Did anyone follow the Sally Clark trial closely?

Something (apart from the obvious) is bothering me about Roy Meadows' testimony. We all know about the sixth form maths he applied to come up with his ridiculous figure but was it mentioned, at any point in the trial, that it's now pretty certain that there are contributory factors in cot deaths? Surely a so called expert would understand that the odds would be greatly increased if one or more of these situations arose. How would we calculate those odds? What fraction would we apply for a certain matress covering. How much for sleeping position? What's the rating for heriditary tendancy?

The other infuriating thing is that he appears only to be sorry for himself.

 

Here was a guy placed in a position of great authority, who was basically massaging figures to satisfy his own suspicions. Either that, or he was just plain thick.

 

Gggrrrrr

he started believing his own press.

Thankfully most medics aren't quite so far up their own fundaments... its normally surgeons ff

Are the families he helped wrongfully convict going to sue I wonder?

 

He totally ruled out any genetic or environmental factors and saw cot death as simply a chance occurrence. The chances of it happening to one of your kids is pretty slim, but it obviously happens. The chances of it happening to more than one of your kids is damn near impossible. Or so his argument goes. What worries me is not that he came up with such a theory. We're all capable of massive errors of judgement. It's that the medical profession, who allowed him to speak with such authority on the subject, and the various aspects of country’s law enforces took so long to see the flaws in his argument.

 

He didn't manipulate any figures

He just ruled out the possibility that cot death could have a cause. He saw it as a chance event and worked out the figures accordingly.

No one challenged him on that assumption.

 

I think he began to believe his own press and then couldn't tell the difference anymore.
Star witnesses usually end up feeling they're untouchable, however Meadows finally fell to the fact his evidence had no basis in fact.
Unusually for the medical profession to actually deal with one of their own so quickly.

 

Who would they sue?

He was asked for his opinion, and gave it.

You cannot sue for someone's opinion. If the lady has poor legal representation that's her problem. she should sue them, but one can't.

If the jurors took the opinion as fact, then again poor defence lawyers.

 

RE: Who would they sue?

Seems like there is little come back for those wrongfully convicted on the flawed evidence of expert witnesses.

Inequitable imho

 

I think the Meadows has been fairly harshly dealt with.

He's a bit of a scapegoat.

If all the police had as evidence is the opinion of an expert witness, and not proven evidence at that, then the CPS and defence team should get much more of a battering.

All Meadows has done has told what he believed. I believe there is a god. I shouldn't be stopped from earning a living becuase of it.

I mean, it's not as if anyone is going to beleive him as a credible expert witness anymore.

As long as he didn't perjur himself and wasn't malicious in his testimony, the fact that he looks a fool to his colleagues is punishment enough.

 

I agree to a certain extent...

but it has been said that he continued to stick to his story even though he had no actual evidence in science to back it up, but could not admit he was wrong

 

Again, a bit like me with God

no evidence in science to back it up, but will swear blind He exists.

His reputation is in tatters. (meadows, not God)

I feel incredibly sorry for all the women he helped to convict, but I blame other people for believing him and not being clever enough to counter his fairly obvioulsy flawed arguement, more than I blame hime for maliciuosly testifying to further his own career.

 

Lawyers stike again...