Sally Clark
Continuing case history written in January 2002 by Sally's father, Frank Lockyer
Contrary to some reports, Sally has not claimed
the deaths were SIDS. She simply knows they were not murders.
It is manifestly unfair that the Judgment should criticise
that Sally had given no explanation. Particularly ironic given
Sally's request that a specialised pathologist should do the second
autopsy - which was ignored.
It is a matter of record that
there was not a mark on either child on admission to hospital.
There is no evidence other than that Sally was a totally devoted mother
under whose loving care both children thrived. This was
confirmed by everyone in daily contact, including doctors, nurses, midwives,
and the resident nanny.
I do not believe anyone set out to stitch up Sally. But
I do believe that from the moment retinal haemorrhages
(a classic sign of shaking) were mistakenly diagnosed, minds were
made up. Everything found, said, or done was translated as a pointer to murder.
When, three days before the trial, the vital plank
of retinal haemorrhages was pulled from under, both cases
effectively collapsed. But over that weekend the case was saved for it
had become too embarrassing to withdraw.
In the absence of direct evidence, the prosecution centred
on circumstantial evidence - that Sally harboured
career ambitions; that moving North had made her depressed;
that her grief at the hospital was overreaction (whereas the
paediatrician on duty thought it perfectly normal); perhaps
the most nauseous being the interpretation of
a fun letter written as from baby Harry
to his Grandad, which included "I like to look angelic
all day but at night prefer to keep Mummy and
Daddy awake..." - allegedly revealing a harrassed Mum with
a propensity to murder! Nothing throughout
years as a police officer prepared me for such repugnant tactics.
Not circumstantial
`evidence' but rather circumstantial speculations culled from innocent communications
distorted.
Sally is where she is because of bad medicine, bad statistics, and because
the will to win prevailed. The jury, doubtless confused by
medical contradictions, fell back on sound bites to reach a majority
verdict 10-2.