Still Fighting. Well done Prof Meadow One of the greatest injustices in GMC history was the issue of Roy Meadow. Now no one knows why they disliked him. Meadow recently complained to the Press Complaints commission and failed. I am not surprised because most doctors simply accept that the Press will back down without an argument. Of course, the press makes it living out of bashing up Meadow through every media outlet, why would they want to know the truth know? After all, they created their heroine - a alcoholic mother and won her appeal for her. Of course, Clark was not "innocent on the facts" she was innocent on the turn of an expert view. Of course, there are many expert views that people pay for - like lawyers those expert views become black or white depending on how much is paid.
The truth about Sally Clark's case [ the evidence based truth] is too hard for anyone to bare really. No one reads the evidence or the judgments in the Clark's case. No one notes what Stephen Clark did in the first hearing. We thought we would tell everyone
The Dispatches programme[27 April 2000] also reported that Mr Clark had given incorrect evidence concerning the time of his arrival home on the night of the second baby’s death (Day 4 GMC, page 59 GMC v Southall). This was also referred to by the Appeal Court on 2nd October 2000 in the first and unsuccessful appeal made by Mrs Clark.
So whose fault was the first conviction? Was it Roy Meadow or was it the many many many people involved in the case. And what did the judgment mean by " was the greatest significance in our judgment". Did he say " Roy Meadow's statistics was of greatest significance". Of course, the judge didn't.
Roy Meadow though was dragged through the GMC not because he killed a patient but because he quoted the Department of Health's own statistics in a court hearing. The Department of Health took no responsibility for their actions or their faulty research.
Instead, the GMC dragged this man through many years of vilification by the media. The media achieved their verdict, they achieved their vilification but in the end the High Court vindicated Roy Meadow. Sally Clark was vindicated by a High Court. So if Sally Clark can be "innocent" why is Roy Meadow "guilty". Of course, nothing can be said of Sally Clark now, who in the end was found dead after her intoxication. So three people died in one family. That is always an interesting fact to look at from all angles of the argument.
No doubt, after this article there will be howls of disagreement from the women who consider Clark to be a heroine. They of course fail to understand that the media made this happen. There are many innocent people in the courts and prisons. No one hires a PR machine to advertise it.
The truth about Sally Clark's case [ the evidence based truth] is too hard for anyone to bare really. No one reads the evidence or the judgments in the Clark's case. No one notes what Stephen Clark did in the first hearing. We thought we would tell everyone
The Dispatches programme[27 April 2000] also reported that Mr Clark had given incorrect evidence concerning the time of his arrival home on the night of the second baby’s death (Day 4 GMC, page 59 GMC v Southall). This was also referred to by the Appeal Court on 2nd October 2000 in the first and unsuccessful appeal made by Mrs Clark.
Here is what the Appeal court stated in October 2000:
“The untrue evidence given by Mr Clark about the time of his homecoming, which necessitated his recall at trial, was of the greatest significance in our judgment because had he arrived home at 5.30 p.m., it would have undermined the prosecution case”.
So whose fault was the first conviction? Was it Roy Meadow or was it the many many many people involved in the case. And what did the judgment mean by " was the greatest significance in our judgment". Did he say " Roy Meadow's statistics was of greatest significance". Of course, the judge didn't.
Sally Clark was a solicitor. She also had a alcohol problem. Stephen Clark is a solicitor. Despite this, the world thinks they are whiter than white and angelic. Well, solicitors can win cases, they also know about technicality. Solicitors spend each day springing innocent and guilty people out of court.
Sally was good at tugging at the heart strings. In the meantime, we were fed nice pristine stories by her PR machine. Who hires a PR machine? Well, the late Sally Clark did so she could become the heroine of those that are wrongly accused. It is though the facts of the case and the evidence that few people pay much attention to.
Sally was good at tugging at the heart strings. In the meantime, we were fed nice pristine stories by her PR machine. Who hires a PR machine? Well, the late Sally Clark did so she could become the heroine of those that are wrongly accused. It is though the facts of the case and the evidence that few people pay much attention to.
Roy Meadow though was dragged through the GMC not because he killed a patient but because he quoted the Department of Health's own statistics in a court hearing. The Department of Health took no responsibility for their actions or their faulty research.
Instead, the GMC dragged this man through many years of vilification by the media. The media achieved their verdict, they achieved their vilification but in the end the High Court vindicated Roy Meadow. Sally Clark was vindicated by a High Court. So if Sally Clark can be "innocent" why is Roy Meadow "guilty". Of course, nothing can be said of Sally Clark now, who in the end was found dead after her intoxication. So three people died in one family. That is always an interesting fact to look at from all angles of the argument.
No doubt, after this article there will be howls of disagreement from the women who consider Clark to be a heroine. They of course fail to understand that the media made this happen. There are many innocent people in the courts and prisons. No one hires a PR machine to advertise it.
Your article was callous and badly written. Shame on you.