"THE ORIGINAL TRIAL WAS BASED ON CONFLICTING MEDICAL OPINION AND CHARACTER ASSASSINATION.
THE RETRIAL PRESENTED FRESH MEDICAL EVIDENCE WHICH THE JURY ACCEPTED - THIS NEW EVIDENCE (A RARE BUT NATURALLY OCCURRING CONDITION) CERTAINLY MADE MORE SENSE THAN FORCE FEEDING A 3 YEAR OLD CHILD WITH SALT WITHOUT LEAVING ANY MARKS OR BRUISES."
IAN AND ANGELA GAY TO AN ON-LINE PUBLICATION;
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ian and Angela Gay turned to the Internet to explain to the public what went wrong in their case;
Their account is not lengthy.
It does, however, get to the heart of what happened through their eyes.
"This case was so very complex that, to make any rash judgements based on the limited media coverage would be foolhardy," the couple explained.
"It was presented before a jury who heard the full facts - and based on that evidence found us not guilty," they continued.
" The original trial was based on conflicting medical opinion and character assassination.
The retrial presented fresh medical evidence which the jury accepted - this new evidence (a rare but naturally occurring condition) certainly made more sense than force feeding a 3 year old child with salt without leaving any marks or bruises.
Christian was diagnosed with "water on the brain" as a baby - a factor which cannot be ignored.
Then there were the subscalp bruises which were dated as less than 2 days old, whilst Christian was in hospital for 4 days!!
And of course we have the treating doctor who became a self proclaimed expert following some Internet research - surely a conflict of interest!
This prosecution was engineered by "hired guns" who got it wrong!"
Angela & Ian Gay, West Midlands,
