Continuing case history written in January 2002 by Sally's father, Frank Lockyer
It is two years since my last update and Sally
has just spent her third Christmas in prison.
The first appeal
Given that everyone at the original trial (including we're told
the Crown Prosecution Service) did not expect her to be convicted,
we appealed with confidence.
It was "inconceivable" that Sally could lose.
But she did - much to the surprise of the experienced journalists present -
which may account for the unswerving support we have since received from the
media, including legal and medical journals.
How did it go so wrong?
The consensus is that the jury were influenced
by that prejudicial statistic.
But the Appeal Court, whilst accepting
that the statistic was wrong, thought it
would not have influenced the jury unduly; and that
there was other evidence. This ruling has been described
by a leading QC (not connected with the case) as a "breathtakingly
intellectually dishonest judgment".
The Appeal Court accepted the controversial evidence of
the initial pathologist, crediting him as a "paediatric"
pathologist, which he is not.
Supported as he was by one expert who presupposed the pathology
to be competent.
It seemed not to matter that five eminent
paediatric pathologists were scathingly critical of that
pathology and disputed the findings. Nor that
three of the prosecution's experts
disputed much of the pathology and thought that the deaths
should be `unascertained'.