Roy Meadows guilty!
Discussion
Julian64 said:
Excellent!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4679113.stm
Why is it excellent?
Because he gave 'expert' evidence that was completely wrong and resulted in the false imprisonment of several people, completely destroying what was left of their lives after the tragic death of their babies?
No he didn't. He gave his opinion as to the likely cause of death of the children. Nothing has changed.
On the balance of probablities it is still very much more likely that the mother killed her children.
The problem is that he thinks the chances of it happening by accident are 1 in a few million and most doctors think the chances of it happening are one in a few hundred. His opinion was not in line with the majority of others but that is almost certainly why the prosecution picked him. If you want to blame someone for putting a skewed opinion to the jury, blame the lawyer for the prosecution who picked him, or the stupid lawyer for the defence who didn't challenge it with a whole host of more normal opinions.
What you have to ask yourself is what probability constitues beyond reasonable doubt. For me, considering the risk to any further children she is now free to have, the risk is still pretty damned big.
No cause for celebration here, the medical profession might lose a valuable doctor because he was daft enough to give an opinion in a high risk situation. Just the sort of person who would have prevented victoria columbiae from dying IMHO.
On the balance of probablities it is still very much more likely that the mother killed her children.
The problem is that he thinks the chances of it happening by accident are 1 in a few million and most doctors think the chances of it happening are one in a few hundred. His opinion was not in line with the majority of others but that is almost certainly why the prosecution picked him. If you want to blame someone for putting a skewed opinion to the jury, blame the lawyer for the prosecution who picked him, or the stupid lawyer for the defence who didn't challenge it with a whole host of more normal opinions.
What you have to ask yourself is what probability constitues beyond reasonable doubt. For me, considering the risk to any further children she is now free to have, the risk is still pretty damned big.
No cause for celebration here, the medical profession might lose a valuable doctor because he was daft enough to give an opinion in a high risk situation. Just the sort of person who would have prevented victoria columbiae from dying IMHO.
Let's just remember that Roy Meadows was NOT on trial for a crime, but a failure of duty of care. He may unwittingly have allowed one or possibly more child killers to escape justice. His testimony, whilst flawed and overly influential in equal measure, was an opinion, not evidence, and surely not the only reason the women were convicted?
Julian64 said:
No he didn't. He gave his opinion as to the likely cause of death of the children. Nothing has changed.
On the balance of probablities it is still very much more likely that the mother killed her children.
The problem is that he thinks the chances of it happening by accident are 1 in a few million and most doctors think the chances of it happening are one in a few hundred. His opinion was not in line with the majority of others but that is almost certainly why the prosecution picked him. If you want to blame someone for putting a skewed opinion to the jury, blame the lawyer for the prosecution who picked him, or the stupid lawyer for the defence who didn't challenge it with a whole host of more normal opinions.
What you have to ask yourself is what probability constitues beyond reasonable doubt. For me, considering the risk to any further children she is now free to have, the risk is still pretty damned big.
No cause for celebration here, the medical profession might lose a valuable doctor because he was daft enough to give an opinion in a high risk situation. Just the sort of person who would have prevented victoria columbiae from dying IMHO.
Apologies - I've only just noticed responses to this thread.
The law isn't interested in balance of probabilities. The law is interested in "reasonable doubt".
Roy Meadows is, frankly, a disgrace to his profession.
I imagine we are all asked for our informed opinion in our respective careers from time to time. My response is always based on what I "know" not what I "suspect*.
Do you seriously suggest that one or two bad apples prevent people from studying to become NHS professionals?
volvos70t5 said:
The law isn't interested in balance of probabilities. The law is interested in "reasonable doubt".
Roy Meadows is, frankly, a disgrace to his profession.
I imagine we are all asked for our informed opinion in our respective careers from time to time. My response is always based on what I "know" not what I "suspect*.
Do you seriously suggest that one or two bad apples prevent people from studying to become NHS professionals?
I think you do not recognise that the chances of two children dying under such circumstances is very very rare. Particularly, when you examine the evidence which revealed evidence of possible non-accidental injury in these children.
You have no idea about Prof Meadows, and how many children's lives he has probably saved by directing paediatric services appropriately, to intervene in child care issues. His use of statistics was, frankly, stupid, but much less has been made of the lawyers role in this case.
968 said:
The law isn't interested in balance of probabilities. The law is interested in "reasonable doubt".
Roy Meadows is, frankly, a disgrace to his profession.
I imagine we are all asked for our informed opinion in our respective careers from time to time. My response is always based on what I "know" not what I "suspect*.
Do you seriously suggest that one or two bad apples prevent people from studying to become NHS professionals?
I think you do not recognise that the chances of two children dying under such circumstances is very very rare. Particularly, when you examine the evidence which revealed evidence of possible non-accidental injury in these children.
You have no idea about Prof Meadows, and how many children's lives he has probably saved by directing paediatric services appropriately, to intervene in child care issues. His use of statistics was, frankly, stupid, but much less has been made of the lawyers role in this case.
Did the GMC find him guilty [and strike him off] or not? Thank you.
A quick look at your profile suggests you work in the NHS. The same for Julian64. Mmmm.
Looks a bit like closing ranks to me but, hey, WTF do I know?It has to be noted amongest that Professor Meadows opinion was in many of these cases the only opinion that stated these children had been killed. Up to 11 other experts where not of the opinion that the children had NOT been killed. His evidence was preferred and weighted by the Judges in these cases. Around the world Munchausen is being discredited. Too many Doctor's jump to this diagnosis and it can cost a child it's life. It can be a correct diagnosis but it needs a whole lot more care taken over it than some Doctors are prepared to take! I also see that "Shaken Baby" syndrome has now been discredited. Very comforting to Louise Woodward. Again this is a diagnosis that has some merit. But the Brain injury is only one indicator. All the indicators, (Neck injury, excessive brusing of the arms etc.), need to be there and how many cases have there being where the only evidence is a Brain "Injury".
>> Edited by telecat on Thursday 21st July 07:17
>> Edited by telecat on Thursday 21st July 08:15
>> Edited by telecat on Thursday 21st July 07:17
>> Edited by telecat on Thursday 21st July 08:15
volvos70t5 said:
volvos70t5 said:
The law isn't interested in balance of probabilities. The law is interested in "reasonable doubt".
Roy Meadows is, frankly, a disgrace to his profession.
I imagine we are all asked for our informed opinion in our respective careers from time to time. My response is always based on what I "know" not what I "suspect*.
Do you seriously suggest that one or two bad apples prevent people from studying to become NHS professionals?
I think you do not recognise that the chances of two children dying under such circumstances is very very rare. Particularly, when you examine the evidence which revealed evidence of possible non-accidental injury in these children.
You have no idea about Prof Meadows, and how many children's lives he has probably saved by directing paediatric services appropriately, to intervene in child care issues. His use of statistics was, frankly, stupid, but much less has been made of the lawyers role in this case.
Did the GMC find him guilty [and strike him off] or not? Thank you.
A quick look at your profile suggests you work in the NHS. The same for Julian64. Mmmm.
Guess what? I'm a doctor as well. And I appreciate your honest assessment - WTF do you know? It may surprise you to learn that most doctors keep, voluntarily, the highest possible professional and ethical standards, and most have great pride in their work, and would not like to see that profession dragged down by fellow doctors who abuse their position or otherwise bring the name of doctors into disrepute.
The GMC, however, has decided to start interfering in many complaints issues, where it really should take a back seat. Basically, as I have already suggested, in this case the GMC is making a political point to the government, because it is frightened that due to it's appalling record of ineptitude and failure to protect the public and doctors it is about to have it's powers of governance removed. The GMC is completely lacking in moral standards, and is a self-interested bunch of out-of-touch bureaucrats, who think they run a court of law.
The GMC is curently riding roughshod over the well-established NHS complaints procedure, by ignoring that process and directly prosecuting doctors when a complaint is made to them rather than performing the agreed duty of referring local complaints to the local complaints services. this is neither in the interest of patients, nor doctors. The NHS spent a lot of time moving away from an adversarial system of complaint management, to one of arbitration and conciliation - the GMC is unilaterally decided to ignore that.
So, get a your facts right before you wade in with tabloid style accusations of "closing ranks." docotrs are not some sort of subversive masonic organisation dedicated to deceiving the public - we leave that to politicians.
I believe that most people are honest, decent and hardworking. But just like there are lazy and dishonest policemen, teachers, GP's, the same must apply to people like consultants like Meadows.
What I do know is that he claimed the odds of 2 unexplained infant deaths in the same family was 73m to 1. Whereas, in fact, it is something like 100 to 1. That is not a minor error. It is a huge error that led to an unsafe criminal conviction.
He has shown absolutely zero contrition for his flawed figures.
Let us not forget that Meadows is a distinguished man. A professor no less. And a knight of the realm.
Clearly he MAY have intervened successfully in many cases but in the Sally Clark case he got it wrong. Very wrong.
What I do know is that he claimed the odds of 2 unexplained infant deaths in the same family was 73m to 1. Whereas, in fact, it is something like 100 to 1. That is not a minor error. It is a huge error that led to an unsafe criminal conviction.
He has shown absolutely zero contrition for his flawed figures.
Let us not forget that Meadows is a distinguished man. A professor no less. And a knight of the realm.
Clearly he MAY have intervened successfully in many cases but in the Sally Clark case he got it wrong. Very wrong.
volvos70t5 said:
I believe that most people are honest, decent and hardworking. But just like there are lazy and dishonest policemen, teachers, GP's, the same must apply to people like consultants like Meadows.
What I do know is that he claimed the odds of 2 unexplained infant deaths in the same family was 73m to 1. Whereas, in fact, it is something like 100 to 1. That is not a minor error. It is a huge error that led to an unsafe criminal conviction.
He has shown absolutely zero contrition for his flawed figures.
Let us not forget that Meadows is a distinguished man. A professor no less. And a knight of the realm.
Clearly he MAY have intervened successfully in many cases but in the Sally Clark case he got it wrong. Very wrong.
I agree wholeheartedly with you on that. I think it does reflect very badly on him, and the medical profession that he got things so wrong, and he did overstep his area of expertise which was stupid.
I must also agree with others that the legal profession need to be hauled over the coals for this. I understand that a huge emphasis was placed on Roy Meadows' reputation, to ensure his opinion carried sufficient weight to get a conviction, and also the defence teams must have been equally criminally negligent not to be able to present arguments to refute what were obviously very dodgy statistics. Once this precedent was set in the first case, it is much easier to quote it in subsequent cases, as I understand past precedent carries great weight in future legal cases and rulings. That is also a stupid idea - but no-one gets disciplined for that, do they?
volvos70t5 said:
I believe that most people are honest, decent and hardworking. But just like there are lazy and dishonest policemen, teachers, GP's, the same must apply to people like consultants like Meadows.
Clearly he MAY have intervened successfully in many cases but in the Sally Clark case he got it wrong. Very wrong.
Sorry, but you really haven't got a clue. The GMC is a council which consists of members of the public, as well as some health care professionals. It is NOT a review panel consisting of professionals only.
In the case of Sally Clark, I suggest you do some research into the nature of the injuries suffered by both children, before you pronounce your judgement, which is based ENTIRELY on media reports and speculation.
968 said:
I believe that most people are honest, decent and hardworking. But just like there are lazy and dishonest policemen, teachers, GP's, the same must apply to people like consultants like Meadows.
Clearly he MAY have intervened successfully in many cases but in the Sally Clark case he got it wrong. Very wrong.
Sorry, but you really haven't got a clue. The GMC is a council which consists of members of the public, as well as some health care professionals. It is NOT a review panel consisting of professionals only.
In the case of Sally Clark, I suggest you do some research into the nature of the injuries suffered by both children, before you pronounce your judgement, which is based ENTIRELY on media reports and speculation.
968
What the GMC did or did not do is not the issue. The issue is that Meadows said the odds were 73m to 1 and they weren't. They were 100's to 1.
THAT is the $64m issue.
volvos70t5 said:
volvos70t5 said:
I believe that most people are honest, decent and hardworking. But just like there are lazy and dishonest policemen, teachers, GP's, the same must apply to people like consultants like Meadows.
Clearly he MAY have intervened successfully in many cases but in the Sally Clark case he got it wrong. Very wrong.
Sorry, but you really haven't got a clue. The GMC is a council which consists of members of the public, as well as some health care professionals. It is NOT a review panel consisting of professionals only.
In the case of Sally Clark, I suggest you do some research into the nature of the injuries suffered by both children, before you pronounce your judgement, which is based ENTIRELY on media reports and speculation.
968
What the GMC did or did not do is not the issue. The issue is that Meadows said the odds were 73m to 1 and they weren't. They were 100's to 1.
THAT is the $64m issue.
I agree with you Volvo, there must be a degree of suspicion linked with roy meadows testamony. I don't understand how a man at the height of his profession got it so wrong in the witness box. He genuinely believes in his statistics even now.
But listen to what you are saying. You agree that the chances of two SID's happening are 100 to 1. Are you really telling me that someone should walk free from jail when the AGREED chances of her having killed both those children are 99%.
If that isn't beyond reasonable doubt I don't know what is. The problem is that you are agreeing to use statistics as the ONLY criteria for jailing her which is unpalatable. But as the nature of the case is that it will be virtually unproveable otherwise.
Let me tell you a little story. I once had a child of six who would regularly stop breathing. Mum used to come and see me after taking the child to casualty when the incidents happened. The child had been doing this since birth and it had been put down to some sort of congenital defect unknown, or possibly variant form of asthma. The child was on a mass of asthma medication and some epilepsy medication. Mum and dad were understandably destrought at this and had payed out for a number of private specialist consultants in addition to NHS ones in a fruitless attempt to find the answer.
Then one day I got rung by a consultant in london to say while visiting friends the child had another episode and been admitted to hospital. He asked my permission to put the child on an observation ward with a hidden CCTV (apparently the only one in the country). I thought he was mad that he suspected foul play and was ready for the flak from the parents if they found out they were being filmed. Rang my medical defence union because in agreeing to the filming I was forming part of the percieved consipiracy.
The consultant phoned me back two days later to say that mum had been filmed putting a pillow over the childs face when it slept. I was utterly gobsmacked. Especially as I sat down and realised I had treated this child with a number of different chemicals during its life and the child had put up with a number of side effects as doses had increased. I also realised that these attacks had been going on since the birth of the child, and also started to feel sick when I realised some of these attacks had happened at times when the child could not have been asleep. The child is now ten years old and still doesn't admit to any form of abuse. Father has seen the tape and the marriage is still together. Mum has two other children both doing well, and is a working professional inteligent woman with no previous history of problems herself.
So I ask you Volvo, If it hadn't been for a consultant I thought was mad, how would that woman ever have been found out. One dead child, two, all three?
Julian64 said:
But listen to what you are saying. You agree that the chances of two SID's happening are 100 to 1. Are you really telling me that someone should walk free from jail when the AGREED chances of her having killed both those children are 99%.
No wonder people are being locked up if this is the level of statistical knowledge among expert medical witnesses.
The odds of two SID's occuring are 100-1, but why does this mean the mother killed them
. It is simply showing it is a rare event to have 2 SID's in the same family.JagLover said:
But listen to what you are saying. You agree that the chances of two SID's happening are 100 to 1. Are you really telling me that someone should walk free from jail when the AGREED chances of her having killed both those children are 99%.
No wonder people are being locked up if this is the level of statistical knowledge among expert medical witnesses.
The odds of two SID's occuring are 100-1, but why does this mean the mother killed them
Would that life were kind enough to give you absolutes. With all due respect you are blessed that you take no responsibility but to give your opinion on a website. Try for a minute to consider that your opinion was going to be used either to save a child or condemn an innocent woman to jail. Remember before you answer that you have a seriously responsibilty to both before you give me another safe answer?
Gassing Station | The Pie & Piston Archive | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff