Continuing case history written in January 2002 by Sally's father, Frank Lockyer
The Appeal Court chose to second guess the jury - a matter
of growing concern among senior lawyers. That they accepted
the evidence of the pathologist, supported by only one of the experts,
against five eminent defence experts, and in critical respects
also, three of the prosecution's experts, is
a paradox that bewilders medical and legal observers alike.
Possibly the mistaken belief that the pathologist was a specialist prompted
Equally disturbing is the presumption by the Appeal Court
that Sally and Steve lied. Given opportunity, there
are independent witnesses who will confirm that they did not.
Matters excluded at the trial as irrelevant and prejudicial were
introduced in the Judgment, which given opportunity
could have been refuted. This seems an affront to natural
justice, particularly when the quid pro quo was to curtail character
witnesses who would have confirmed Sally as an impeccable mother.
If you find this unbelievable I am not surprised.
I would not have believed it two years ago.