Friday, April 13, 2007
Sally Clark
Most U.K. people by now are aware of the Sally Clark case, involving typical UK legal corruption, bent judges and so-called 'expert' witnesses, and the unecessary destruction by the UK courts of a decent home and family, mainly, it appears, as part of a frantic effort by the legal and medical professions to save face for their own corrupt representatives. I would say that is typical of the corrupt UK courts under the vile Blair Government, with its dodgy and illconsidered policies.
JR Soc Med 2003;96:105 : after the event and the death of Sally Clark, we now have this take on the matter. "A prominent loser in this sad business, which culminated at the end of January, was the credibility of expert medical witnesses. One presented erroneous statistical evidence that damaged the defence, while another withheld pathological evidence that might have helped it. These errors formed the grounds for successive appeals, the second of which was successful—but only after Mrs Clark had been in prison for three years." ..." In the face of all these uncertainties, when giving evidence to the police or to the court doctors would be wise to acknowledge the limitations in their understanding. They should present all relevant facts in a balanced manner, offer opinions only within their sphere of expertise and take care not to overstate their case. Wrong conclusions in either direction may be disastrous: failure to detect maltreatment can result in the death of another child, while unjustified prosecution can wreck a life and a family."
IMO: The horse has bolted, and the stable door is still not properly closed. But I suppose it is nice to hear that at least somebody has noticed those facts.
JR Soc Med 2003;96:105 : after the event and the death of Sally Clark, we now have this take on the matter. "A prominent loser in this sad business, which culminated at the end of January, was the credibility of expert medical witnesses. One presented erroneous statistical evidence that damaged the defence, while another withheld pathological evidence that might have helped it. These errors formed the grounds for successive appeals, the second of which was successful—but only after Mrs Clark had been in prison for three years." ..." In the face of all these uncertainties, when giving evidence to the police or to the court doctors would be wise to acknowledge the limitations in their understanding. They should present all relevant facts in a balanced manner, offer opinions only within their sphere of expertise and take care not to overstate their case. Wrong conclusions in either direction may be disastrous: failure to detect maltreatment can result in the death of another child, while unjustified prosecution can wreck a life and a family."
IMO: The horse has bolted, and the stable door is still not properly closed. But I suppose it is nice to hear that at least somebody has noticed those facts.
# posted by uv : 7:46 PM
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]
