it was an important to protect professionals who give their sometimes unpopular opinions in court.
To the dismay of Mrs Anthony and the other women who have fallen victim to his unsound statistics, however, he again offered no word of apology.
