Another miscarriage of justice?
Discussion
Are they more victims of the hysteria over child deaths?
Telegraph article
Adoptive parents appeal over boy's salt-poison death
By Nick Britten
(Filed: 30/11/2005)
A wealthy couple jailed for killing their three-year-old adopted son by force-feeding him salt claim to have uncovered evidence that he died from natural causes.
Christian Blewitt collapsed shortly after moving in with Ian and Angela Gay. He had dangerously high levels of sodium in his body and the prosecution claimed that the Gays had given him four teaspoons of salt as a punishment for refusing his food.
Christian: problems
It was said that Christian was not the perfect child that the Gays, who could not conceive naturally and were desperate for a family, had craved.
In January the couple were convicted of manslaughter and jailed for five years each, but have continually protested their innocence.
After hiring two lawyers who worked on the Sally Clark and Angela Cannings cases - both mothers convicted of killing their children but later released on appeal - the Gays believe they have found the key to Christian's death. Their appeal is due to be heard early next year.
Yesterday John Batt, Mrs Clark's former solicitor, said that following extensive research since the trial it was more likely that Christian suffered from salt diabetes, which causes the body to generate too much salt.
Added to that is the belief that Christian's osmostat - the body's natural salt regulator - was faulty, so allowing far too much salt to be generated.
Prof Ashley Grossman, of Barts Hospital, London, said: "On the basis of data that I've seen, I cannot see how you can exclude that diagnosis.
"Although it's a rare condition, the deliberate harming of a child by giving massive amounts of salt on a single occasion seems to me an even more bizarre occurrence."
Mr Batt said the appeal would also be raising the fact that the prosecution was based on a paper on salt poisoning written by the now disgraced professor Sir Roy Meadow, whose evidence was crucial in the wrong "cot death" convictions of Mrs Clark and Mrs Cannings and who, in July, was struck off.
The paper has been challenged by at least one of his colleagues. Jean Golding, professor of epidemiology at Bristol University, told a BBC Radio 4 File on Four documentary on the case that the paper was "unreliable".
Mr Batt said: "Another question is how on earth do you force a three-year-old to drink the equivalent of half a litre of salt water without being sick? No one saw any poisoning take place."
Bill Bache, who acted for Mrs Cannings and who is working on the appeal, added: "There is a report that suggests natural causes that has become available since the trial. It suggests a very rare but not unknown condition and it is not clear to me why this issue was not pursued [at the time of the trial]."
He said Mr and Mrs Gay were "pleased that some progress was being made".
The possibility of salt diabetes was raised and dismissed by the court before the trial.
Christian and his younger brother and sister moved in with the Gays in November 2002 and they appeared to be the final piece in the couple's jigsaw of a perfect life.
Mrs Gay, 37, earned £200,000 as an insurance actuary. They lived in a £500,000 house in Bromsgrove, Worcs, had a Lotus sports car and a riverboat moored nearby. But they wanted a family.
They were given custody of Christian and his younger brother and sister for an initial 13-week trial period, but Worcester Crown Court heard that Christian, who had already suffered health problems, quickly became a "bugbear" to them, was unresponsive and aggressive.
Ian Gay, also 37, complained to the authorities that he was a "zombie" and "brainless". Five weeks later, on Dec 8, Christian collapsed and he died in hospital four days later.
At the trial medical experts were split over the cause of death. Dr Peter Acland, a Home Office pathologist who performed one of the post mortem examinations, said afterwards that there was "significant doubt" that the Gays were responsible.
Telegraph article
Adoptive parents appeal over boy's salt-poison death
By Nick Britten
(Filed: 30/11/2005)
A wealthy couple jailed for killing their three-year-old adopted son by force-feeding him salt claim to have uncovered evidence that he died from natural causes.
Christian Blewitt collapsed shortly after moving in with Ian and Angela Gay. He had dangerously high levels of sodium in his body and the prosecution claimed that the Gays had given him four teaspoons of salt as a punishment for refusing his food.
Christian: problems
It was said that Christian was not the perfect child that the Gays, who could not conceive naturally and were desperate for a family, had craved.
In January the couple were convicted of manslaughter and jailed for five years each, but have continually protested their innocence.
After hiring two lawyers who worked on the Sally Clark and Angela Cannings cases - both mothers convicted of killing their children but later released on appeal - the Gays believe they have found the key to Christian's death. Their appeal is due to be heard early next year.
Yesterday John Batt, Mrs Clark's former solicitor, said that following extensive research since the trial it was more likely that Christian suffered from salt diabetes, which causes the body to generate too much salt.
Added to that is the belief that Christian's osmostat - the body's natural salt regulator - was faulty, so allowing far too much salt to be generated.
Prof Ashley Grossman, of Barts Hospital, London, said: "On the basis of data that I've seen, I cannot see how you can exclude that diagnosis.
"Although it's a rare condition, the deliberate harming of a child by giving massive amounts of salt on a single occasion seems to me an even more bizarre occurrence."
Mr Batt said the appeal would also be raising the fact that the prosecution was based on a paper on salt poisoning written by the now disgraced professor Sir Roy Meadow, whose evidence was crucial in the wrong "cot death" convictions of Mrs Clark and Mrs Cannings and who, in July, was struck off.
The paper has been challenged by at least one of his colleagues. Jean Golding, professor of epidemiology at Bristol University, told a BBC Radio 4 File on Four documentary on the case that the paper was "unreliable".
Mr Batt said: "Another question is how on earth do you force a three-year-old to drink the equivalent of half a litre of salt water without being sick? No one saw any poisoning take place."
Bill Bache, who acted for Mrs Cannings and who is working on the appeal, added: "There is a report that suggests natural causes that has become available since the trial. It suggests a very rare but not unknown condition and it is not clear to me why this issue was not pursued [at the time of the trial]."
He said Mr and Mrs Gay were "pleased that some progress was being made".
The possibility of salt diabetes was raised and dismissed by the court before the trial.
Christian and his younger brother and sister moved in with the Gays in November 2002 and they appeared to be the final piece in the couple's jigsaw of a perfect life.
Mrs Gay, 37, earned £200,000 as an insurance actuary. They lived in a £500,000 house in Bromsgrove, Worcs, had a Lotus sports car and a riverboat moored nearby. But they wanted a family.
They were given custody of Christian and his younger brother and sister for an initial 13-week trial period, but Worcester Crown Court heard that Christian, who had already suffered health problems, quickly became a "bugbear" to them, was unresponsive and aggressive.
Ian Gay, also 37, complained to the authorities that he was a "zombie" and "brainless". Five weeks later, on Dec 8, Christian collapsed and he died in hospital four days later.
At the trial medical experts were split over the cause of death. Dr Peter Acland, a Home Office pathologist who performed one of the post mortem examinations, said afterwards that there was "significant doubt" that the Gays were responsible.
ZR1cliff said:
Why would a wealthy couple doing so well in life want to kill a Child?
Is does seem implausible doesn't it, it was a trial period and if it didn't work out they could return the children.
I remember the trial and it was suggested that part of the reason the Jury took against them is that the adoptive Mother didn't take time off work afterwards. A bit strange to convict someone on the basis that they work hard.
It was suggested that an element of class prejudice was present in the decision.
Jaglover said:
Why would a wealthy couple doing so well in life want to kill a Child?
Is does seem implausible doesn't it, it was a trial period and if it didn't work out they could return the children.
I remember the trial and it was suggested that part of the reason the Jury took against them is that the adoptive Mother didn't take time off work afterwards. A bit strange to convict someone on the basis that they work hard.
It was suggested that an element of class prejudice was present in the decision.
Admitingly i am only going by what the media is reporting but instinct tells me that people who are successful,responsible and positive thinkers will most likely take the obvious alternative and hand the child back.
Its not as if they were stuck up a dead end with no where to go,they had alternatives?
I do worry sometimes about peoples own prejudices creeping into cases and making an impact on a conviction and this is one of the reasons that holds me back on Capital Punishment.
It's always difficult raising your own kids let alone somebody else's.
There have been instances of adoptive parents causing harm to their children because they could not cope , and there is that psychological lack of biological link with adopted children.The same scenario happens with foster parents.
This case does however smell the rat, but financial status has nought to do with your capabilities of being a good parent/adoptive partent/or foster parent.
The jury only go by the evidence presented, and if these folks did not cause harm but had an incompetent solicitor/s for example, then they're stuffed unless fresh evidence proves the contrary.
There have been instances of adoptive parents causing harm to their children because they could not cope , and there is that psychological lack of biological link with adopted children.The same scenario happens with foster parents.
This case does however smell the rat, but financial status has nought to do with your capabilities of being a good parent/adoptive partent/or foster parent.
The jury only go by the evidence presented, and if these folks did not cause harm but had an incompetent solicitor/s for example, then they're stuffed unless fresh evidence proves the contrary.
what difference does it make that they were "A wealthy couple". my next door neighbour is pretty skint single mother who is rubbish at everything except for looking after her two little kids (she's really good with them and will do anything for them (cue poor taste jokes)...
BTW i DO think there probably is something in this 'rare' allergy claim. I am Unhappy about "doctors' opinions" - surely doctors are scientists in effect and should deal in facts... i know there are many PH docs so maybe you hve an opinion on this..
BTW i DO think there probably is something in this 'rare' allergy claim. I am Unhappy about "doctors' opinions" - surely doctors are scientists in effect and should deal in facts... i know there are many PH docs so maybe you hve an opinion on this..
baskey said:
what difference does it make that they were "A wealthy couple".
Yep i see what you mean,i didnt word that right did i
What i really meant to say was ,they are a successful couple who have most likely got where they are with positive thinking and they strike me as the sort of couple to go get help if they had a problem.
Gassing Station | The Pie & Piston Archive | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff