Pathologist stands by his findings in Sally Clark case
http://www.100md.com
《英国医生杂志》
The pathologist whose failure to disclose the results of microbiology tests on Harry, the baby son of Sally Clark, led the appeal court to quash her convictions for killing him and his brother, last week stood by his findings that there was no evidence of acute infection or inflammation in Harry's case.
Home Office forensic pathologist Alan Williams was giving evidence at the General Medical Council, where he faces charges of serious professional misconduct.
Mrs Clark was jailed for life for murdering 8 week old Harry in 1998 and 12 week old Christopher in 1996. She was freed by the Court of Appeal in 2003 after serving more than three years.
The court quashed the convictions as "unsafe" after hearing that the microbiology tests on Harry found Staphylococcus aureus in various sites of his body, including the cerebrospinal fluid.
Dr Williams said that he still believed, as he had noted after the postmortem examination on Harry, that there was no evidence of acute infection or inflammation: "That was my opinion then and remains my opinion." Dr Williams, aged 58, is accused of failing to discharge his duty as an expert witness, acting beyond his competence, and failing in specific areas of the postmortem examinations on both babies.
The appeal court judges who quashed Mrs Clark's conviction said that Dr Williams' failure to alert prosecution and defence lawyers to the test results had created a "significant risk of a miscarriage of justice."
Dr Williams said that he sent specimens from Harry's body to a colleague, Alan Wills, a consultant microbiologist, for testing and spoke to him about the investigations. "I think we used the term `belt and braces'—we had better check these bacteria out for phage type and toxin production, just to be 100% certain that they were not significant to the cause of death."
Later, Dr Wills had told him "Well, they're nothing to worry about—it's contamination," he said. He had no remaining concerns because "all the results we have seen debated at length here were in my experience what you get in baby postmortems. You frequently get some bacteria in the cerebrospinal fluid, and protein and white cell counts are usually raised."
The closest he came in his report to mentioning the microbiology was saying, "There is no evidence of acute infection or inflammation." He thought that he had covered the matter with that wording.
Dr Williams said that he had assumed that others in the case had seen a copy of the microbiology results "because nobody had been in touch with me saying, `There are no microbiology results on this baby. Where are they?' I just assumed they had already seen them and, as I had said, they were not of any relevance."
When asked by James Turner, QC, representing Dr Williams, whether he had any reason to keep things secret, Dr Williams replied, "No. I do not benefit from somebody being found guilty. I do not have any pleasure in it. I do not see why I would need to keep it secret. I presented the evidence that I saw was the conclusive evidence at the time.
"The absence of inquiry about matters led me to believe at that time that they had access to all these matters, and particularly if you read the evidence of some of the experts, they were criticising me for things that I thought were perhaps not fair. It was surprising if they had not got the microbiology that they had not criticised me for the lack of microbiology."(Clare Dyer, legal correspondent)
Home Office forensic pathologist Alan Williams was giving evidence at the General Medical Council, where he faces charges of serious professional misconduct.
Mrs Clark was jailed for life for murdering 8 week old Harry in 1998 and 12 week old Christopher in 1996. She was freed by the Court of Appeal in 2003 after serving more than three years.
The court quashed the convictions as "unsafe" after hearing that the microbiology tests on Harry found Staphylococcus aureus in various sites of his body, including the cerebrospinal fluid.
Dr Williams said that he still believed, as he had noted after the postmortem examination on Harry, that there was no evidence of acute infection or inflammation: "That was my opinion then and remains my opinion." Dr Williams, aged 58, is accused of failing to discharge his duty as an expert witness, acting beyond his competence, and failing in specific areas of the postmortem examinations on both babies.
The appeal court judges who quashed Mrs Clark's conviction said that Dr Williams' failure to alert prosecution and defence lawyers to the test results had created a "significant risk of a miscarriage of justice."
Dr Williams said that he sent specimens from Harry's body to a colleague, Alan Wills, a consultant microbiologist, for testing and spoke to him about the investigations. "I think we used the term `belt and braces'—we had better check these bacteria out for phage type and toxin production, just to be 100% certain that they were not significant to the cause of death."
Later, Dr Wills had told him "Well, they're nothing to worry about—it's contamination," he said. He had no remaining concerns because "all the results we have seen debated at length here were in my experience what you get in baby postmortems. You frequently get some bacteria in the cerebrospinal fluid, and protein and white cell counts are usually raised."
The closest he came in his report to mentioning the microbiology was saying, "There is no evidence of acute infection or inflammation." He thought that he had covered the matter with that wording.
Dr Williams said that he had assumed that others in the case had seen a copy of the microbiology results "because nobody had been in touch with me saying, `There are no microbiology results on this baby. Where are they?' I just assumed they had already seen them and, as I had said, they were not of any relevance."
When asked by James Turner, QC, representing Dr Williams, whether he had any reason to keep things secret, Dr Williams replied, "No. I do not benefit from somebody being found guilty. I do not have any pleasure in it. I do not see why I would need to keep it secret. I presented the evidence that I saw was the conclusive evidence at the time.
"The absence of inquiry about matters led me to believe at that time that they had access to all these matters, and particularly if you read the evidence of some of the experts, they were criticising me for things that I thought were perhaps not fair. It was surprising if they had not got the microbiology that they had not criticised me for the lack of microbiology."(Clare Dyer, legal correspondent)