Re: Sally Clark died of alcohol poisoning


"Periander" <4rubbish@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:Xns99E2E95BD1B1ulmbritwarcouk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"Theo_Delight@xxxxxxxxxxx" <Theo_Delight@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:1194561117.370861.235970@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:

When you've got a theory for the previous injuries to the two boys that
doesn't rely on the fantastic I'll take a little more note of your
comments.

What "previous injuries"?

If you don't know now would you belive me if I told you? Both appeal court
rulings are on the Bailii site. That's as about as nutral as you can get,
take a peek.

I can save people a little bit of time. Note how Professor Meadow isn't
involved in any of this evidence. But that shouldn't get in the way of a
good miscarriage of justice story.

1. The similarities relating to past and recent
injuries were contentious. In relation to Christopher the prosecution
relied on:
a) bleeding in the lungs: Christopher had had a nosebleed
while at the Strand Palace Hotel on 3-4 December 1996, which the prosecution
alleged to be consistent with a prior attempted smothering; one of the
defence experts. A spontaneous nosebleed in a child of this age would be
extremely rare, and for so much blood to have got into the lungs of the
child would have required urgent hospital treatment, which was not the case
as the child recovered spontaneously. On the other hand, old bleeding in
the lungs is a marker (although no more than that) for asphyxia.
b) the torn frenulum: this was said to be diagnostic of
deliberately inflicted injury and unlikely to have resulted from
resuscitation efforts; the prosecution alleged that it suggested abuse
shortly before death, consistent with smothering;
c) the bruises which had been seen by Dr Williams, an
experienced pathologist, who was in no doubt about them.
2. In relation to Harry, although some of Dr
Williams's findings had not been confirmed, the prosecution relied on the
following as showing that Harry must have been the subject of shaking or
some violent movement and smothering:
a) hypoxic damage to the brain, which it was alleged must
have been caused a matter of hours before death and was consistent with
smothering or other trauma;
b) small brain haemorrhages which, although not diagnostic,
were consistent with smothering before death and which appear straightaway;
c) petechial haemorrhages on the eyelid, which were an
unusual finding in SIDS cases and were acknowledged by the defence expert,
Professor Berry, to be a worrying feature;
d) haemorrhages on the back of the eyes which, if present,
were consistent with asphyxia;
e) an old fracture of the second rib which Professor Berry
agreed would, if confirmed, be a worrying feature which while not causative
of death was highly significant if deliberately inflicted;
f) a dislocated first rib, which was unlikely to have been
a resuscitation injury and was more likely to have been caused by abuse;
g) spinal bleeding and a swollen cord, seen by Dr Williams
on post mortem and which, if confirmed, must have resulted from some trauma.


.

Relevant Pages