Sally Clark R.I.P

[CliveH]

OK – Here is how I see it.

 

Carrodoc complains that some on here have said rude words about his chosen CAREER!!!!!

 

Compare the devastating effect that not just one but many of that “chosen career” have had on other peoples lives.

 

Lets be realistic here! PLEASE!!!

 

As for who I get my advice from! – I apply the same parameters as my clients apply to my profession. Get a personal recommendation, check them out and proceed with caution.

 

None of the above sensible “checks” were available to Sally Clark. The “expert witness” was wheeled in – trashed her life then buggered off onto the next case and ruined that for good measure.

 

Sally Clark’s life was trashed by a self appointed expert who as it turns out had the professional morals of something you tread in. As for expert witness’s I am well aware of how they are selected. You chose to put yourself up as an expert witness – I have been approached by Clarke-Wilmott-Clarke re the Equitable Life debacle where they are acting for many clients under a class action. Each side provides “experts” that suit what they want and try to achieve.

 

So as someone who acts as an “expert witness” in my own field I speak with experience, not with bile.

 

It is NOT about a witch hunt by people of single digit IQ’s – this WAS a sensible debate on how wrong experts can be.

 

The personal attack by Frank is typical of what I have seen of his utterings before.

 

It seems if anyone challenges his version of what is right he lashes out and gets all upset and weepy.

 

It comes across as rather pathetic!

 

[Guest Frank Wilkinson]

I have no strong views either way on Sally Clark's guilt or innocence but feel that it's time that someone put forward other facts, which may have influenced the jury, apart from Meadows' flawed calculations.

This is part of her obituary in the Daily Telegraph.

Shortly after her marriage in 1990, Sally Clark was persuaded to give up her £30,000-a-year Citibank job to pursue a legal career, enrolling on a Law course at the City Of London University. She accepted a traineeship with Macfarlanes, and was admitted a solicitor in 1991.

Three years later, her husband was offered a partnership with Addleshaws, the largest law firm in Manchester and, after the move north, she herself joined the same company, working in the corporate finance department. Following the death of their first son Christopher, in December 1996, Sally Clark started drinking at work, sometimes half a bottle of vodka a day, occasionally supplemented by pre-mixed gin and tonics from a supermarket; when she was pregnant with her second child, she was seeking counselling at the Priory Clinic, and by the time her son Harry was born in November 1997 she was in recovery and had stopped drinking.

Nevertheless, Sally Clark's problems with drink and post-natal depression had taken their toll at the office; given a final warning at work, she was sent home on extended maternity leave for Harry's birth, and on the day he died, in January 1998, she had bought seven bottles of wine from an off-licence. While she claimed the wine was for a dinner party that evening, her detractors portrayed her as an unreformed and desperate solitary drinker.

After her arrest Sally Clark's husband and his legal team looked at the possibility of her alcohol problem having played a part in the deaths of her two sons. During a Channel 4 television programme in 2000, Steve Clark admitted that a psychiatrist who had assessed his wife following her conviction advised that she might have had a condition known as "temporal lobe epilepsy" as a result of drinking.

Although this is known sometimes to set up an automaton state, in which the sufferer is unaware of his or her actions, Steve Clark dismissed this as a possibility in the case of his wife.

So the seven bottles of wine were for a dinner party? I find it hard to believe that the Clarks' were considering hosting a dinner party when she was in her then condition.

It is not my intention to try to prove or disprove her guilt but merely to make some people understand that these things are never black and white.

And finally, Meadows calculations were wrong but unfortunately his was a job, as is the case with many professionals, where a mistake can have serious consequences. With some responses that I read from certain people, I will never advise my child to go into such a profession, as the risks are simply too great. Medicine for example is often an inexact science and faced with a difficult decision on the kind of treatment necessary, a doctor may have to take a risk. Cure you and he's a hero but if it fails he's a 'so-called expert with letters after his name' who will be pilloried by the kind of people who don't know the difference between a paedophile and a paediatrician.

[Guest Frank Wilkinson]

! – Sally Clark’s life was trashed by a self appointed expert who as it turns out had the professional morals of something you tread in. As for expert witness’s I am well aware of how they are selected. You chose to put yourself up as an expert witness – I have been approached by Clarke-Wilmott-Clarke re the Equitable Life debacle where they are acting for many clients under a class action. Each side provides “experts” that suit what they want and try to achieve. So as someone who acts as an “expert witness” in my own field I speak with experience, not with bile. It is NOT about a witch hunt by people of single digit IQ’s – this WAS a sensible debate on how wrong experts can be. The personal attack by Frank is typical of what I have seen of his utterings before. It seems if anyone challenges his version of what is right he lashes out and gets all upset and weepy. It comes across as rather pathetic!

This is too amusing for words! A man whose posts are full of insults such as this and who clearly thinks that he's God's gift to discussion is having a go at me! And as for the 'witness's'. Uumm, good one that!

And I can assure you, I never get upset and weepy, that's for bleeding hearts like you - I do get angry at the unfairness of people who are so quick to traduce anyone who makes a genuine mistake. The lynch mob mentality is alive and well!

[CliveH]

As is a man with his head up his backside it seems.

 

From your post above you are clearly on a mission to blacken the name of a dead person.

 

I find that appalling.

 

You obviously do not.

 

Clearly a clash of standards

[Guest Frank Wilkinson]

CliveH - 2007-03-31 11:19 AM As is a man with his head up his backside it seems. From your post above you are clearly on a mission to blacken the name of a dead person. I find that appalling. You obviously do not. Clearly a clash of standards

You insufferable pompous ass! How dare you accuse me of 'being on a mission to blacken her name' when all I have have done is reported the facts of the case. I suspect that most people (including you) had absolutely no idea of Sally Clark's condition and her serious drinking problem.

Answer me honestly, should this be suppressed in a discussion which revolves around her and her trial?

And start reading my and other posts properly. I made it absolutely clear that I had no firm views on her innocence or guilt. Anyone with an I.Q. above double digits will have realised that I cannot be on a 'mission' to blacken Sally Clark's name, simply because my posts in this thread only began in support of Caradoc and his view that unthinking people were wrongly traducing a whole range of professionals because of the actions of a tiny minority. I knew this information ages ago and until yesterday, did not in any way contribute to this thread or try to influence it.

Your reaction to Caradoc and the comment above shows you for the person you really are. Turning this discussion into an accusation that I am on a mission to blacken her name is an appalling and cheap shot from someone who is finally showing his true colours, that of a hateful and vindictive individual.

This will be my last response to you. The comments made by you about my 'mission to blacken Sally Clark's name' are beneath contempt and I want nothing more to do with you I'm afraid - so rant on.

[CliveH]

I think all will see who is on a rant here.

 

I think your own words do more to identify the sort of person you are than anything I could add.

 

Have a nice w/e

 

(lol)

[Mel B]

To Quote you Frank:

 

"So the seven bottles of wine were for a dinner party? I find it hard to believe that the Clarks' were considering hosting a dinner party when she was in her then condition."

 

Contrary to what you seem to believe, Frank, life goes on, people who have mental difficulties still have to function day to day, sometime it's the normal routines that help people cope, it is quite believable that the wine was for a dinner party.

 

You are of course entitled to your opinion, it's just a shame you sometimes don't appear to think about what you are saying. However, as you have also criticised people for the emotional way they deal with things on other postings, this type of comment by you is something that I, and others no doubt, would have expected and I am extremely sorry that you found the need to do this. :-(

 

This thread was started to acknowledge what a tragic shame it was that Sally could no longer, for whatever reason, go on living any more, and I wholeheartedly regret that she felt that way. :-|

[Guest starspirit]

I don't know all the lurid details, and neither do I wish to, but maybe just maybe if Sally had not been so badly treated by society initially then the law, the experts and the media in turn, and then let down by the medical profession before public opinion and the media saw another good story in her innocence she might not have felt the need to hide behind alcohol and might still be with us today?

 

Whatever the reasons it is yet another very tragic loss of life for her family to have to bear.

[Dave Newell]

Well Frank you appear to have achieved the impossible in getting on your high horse whilst having your head firmly ensconced up your own derriere!!

Absolutely incredible!

 

Why can we not show some sympathy with people like Sally Clark without it descending into a slanging match?

 

Myt only knowledge of the expert in question, other than that publicised by the media, is from a good friend whose ten year old daughter was knocked down by a motorist. The "expert" in question, in the words of the later berieved father, made every effort possible to save his daughter.

 

I make no comment as to the abilities of this person as an "expert witness".

 

The real problem is to give a true and accurate appraisal when you are probably not given all the information available. It is all too easy to become infatuated (possibly not the most appropriate word but I know no better) with your own celebrity status, especially when you get featured in the regular press.

 

D.

[Guest Frank Wilkinson]

Mel B - 2007-03-31 5:58 PM To Quote you Frank: "So the seven bottles of wine were for a dinner party? I find it hard to believe that the Clarks' were considering hosting a dinner party when she was in her then condition." Contrary to what you seem to believe, Frank, life goes on, people who have mental difficulties still have to function day to day, sometime it's the normal routines that help people cope, it is quite believable that the wine was for a dinner party. You are of course entitled to your opinion, it's just a shame you sometimes don't appear to think about what you are saying. However, as you have also criticised people for the emotional way they deal with things on other postings, this type of comment by you is something that I, and others no doubt, would have expected and I am extremely sorry that you found the need to do this. :-( This thread was started to acknowledge what a tragic shame it was that Sally could no longer, for whatever reason, go on living any more, and I wholeheartedly regret that she felt that way. :-|

Why do you assume that because I write something with which you disagree that I haven't thought about what I'm saying That's extremely arrogant of you but, from previous comments made by you, I would expect nothing less.

You also don't seem to think about what you're writing when you say:

This thread was started to acknowledge what a tragic shame it was that Sally could no longer, for whatever reason, go on living any more, and I wholeheartedly regret that she felt that way

No it wasn't. If you'd read the thread before rushing into print you'd know that it was started as a criticism of experts in this case and that's what Caradoc's post was also about and what brought me into this thread.

And for the record I still find it hard to believe that the seven bottles of wine were for a dinner party. The state Sally Clark was in that day would have made any form of social gathering an embarrasment for her and her husband. I'm sorry that Sally Clark is dead but her death should not in any way influence discussion on the subject.

Because someone dies it does not in any way alter the facts of the case and their death does not make them more innocent or more guilty. The facts are the facts.

[Guest Frank Wilkinson]

starspirit - 2007-03-31 7:04 PM I don't know all the lurid details, and neither do I wish to, but maybe just maybe if Sally had not been so badly treated by society initially then the law, the experts and the media in turn, and then let down by the medical profession before public opinion and the media saw another good story in her innocence she might not have felt the need to hide behind alcohol and might still be with us today? Whatever the reasons it is yet another very tragic loss of life for her family to have to bear.

If you'd read the report correctly you'd see that her alcoholism began before her clashes with the law and well before the death of her second child. Whatever drove her to drink it wasn't the medical profession or the legal profession. It started well before that.

[Guest Frank Wilkinson]

Dave Newell - 2007-03-31 9:52 PM Well Frank you appear to have achieved the impossible in getting on your high horse whilst having your head firmly ensconced up your own derriere!! Absolutely incredible! Why can we not show some sympathy with people like Sally Clark without it descending into a slanging match? Myt only knowledge of the expert in question, other than that publicised by the media, is from a good friend whose ten year old daughter was knocked down by a motorist. The "expert" in question, in the words of the later berieved father, made every effort possible to save his daughter. I make no comment as to the abilities of this person as an "expert witness". The real problem is to give a true and accurate appraisal when you are probably not given all the information available. It is all too easy to become infatuated (possibly not the most appropriate word but I know no better) with your own celebrity status, especially when you get featured in the regular press. D.

I don't actually understand what having my head up my own derriere means. I seem to be the only one here who is willing to discuss this issue without being blinded by sentiment about Sally Clark's death. My main input into this debate was in reponse to the lynch mob mentality about medical and other experts all of whom seem to be the subject of criticism because of the mistakes of a tiny minority and I fully support Caradoc's appraisal of the subject.

[CliveH]

And here we have the real issue.

 

My original post that you got so uppity about, stated that whilst Carradoc seemed more concerned with his career than anything else:-

 

“I've worked hard to develop a distinguished and successful career and I am not going to stand back and see it rubbished by people who don't know what they are talking about, whether this is a recreational forum or not!”

 

He also agreed with the rest of us:-

 

“What happened to Sally Clark, Angela Cannings and thousands of other women was despicable - as was the reaction of the establishment (the law lords) who overturned the GMC decision to strike Roy Meadow from the medical register.”

 

What I felt was arrogant about Carradoc’s post was the following:-

 

“Try to maintain a balanced view on the situation though - there are 100s of expert witnesses who do NOT behave as he and his cronies did - tarring us all with the same brush is ridiculous, unfair and unnecessary, as well as being bigoted and, dare I say it, with a touch of the little green man about it with remarks like "the letters after your name" meaning nothing”….”

 

 

To infer that anyone is envious of you does smack of a unique form of arrogance.

 

 

But what you have done Frank, is to go off on one all by yourself. Presumably you have your reasons for wanting to say the things you do about Sally Clark, and I await you self-opinionated diatribe on Angela Channing, The Guildford Four etc etc with nothing less than total boredom.

 

Personally I would like to remind you of a saying that suits your position in my view.

 

“When you are in a ruddy hole – stop digging!”

 

[Dave Newell]

Blow it out yer @rse Frank, I for one don't give a damn what you understand, believe, know or even think.

 

Bye, D.

[mark lambert]

I would like to say SORRY to chas for the route this thread has taken. Sally clark, I hope and pray that you REST IN PEACE!

For personal attacks, could we please use the PM button

[CliveH]

Not sure why Chas needs an apology Mark, tho' - I agree 100% if you were stating that you feel this thread has become rather "unsavoury".

 

As for using PM. - sorry but I disagree on that too.

 

The last thing I want is offensive personal communication. Let’s have it all out in the open so that whatever is said can be judged by all.

 

Interestingly from one PM I have received this morning, the protagonist (or should it be "antagonist" ;-) ) above does this sort of thing regularly!

 

Who would ever have thought that a recreational forum could be so amusing! - but what a shame a persons tragic life becomes the focus of the vitriol and bile of a sad man.

 

 

[Guest Frank Wilkinson]

Dave Newell - 2007-04-01 8:20 AM Blow it out yer @rse Frank, I for one don't give a damn what you understand, believe, know or even think. Bye, D.

Well, leopards occasionally show their true spots and your ill-mannered and totally ignorant response above shows yours. If you don't care about what I think why did you post the other defamatory remark about having my head up my derriere?

My opinion on the Sally Clark case is mine and I'm entitled to it. My opinion on the vast majority of legal and medical experts who give excellent service is mine and I'm entitled to it.

Posts like the one above, written when I have in no way denigrated anything that you have said are appalling and add nothing to what latterly, has been a debate about medical experts and what in my opinion as been CliveH's ill-tempered and unreasonable response to Caradocs complaint about a number of ill-informed people traducing an entire profession.

CliveH has shown me at least that he's a nasty piece of work who seems unable to accept that others may disagree with him. His constant implication that because I am prepared to disagree with him that I am 'on a mission' to defame Sally Clark is shameful.

[CliveH]

I take it back Frank

 

Your not sad

 

You really are someting else!

[Guest Frank Wilkinson]

I'm out of this thread but would first ask reasonable people to do one thing. Read Caradoc's defence of his profession, which I thought entirely sensible. Then read CliveH's extremely antagonistic response to it and his personal attack on Caradoc, which was:

carrodoc

To me you come across as rather arrogant. Precisely what some on here felt that Prof Meadows was guilty of. If you really feel that you have to defend YOUR position on a recreational forum then I think I pity you.

Your credentials, whatever they are, were never criticised.

But those "experts" who have made mistakes and ruined innocent peoples lives were.

For you to take it personally and react from an emotional standpoint I prey to god I will never require or be subject to your expertise in a court of law.

I came in only at that stage because I agreed with Caradoc's view that there was a lynch mob mentality from a number of people who knew absolutely nothing about the Sally Clark case, apart from the final outcome and Professor Meadow's ill-fated calculations on cot deaths.

The Sally Clark case was much more complex and, if the true odds against two cot deaths had been given, there is every chance that the jury may still have convicted. However, the facts given were wrong and the Appeal Court had little choice but to strike down the verdict.

As I have repeated, I do not know whether she was innocent or guilty and my main contribution to this thread was to protest about what I thought was an attack on all professionals because of the mistakes of a tiny minority and latterly, CliveH's ill-tempered and unreasonable response to Caradoc.

Anyone reading his latest nasty comments to me will see the  depth to which he is prepared to stoop to justify his earlier ill-informed rantings.

[Mike Chapman]

Nah, nah, nah, nah, nah.

[michele]

If we were a lynch Mob you Frank would of been left dangling in the wind along time ago.

 

Frank I don't think sometimes you get the point but then my IQ is two digits less and everyone else's it appears ?...

 

Caradoc did not defend the professor

No one slated all Doctors Medical whatever

 

As sad Good & Bad in all ....

 

You just went into to one ...AGAIN .

 

I agree with Clive I dont think this should of been PM let everyone see .

it's an open forum otherwise people don't really get to see who really has the two digit IQ less than eveyone..,,

[CliveH]

Far from being antagonistic I feel that my comments were well considered and justified. I have never had to resort to the abusive postings that Frank excels in.

Here is a selection of his “wit”:-

 

“And this from people who talk of 'ex spurts' and who've not exactly achieved a great deal in their own lives.”

“I say again that there is a lynch mob mentality amongst people who themselves often have I.Q.s in double digits”

 

“So the seven bottles of wine were for a dinner party? I find it hard to believe that the Clarks' were considering hosting a dinner party when she was in her then condition.”

 

“You insufferable pompous ass!”

 

“CliveH has shown me at least that he's a nasty piece of work who seems unable to accept that others may disagree with him”

 

 

 

Hmmmmm! And I am the one who is supposed to be antagonistic!!!

 

 

 

(lol)

[Guest starspirit]

Frank Wilkinson - 2007-04-01 12:41 AM

starspirit - 2007-03-31 7:04 PM I don't know all the lurid details, and neither do I wish to, but maybe just maybe if Sally had not been so badly treated by society initially then the law, the experts and the media in turn, and then let down by the medical profession before public opinion and the media saw another good story in her innocence she might not have felt the need to hide behind alcohol and might still be with us today? Whatever the reasons it is yet another very tragic loss of life for her family to have to bear.

If you'd read the report correctly you'd see that her alcoholism began before her clashes with the law and well before the death of her second child. Whatever drove her to drink it wasn't the medical profession or the legal profession. It started well before that.

Thank you Frank for your usual open minded, even handed, considerate and compassionate point of view because it comes as a revelation to us all. May I now ask for your expert opinion on whether Sally's drink problems started before or after the loss of her first child and whether the problem may have begun as a direct result of the initial Police and media attention?Many thanks.

[Mel B]

Frank

 

When you eventually fall from the ivory tower that you appear to me at least to believe you occupy, don't expect us to be holding the safety net. I think most of us are getting fed up with 'playing' with you now so I'm going to find some real 'forum friends' and chat with them. :-|

 

Sally Clark - I hope she is at peace and other forum members do not find the need to disect, inspect or criticise the situation she found herself in, just be thankful it wasn't you who had to endure it. :-(

[CliveH]

Amen to that Mel

 

May I suggest that if we want to debate the pro and cons of the legal system and the benefit or otherwise of expert witnesses that we now start a new thread.

 

It is an interesting debate but on reflection I do think some of the comments above (including my own) do not reflect or do credit in any way, the appalling tragedy this poor lady suffered.