"THE CASE OF THE TEENAGER WHO BRUTALLY BEAT 21-MONTH-OLD (BABY JENNA) TO DEATH AND EVENTUALLY PLED GUILTY TO MANSLAUGHTER IS AN EXAMPLE OF HOW THE ACT CAN BE TOO LENIENT. HIS 33-MONTH-SENTENCE WAS THE MAXIMUM POSSIBLE. THAT IS TOO LITTLE TIME FOR THE SEVERITY OF THE CRIME. IT ALSO FUELS CONCERNS THAT THE ACT IS INEFFECTIVE IN DEFENDING PUBLIC SAFETY AND ESTABLISHING SENTENCING AS A DETERRENT TO VIOLENT CRIME."
EDITORIAL: PETERBOROUGH EXAMINER;
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Earlier this year, the Peterborough Examiner began an editorial; headed "A little tougher" by saying, "Canada's laws that determine how youths charged with serious crimes are dealt with by the courts need to be updated -and in some cases made tougher."
"Federal Justice Minister Rob Nicholson is touring the country looking for input on amendments to the Youth Criminal Justice Act," the editorial continued;'
"He is pushing the "tough on crime" angle, but also talking about the importance of early intervention programs to keep teenagers from becoming criminals and counselling and rehabilitation programs in youth detention centres.
When he makes those kinds of statements, Nicholson represents the reasonable face of the Tory push to deal with youth crime.
The strident version is presented in a flyer Peterborough MP Dean Del Mastro sent to local homes recently. It refers to "young thugs committing crimes without fear of consequence," "lawless punks and thugs," and the "youth-crime mess."
The flyer, which is no doubt being used by Conservative MPs across the country, qualifies as political propaganda. It refers to the Youth Criminal Justice Act as a "toothless" law adopted by "soft on crime" Liberals.
Critics who call the flyer inflammatory and an example of fear mongering have a point. Youth crime isn't rampant in Canada. The number of crimes committed by those under age 18 has been falling since the early 1990s, along with the general crime rate.
However, violent youth crime has increased. Since crime rates peaked in 1991, the overall youth crime rate has fallen by 25 per cent. During the same period, violent youth crime has increased by 30 per cent.
Sticking more young people in jail for longer periods of time isn't the final answer to that problem. But in some instances, it is a reasonable answer.
A couple of local cases illustrate what is wrong with the act, but also that it is not "toothless" or in need of a complete overhaul.
Last month, a 15-year-old from Oshawa was charged with attempted murder after a Peterborough man who asked a group of youths to move away from his property was stabbed several times in the back.
The 15-year-old was denied bail and has been in custody since the incident. His friends were in court for his bail hearing. They were rowdy and disruptive, and told an Examiner reporter they were a street family: "You mess with one us, you mess with us all."
They fit the definition of "punks." But if found guilty, the 15-year-old should get the chance to turn his life around. A sentence in a youth facility with counselling would provide that opportunity. If that is the outcome, the act will have worked.
Denial of bail as protection for the public was necessary, and was possible under the provisions of the Youth Criminal Justice Act. However, the act is flawed in that it is very difficult to keep youths in custody while they await trial unless they can be shown to present a physical danger. Chronic offenders who steal cars or break into houses also need to be kept off the streets if they are likely to keep breaking the law.
The case of the teenager who brutally beat 21-month-old (Baby Jenna) to death and eventually pled guilty to manslaughter is an example of how the act can be too lenient. His 33-month-sentence was the maximum possible. That is too little time for the severity of the crime. It also fuels concerns that the act is ineffective in defending public safety and establishing sentencing as a deterrent to violent crime.
We look forward to seeing the Conservatives' proposal for changes to the Youth Criminal Justice Act, and better prevention and rehabilitation programs."
Thirty-three months for killing Baby Jenna - and no apparent consequences for Dr. Charles Smith whose erroneous judgment and mishandling of evidence allowed the killer to remain free for several years - while Brenda Waudby, a grieving mother, was charged with the crime.
Something is very wrong with this picture;
Harold Levy...hlevy15@gmail.com;
Wednesday, December 31, 2008
ANDREW MALLARD TRAVESTY; POLICE OFFICERS MAY ESCAPE CONSEQUENCES FOR THEIR ROLE IN THIS MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE, AUSTRALIAN PAPER REPORTS:
The West Australian reported today (28 December, 2008) that, in the words of its headline, "Fate of Mallard cops in doubt."
"Police Commissioner Karl O’Callaghan has cast strong doubt on whether he has sufficient evidence to sack assistant commissioners Mal Shervill and David Caporn over their roles in the wrongful murder conviction of Andrew Mallard," the story by reporter Joseph Catanzaro begins.
Mr O’Callaghan has written to the Corruption and Crime Commission asking it to clarify “certain matters” it referred to in its investigation into the Mallard inquiry. He said that after conducting his own inquiry, there were several issues needing clarification regarding the CCC report," the story continues.
"Mr O’Callaghan said that as part of his investigation, legal advisers raised questions about the material the CCC relied on to arrive at its findings. He said the CCC’s opinions were expressed “in the context of a different statutory framework than that which the Commissioner of Police must apply”.
In a CCC report in October, Commissioner John Dunford made two opinions of misconduct against Mr Caporn and four against Mr Shervill. The opinions were that the pair, then detective-sergeants, engaged in misconduct during the investigation and prosecution of Mr Mallard for the murder of Mosman Park jeweller Pamela Lawrence in 1994.
Mr Mallard served 12 years in jail before he was cleared.
Mr O’Callaghan is considering whether to sack the assistant commissioners or demote them.
“This is a complex matter involving large amounts of material,” he said. “In fairness to all concerned, I need to have confidence in whatever conclusions I reach and they must be based on fact. I cannot request an explanation from the assistant commissioners until I get some clarification from the CCC.”
WA Police Union president Mike Dean said Mr O’Callaghan may not legally be able to sack Mr Shervill and Mr Caporn because the CCC’s findings were “wrong in material facts”.
Mr Dean also said that unlike in a court of law, the CCC could use “hearsay” evidence to arrive at its findings. He said like any other employer, Mr O’Callaghan had a duty under law to examine all the issues and give the officers a right of reply before he could consider dismissing them.
“There’s a presumption these officers are going to be sacked,” Mr Dean said. “Based on the facts, they may not be.”
Mr O’Callaghan has confirmed he will not renew the pair’s assistant commissioner contracts when they expire in February. While under normal circumstances this would mean both men revert to the rank of superintendent, Mr Dean said in theory the Commissioner could demote the pair to the rank of constable.
Mr Shervill and Mr Caporn were stood down immediately and served with a written notice to defend their careers because of the CCC’s findings.
But it is understood the decision not to renew Mr Shervill’s and Mr Caporn’s assistant commissioner contracts was motivated by the fact Mr O’Callaghan could not afford to have the senior positions left vacant while the Mallard matter was being resolved.
A CCC spokesman said yesterday Mr O’Callaghan’s concerns would be addressed when his letter was received.
Mr Shervill and Mr Caporn were not available for comment yesterday."
Harold Levy...hlevy15@gmail.com;
"Police Commissioner Karl O’Callaghan has cast strong doubt on whether he has sufficient evidence to sack assistant commissioners Mal Shervill and David Caporn over their roles in the wrongful murder conviction of Andrew Mallard," the story by reporter Joseph Catanzaro begins.
Mr O’Callaghan has written to the Corruption and Crime Commission asking it to clarify “certain matters” it referred to in its investigation into the Mallard inquiry. He said that after conducting his own inquiry, there were several issues needing clarification regarding the CCC report," the story continues.
"Mr O’Callaghan said that as part of his investigation, legal advisers raised questions about the material the CCC relied on to arrive at its findings. He said the CCC’s opinions were expressed “in the context of a different statutory framework than that which the Commissioner of Police must apply”.
In a CCC report in October, Commissioner John Dunford made two opinions of misconduct against Mr Caporn and four against Mr Shervill. The opinions were that the pair, then detective-sergeants, engaged in misconduct during the investigation and prosecution of Mr Mallard for the murder of Mosman Park jeweller Pamela Lawrence in 1994.
Mr Mallard served 12 years in jail before he was cleared.
Mr O’Callaghan is considering whether to sack the assistant commissioners or demote them.
“This is a complex matter involving large amounts of material,” he said. “In fairness to all concerned, I need to have confidence in whatever conclusions I reach and they must be based on fact. I cannot request an explanation from the assistant commissioners until I get some clarification from the CCC.”
WA Police Union president Mike Dean said Mr O’Callaghan may not legally be able to sack Mr Shervill and Mr Caporn because the CCC’s findings were “wrong in material facts”.
Mr Dean also said that unlike in a court of law, the CCC could use “hearsay” evidence to arrive at its findings. He said like any other employer, Mr O’Callaghan had a duty under law to examine all the issues and give the officers a right of reply before he could consider dismissing them.
“There’s a presumption these officers are going to be sacked,” Mr Dean said. “Based on the facts, they may not be.”
Mr O’Callaghan has confirmed he will not renew the pair’s assistant commissioner contracts when they expire in February. While under normal circumstances this would mean both men revert to the rank of superintendent, Mr Dean said in theory the Commissioner could demote the pair to the rank of constable.
Mr Shervill and Mr Caporn were stood down immediately and served with a written notice to defend their careers because of the CCC’s findings.
But it is understood the decision not to renew Mr Shervill’s and Mr Caporn’s assistant commissioner contracts was motivated by the fact Mr O’Callaghan could not afford to have the senior positions left vacant while the Mallard matter was being resolved.
A CCC spokesman said yesterday Mr O’Callaghan’s concerns would be addressed when his letter was received.
Mr Shervill and Mr Caporn were not available for comment yesterday."
Harold Levy...hlevy15@gmail.com;
Tuesday, December 30, 2008
BABY JENNA'S KILLER TO BE RELEASED NEW YEARS DAY; BRENDA WAUDBY HAD BEEN CHARGED WITH THE CRIME AFTER DR. CHARLES SMITH BOTCHED THE TIME OF DEATH;
"The man who killed toddler Jenna Mellor will walk out of the Lindsay superjail on New Year’s Day, far too soon in the eyes of Jenna’s mother," Lois Tuffin reported in Peterborough This Week on December 12, 2008.
The story ran under the sub-heading , "Sentenced as a young offender, he served 22 months and will do another 11 months of house arrest";
“It’s so fast. It seems like he just went in,” Brenda Waudby says," the story continued;
"Jenna died on Jan. 21, 1997 after her teenaged babysitter beat and poked her for several hours, angry that his mother has volunteered him to work that night.
Ms Waudby was originally charged with second-degree murder, but those charges were dropped in 1999.
A second police investigation led to the arrest of the babysitter in December 2006 and his sentencing to 22 months in jail for manslaughter in March 2007.
His name cannot be published since he was charged under the Youth Criminal Justice Act.
While he received the maximum sentence under the youth act for manslaughter, Ms Waudby believes he should have served a 25-year term for killing her daughter.
“If I had my way, he’d be doing life, none of this 22 months crap,” she says.
“He should have been sentenced as an adult.”
She is equally angry that his identity is protected by the courts and that he let her stand accused for nine years, during which time she was an outcast in Peterborough.
“He walked free and knew what he had done,” she says. “He was willing to let me go down for it. Now he’s going to be a free man again and nobody knows who he is...It’s so wrong.”
The man, now 26, will be under house arrest for a further 11 months.
His freedom will be very restricted during this time, says Barb Bird, a counselor with the John Howard Society.
“It’s still a form of punishment,” she adds.
The former prisoner would have to be in the company is his surety except for specific outings, such as counseling sessions or grocery shopping. A curfew is almost always a condition of house arrest.
“It’s very regimented,” she says.
The full list of conditions will be filed with the criminal court office when he is released, she says.
Ms Waudby has filed a multi-million-dollar civil suit against members of the Peterborough police and Dr. Charles Smith for what she calls a negligent investigation into Jenna’s death.
A pediatric pathologist, Dr. Smith pinpointed the time of Jenna’s death to when she was in Ms Waudby’s care. Other medical experts later countered that claim and said Jenna’s injuries were inflicted while she was in the care of a babysitter.
All these years later, Ms Waudby says she doesn’t know what she would do if she met her children’s former babysitter on the street.
“I hope I don’t, that's all.”"
Harold Levy...hlevy15@gmail.com;
The story ran under the sub-heading , "Sentenced as a young offender, he served 22 months and will do another 11 months of house arrest";
“It’s so fast. It seems like he just went in,” Brenda Waudby says," the story continued;
"Jenna died on Jan. 21, 1997 after her teenaged babysitter beat and poked her for several hours, angry that his mother has volunteered him to work that night.
Ms Waudby was originally charged with second-degree murder, but those charges were dropped in 1999.
A second police investigation led to the arrest of the babysitter in December 2006 and his sentencing to 22 months in jail for manslaughter in March 2007.
His name cannot be published since he was charged under the Youth Criminal Justice Act.
While he received the maximum sentence under the youth act for manslaughter, Ms Waudby believes he should have served a 25-year term for killing her daughter.
“If I had my way, he’d be doing life, none of this 22 months crap,” she says.
“He should have been sentenced as an adult.”
She is equally angry that his identity is protected by the courts and that he let her stand accused for nine years, during which time she was an outcast in Peterborough.
“He walked free and knew what he had done,” she says. “He was willing to let me go down for it. Now he’s going to be a free man again and nobody knows who he is...It’s so wrong.”
The man, now 26, will be under house arrest for a further 11 months.
His freedom will be very restricted during this time, says Barb Bird, a counselor with the John Howard Society.
“It’s still a form of punishment,” she adds.
The former prisoner would have to be in the company is his surety except for specific outings, such as counseling sessions or grocery shopping. A curfew is almost always a condition of house arrest.
“It’s very regimented,” she says.
The full list of conditions will be filed with the criminal court office when he is released, she says.
Ms Waudby has filed a multi-million-dollar civil suit against members of the Peterborough police and Dr. Charles Smith for what she calls a negligent investigation into Jenna’s death.
A pediatric pathologist, Dr. Smith pinpointed the time of Jenna’s death to when she was in Ms Waudby’s care. Other medical experts later countered that claim and said Jenna’s injuries were inflicted while she was in the care of a babysitter.
All these years later, Ms Waudby says she doesn’t know what she would do if she met her children’s former babysitter on the street.
“I hope I don’t, that's all.”"
Harold Levy...hlevy15@gmail.com;
GOOD NEWS FROM WEST AUSTRALIA; ANDREW MALLARD TO RECEIVE RECORD COMPENSATION PAYMENT; CASE INVOLVED FAILURE TO DISCLOSE FORENSIC EVIDENCE;
The West Australian recently reported that, "Andrew Mallard, who spent more than 11 years in jail after being wrongly convicted of murder, looks set to receive a multi-million dollar compensation payment from the State Government early next year."
By way of background, this blog ran a post on the Mallard case as follows:
"Monday, October 6, 2008:
ANDREW MALLARD: FAILURE TO DISCLOSE FORENSIC EVIDENCE AT ISSUE IN AUSTRALIAN MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE; REPORT ABOUT TO BE ISSUED;
"IN OCTOBER 2004, MALLARD'S LEGAL TEAM WERE GRANTED SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL TO THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA AND ON SEPTEMBER 6 AND 7, 2005, MALLARD'S APPEAL WAS HEARD IN THE HIGH COURT AND THE JUSTICES SUBSEQUENTLY JUDGED UNANIMOUSLY THAT HIS CONVICTION BE QUASHED AND A RE-TRIAL BE ORDERED. DURING THE HEARING, JUSTICE MICHAEL KIRBY WAS REPORTED TO HAVE SAID THAT ON ONE OF THE PIECES OF EVIDENCE ALONE - A FORENSIC REPORT, NOT DISCLOSED TO THE DEFENCE, SHOWING THAT MALLARD'S THEORY ABOUT THE WEAPON USED IN THE MURDER COULD NOT HAVE BEEN TRUE - A RE-TRIAL SHOULD HAVE BEEN ORDERED;"
WIKIPEDIA: ANDREW MALLARD:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The West Australian Andrew Mallard case bears some similarities to miscarriages of justice caused by Dr. Charles Smith.
For one, prosecutors withheld a crucial forensic report from the defence.
This Blog will be reporting on a report on the Mallard case by the "commission on Crime and Corruption" which is expected to be released later this week.
For now, here is the Wikipedia account of the Andrew Mallard travesty.
(I am very grateful to Professor Robert Moles for drawing the Mallard case to our attention);
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Mallard is a Western Australian who was wrongfully convicted of murder in 1995and sentenced to life imprisonment. He was released from prison in 2006 after his conviction was quashed by the High Court of Australia.
Mallard had been convicted of the murder of Pamela Lawrence, a business proprietor, who was killed at her shop, on May 23, 1994. The evidence used in Mallard's trial was scanty and obscure, and it was later revealed that police withheld vital information from his defence team. Almost twelve years later, after an appeal to the High Court, his conviction was quashed, and a re-trial ordered. However, the charges against him were dropped and Mallard was released. At the time, the Director of Public Prosecutions stated that Andrew Mallard remained the prime suspect and that if further evidence became available he could still be prosecuted.
In 2006 police conducted a review of the investigation and subsequently a cold case review. As a result they uncovered sufficiently compelling evidence to charge convicted murderer Simon Rochford with the murder of Pamela Lawrence and to eliminate Andrew Mallard as a person of interest. Prior to this being announced publicly, and after he had been interviewed by police, Simon Rochford was found dead in his cell in Albany Prison, having committed suicide.
The Western Australian Commission on Crime and Corruption is currently investigating whether there was misconduct by any public officer (police, prosecutors or Members of Parliament) associated with this case.
Evidence at the Trial:
Mallard was convicted chiefly on two pieces of evidence. The first was a set of police notes of interviews with Mallard during which, the police claimed, he had confessed. These notes had not been signed by Mallard. The second was a video-recording of the last twenty minutes of Mallard's eleven hours of interviews. The video shows Mallard speculating as to how the murderer might have killed Pamela Lawrence; police claimed that, although it was given in third-person, it was a confession.
Mallard had no history of violence; no murder weapon had been found. No blood was found on Mallard, despite the violence of the murder and the crime scene being covered with it. Nor was DNA evidence produced. He was convicted on the confessions purportedly given during unrecorded interviews and the partial video-recording of an interview. Despite this, Mallard's appeal to the Supreme Court of Western Australia, in 1996, was dismissed.
Investigation:
In 1998, Mallard's family enlisted the help of investigative journalist Colleen Egan, who in turn managed to get John Quigley MLA and Malcolm McCusker QC involved. All were appalled at the manner in which Mallard's trial had been conducted and eventually came to be convinced that he was innocent. Based on fresh evidence uncovered by this team, including a raft of police reports that, against standard practice, had never been passed to the defence team, the case was returned to the Court of Criminal Appeal in June 2003. Despite the fresh evidence and an uncontested claim that the DPP had deliberately concealed evidence from the defence, the Court of Criminal Appeal again dismissed the appeal.
Leave to appeal:
In October 2004, Mallard's legal team were granted special leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia and on September 6 and 7, 2005, Mallard's appeal was heard in the High Court and the Justices subsequently judged unanimously that his conviction be quashed and a re-trial be ordered. During the hearing, Justice Michael Kirby was reported to have said that on one of the pieces of evidence alone - a forensic report, not disclosed to the defence, showing that Mallard's theory about the weapon used in the murder could not have been true - a re-trial should have been ordered.
The DPP did not immediately drop charges against Mallard but did so six months later immediately before a directions hearing was due. After almost twelve years in prison, Mallard was released on February 20, 2006. However in announcing that the trial would not proceed the DPP stated:
"Finally, I note for the record and for the future that this decision is made on evidence presently available to the prosecution. The discharge of Mr Andrew Mallard on this charge does not alter the fact that he remains the prime suspect for this murder. Should any credible evidence present in the future which again gives the state reasonable prospects of obtaining a conviction again, the state would again prosecute him."
Documentary:
A documentary titled Saving Andrew Mallard was directed by Michael Muntz and produced by Artemis International, focussing on Mallard's family, their struggle to have him freed, the deception undertaken by the original police investigation team and the evidence uncovered that eventually led to Mallard's freedom. It was first aired on Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) Television on May 4, 2006. It was shortlisted for a Walkley Award and Michael Muntz won the Outstanding Achievement in Directing Award in the WA Screen Awards.
The documentary's epilogue noted that the DPP still considered Mallard a prime suspect in their investigation at that time.
Review of Investigation and Cold Case Review:
Following the discontinuance of the prosecution by the DPP, the Commissioner of Police instituted a review of the investigation to establish whether there were sufficient grounds for a "cold case" review. The review quickly located a record of a palm print which matched that of Simon Rochford, who had confessed to murdering his girlfriend, Brigitta Dickens, on 15 July 1994, seven weeks after Mrs Lawrence was killed[1]. The print had been found on the top of a display case in Lawrence's shop, which was significant, as it had been the practice of the shop staff to wipe the top of that case after each customer left.
On this basis the review became a cold case review. The weapon used by Rochford to kill Dickens was a steel collar of the type used by weight lifters to secure weights to a bar. Rochford had attached the collar to a broom handle and used it to club Dickens to death. The actual collar could not be located in 2006 but its dimensions were known and a photograph was available. The shape and dimensions of the collar were consistent with the form of the wounds in Lawrence's skull.
The photograph of the collar indicated that it was painted blue and a rucksack belonging to Rochford was found to contain blue paint flakes which were identical in chemical composition to those removed from Mrs Lawrence's wounds.
Rochford's appearance, in particular his beard, was more consistent with the original accounts of eyewitnesses than was Mallard's.
On May 12, 2006, five police officers were stood down by the West Australian Police Commissioner in relation to the original investigation into the murder.
At about 7:45 am AWST on May 19, 2006, the body of Simon Rochford was discovered in his cell at Albany Maximum Security Prison by prison officers just hours after he had been named as "a person of significant interest" in the Pamela Lawrence investigation.
On 11 October 2006 the Police Commissioner announced that the cold case review was complete, that Andrew Mallard was no longer a person of interest in relation to the case; that there was sufficient evidence to implicate Simon Rochford and that, if he had still been living the police would have prepared a Brief of Evidence against him for the WA Director of Public Prosecutions.
The Police Commissioner apologised to Mallard for any part the police had played in his conviction. The Premier indicated that the government would be considering compensation, though the Attorney General stated that no decision could be made until the Commission on Crime and Corruption had completed its investigation. However, on 22 November 2006, the Adelaide advertiser carried an AAP story stating that Andrew Mallard had received A$200,000 as partial compensation.
Commission on Crime and Corruption Hearings:
The Commission on Crime and Corruption announced that it was studying the report of the cold case review and would be holding public hearings in 2007. In the meantime it had asked the police to not release the full report, either to the public or within the police and, in particular, to ensure that police involved in the original investigation had no access to it. The CCC hearings into whether police and/or prosecutors behaved unethically or illegally in the Andrew Mallard case began on 31 July, 2007.
For more on the Mallard case:... http://netk.net.au/Mallard/Mallard76.asp...
The story in the West Australian, by Jayne Rickard, (Perth) began with a report that, "Today Attorney-General Christian Porter confirmed he had received a recommendation on a compensation figure from the State Solicitor, but would not reveal what that was."
"But he did confirm it would safely be in the “multi-millions”, which would make it the highest-ever compensation ex-gratia payment from the WA State Government after Peter and Ray Mickelberg were handed a $1 million payment over their wrongful conviction and jailing for the infamous Perth Mint gold swindle in 1982," the story, published on December 22, 2008, continued;
"Mr Mallard was wrongfully convicted of the 1994 murder of Mosman Park jeweller Pamela Lawrence.
Mr Porter said he would spend the summer break going over the recommendation, which he described as “a full lever-arch folder of advice” before taking his own advice to Cabinet in early January.
“That will be very high on our agenda for Cabinet when we return from this break,” Mr Porter said.
“I’m going to consider the advice he’s given to me. It is, of course, several million. I’m not going to go into it in great detail (now).”
Two police assistant commissioners and one of WA’s most senior prosecutors were hit with a total of eight misconduct findings by the Corruption and Crime Commission in November following its three-year inquiry into the wrongful murder conviction of Mr Mallard."
Hrold Levy...hlevy15@gmail.com;
By way of background, this blog ran a post on the Mallard case as follows:
"Monday, October 6, 2008:
ANDREW MALLARD: FAILURE TO DISCLOSE FORENSIC EVIDENCE AT ISSUE IN AUSTRALIAN MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE; REPORT ABOUT TO BE ISSUED;
"IN OCTOBER 2004, MALLARD'S LEGAL TEAM WERE GRANTED SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL TO THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA AND ON SEPTEMBER 6 AND 7, 2005, MALLARD'S APPEAL WAS HEARD IN THE HIGH COURT AND THE JUSTICES SUBSEQUENTLY JUDGED UNANIMOUSLY THAT HIS CONVICTION BE QUASHED AND A RE-TRIAL BE ORDERED. DURING THE HEARING, JUSTICE MICHAEL KIRBY WAS REPORTED TO HAVE SAID THAT ON ONE OF THE PIECES OF EVIDENCE ALONE - A FORENSIC REPORT, NOT DISCLOSED TO THE DEFENCE, SHOWING THAT MALLARD'S THEORY ABOUT THE WEAPON USED IN THE MURDER COULD NOT HAVE BEEN TRUE - A RE-TRIAL SHOULD HAVE BEEN ORDERED;"
WIKIPEDIA: ANDREW MALLARD:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The West Australian Andrew Mallard case bears some similarities to miscarriages of justice caused by Dr. Charles Smith.
For one, prosecutors withheld a crucial forensic report from the defence.
This Blog will be reporting on a report on the Mallard case by the "commission on Crime and Corruption" which is expected to be released later this week.
For now, here is the Wikipedia account of the Andrew Mallard travesty.
(I am very grateful to Professor Robert Moles for drawing the Mallard case to our attention);
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Mallard is a Western Australian who was wrongfully convicted of murder in 1995and sentenced to life imprisonment. He was released from prison in 2006 after his conviction was quashed by the High Court of Australia.
Mallard had been convicted of the murder of Pamela Lawrence, a business proprietor, who was killed at her shop, on May 23, 1994. The evidence used in Mallard's trial was scanty and obscure, and it was later revealed that police withheld vital information from his defence team. Almost twelve years later, after an appeal to the High Court, his conviction was quashed, and a re-trial ordered. However, the charges against him were dropped and Mallard was released. At the time, the Director of Public Prosecutions stated that Andrew Mallard remained the prime suspect and that if further evidence became available he could still be prosecuted.
In 2006 police conducted a review of the investigation and subsequently a cold case review. As a result they uncovered sufficiently compelling evidence to charge convicted murderer Simon Rochford with the murder of Pamela Lawrence and to eliminate Andrew Mallard as a person of interest. Prior to this being announced publicly, and after he had been interviewed by police, Simon Rochford was found dead in his cell in Albany Prison, having committed suicide.
The Western Australian Commission on Crime and Corruption is currently investigating whether there was misconduct by any public officer (police, prosecutors or Members of Parliament) associated with this case.
Evidence at the Trial:
Mallard was convicted chiefly on two pieces of evidence. The first was a set of police notes of interviews with Mallard during which, the police claimed, he had confessed. These notes had not been signed by Mallard. The second was a video-recording of the last twenty minutes of Mallard's eleven hours of interviews. The video shows Mallard speculating as to how the murderer might have killed Pamela Lawrence; police claimed that, although it was given in third-person, it was a confession.
Mallard had no history of violence; no murder weapon had been found. No blood was found on Mallard, despite the violence of the murder and the crime scene being covered with it. Nor was DNA evidence produced. He was convicted on the confessions purportedly given during unrecorded interviews and the partial video-recording of an interview. Despite this, Mallard's appeal to the Supreme Court of Western Australia, in 1996, was dismissed.
Investigation:
In 1998, Mallard's family enlisted the help of investigative journalist Colleen Egan, who in turn managed to get John Quigley MLA and Malcolm McCusker QC involved. All were appalled at the manner in which Mallard's trial had been conducted and eventually came to be convinced that he was innocent. Based on fresh evidence uncovered by this team, including a raft of police reports that, against standard practice, had never been passed to the defence team, the case was returned to the Court of Criminal Appeal in June 2003. Despite the fresh evidence and an uncontested claim that the DPP had deliberately concealed evidence from the defence, the Court of Criminal Appeal again dismissed the appeal.
Leave to appeal:
In October 2004, Mallard's legal team were granted special leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia and on September 6 and 7, 2005, Mallard's appeal was heard in the High Court and the Justices subsequently judged unanimously that his conviction be quashed and a re-trial be ordered. During the hearing, Justice Michael Kirby was reported to have said that on one of the pieces of evidence alone - a forensic report, not disclosed to the defence, showing that Mallard's theory about the weapon used in the murder could not have been true - a re-trial should have been ordered.
The DPP did not immediately drop charges against Mallard but did so six months later immediately before a directions hearing was due. After almost twelve years in prison, Mallard was released on February 20, 2006. However in announcing that the trial would not proceed the DPP stated:
"Finally, I note for the record and for the future that this decision is made on evidence presently available to the prosecution. The discharge of Mr Andrew Mallard on this charge does not alter the fact that he remains the prime suspect for this murder. Should any credible evidence present in the future which again gives the state reasonable prospects of obtaining a conviction again, the state would again prosecute him."
Documentary:
A documentary titled Saving Andrew Mallard was directed by Michael Muntz and produced by Artemis International, focussing on Mallard's family, their struggle to have him freed, the deception undertaken by the original police investigation team and the evidence uncovered that eventually led to Mallard's freedom. It was first aired on Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) Television on May 4, 2006. It was shortlisted for a Walkley Award and Michael Muntz won the Outstanding Achievement in Directing Award in the WA Screen Awards.
The documentary's epilogue noted that the DPP still considered Mallard a prime suspect in their investigation at that time.
Review of Investigation and Cold Case Review:
Following the discontinuance of the prosecution by the DPP, the Commissioner of Police instituted a review of the investigation to establish whether there were sufficient grounds for a "cold case" review. The review quickly located a record of a palm print which matched that of Simon Rochford, who had confessed to murdering his girlfriend, Brigitta Dickens, on 15 July 1994, seven weeks after Mrs Lawrence was killed[1]. The print had been found on the top of a display case in Lawrence's shop, which was significant, as it had been the practice of the shop staff to wipe the top of that case after each customer left.
On this basis the review became a cold case review. The weapon used by Rochford to kill Dickens was a steel collar of the type used by weight lifters to secure weights to a bar. Rochford had attached the collar to a broom handle and used it to club Dickens to death. The actual collar could not be located in 2006 but its dimensions were known and a photograph was available. The shape and dimensions of the collar were consistent with the form of the wounds in Lawrence's skull.
The photograph of the collar indicated that it was painted blue and a rucksack belonging to Rochford was found to contain blue paint flakes which were identical in chemical composition to those removed from Mrs Lawrence's wounds.
Rochford's appearance, in particular his beard, was more consistent with the original accounts of eyewitnesses than was Mallard's.
On May 12, 2006, five police officers were stood down by the West Australian Police Commissioner in relation to the original investigation into the murder.
At about 7:45 am AWST on May 19, 2006, the body of Simon Rochford was discovered in his cell at Albany Maximum Security Prison by prison officers just hours after he had been named as "a person of significant interest" in the Pamela Lawrence investigation.
On 11 October 2006 the Police Commissioner announced that the cold case review was complete, that Andrew Mallard was no longer a person of interest in relation to the case; that there was sufficient evidence to implicate Simon Rochford and that, if he had still been living the police would have prepared a Brief of Evidence against him for the WA Director of Public Prosecutions.
The Police Commissioner apologised to Mallard for any part the police had played in his conviction. The Premier indicated that the government would be considering compensation, though the Attorney General stated that no decision could be made until the Commission on Crime and Corruption had completed its investigation. However, on 22 November 2006, the Adelaide advertiser carried an AAP story stating that Andrew Mallard had received A$200,000 as partial compensation.
Commission on Crime and Corruption Hearings:
The Commission on Crime and Corruption announced that it was studying the report of the cold case review and would be holding public hearings in 2007. In the meantime it had asked the police to not release the full report, either to the public or within the police and, in particular, to ensure that police involved in the original investigation had no access to it. The CCC hearings into whether police and/or prosecutors behaved unethically or illegally in the Andrew Mallard case began on 31 July, 2007.
For more on the Mallard case:... http://netk.net.au/Mallard/Mallard76.asp...
The story in the West Australian, by Jayne Rickard, (Perth) began with a report that, "Today Attorney-General Christian Porter confirmed he had received a recommendation on a compensation figure from the State Solicitor, but would not reveal what that was."
"But he did confirm it would safely be in the “multi-millions”, which would make it the highest-ever compensation ex-gratia payment from the WA State Government after Peter and Ray Mickelberg were handed a $1 million payment over their wrongful conviction and jailing for the infamous Perth Mint gold swindle in 1982," the story, published on December 22, 2008, continued;
"Mr Mallard was wrongfully convicted of the 1994 murder of Mosman Park jeweller Pamela Lawrence.
Mr Porter said he would spend the summer break going over the recommendation, which he described as “a full lever-arch folder of advice” before taking his own advice to Cabinet in early January.
“That will be very high on our agenda for Cabinet when we return from this break,” Mr Porter said.
“I’m going to consider the advice he’s given to me. It is, of course, several million. I’m not going to go into it in great detail (now).”
Two police assistant commissioners and one of WA’s most senior prosecutors were hit with a total of eight misconduct findings by the Corruption and Crime Commission in November following its three-year inquiry into the wrongful murder conviction of Mr Mallard."
Hrold Levy...hlevy15@gmail.com;
Sunday, December 28, 2008
DR. CHARLES SMITH MAKES TOP OF THE LEGAL CHARTS FOR 2008: ALAN SHANOFF'S TOP LEGAL STORIES OF THE YEAR; TORONTO SUN;
"LOSING A LOVED ONE IS ONE OF LIFE'S TRAGEDIES BUT IT IS COMPOUNDED TO AN INCOMPREHENSIBLE DEGREE WHEN YOU ARE WRONGLY ACCUSED OF KILLING THAT LOVED ONE."
ALAN SHANOFF; TORONTO SUN;
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Smith featured in columnest Alan Shanoff's second half of his year-end review of the "top legal stories/developments in 2008 published in the Toronto Sun on December 28, 2008;
Here is Shanoff's list;
1. We started the year with a stunning decision in January staying criminal corruption charges against six members of the Central Field Command drug squad of the Toronto Police Service. The decision was based on violation of the accuseds' right to have a trial within a reasonable period of time. Even though the charges were laid some six years after many of the events, the Crown was unable to get the case ready for trial in under four years from the laying of the charges.
So, by the end of the year things should have improved, you'd think. Sorry. Ontario Auditor-General Jim McCarter's report in December noted the number of Ontario charges pending is 275,000 which is 17% higher than the figure five years earlier. With these numbers we're going to be seeing even more charges withdrawn for delay. Perhaps there is some improvement coming with the adoption of recommendations submitted by former judge Patrick LeSage and Professor Michael Code.
2. Can you imagine people dumb enough to make a charitable donation and then filing a claim for many times more than the actual donation? Apparently tens of thousands of Canadians are that dumb. The Canada Revenue Agency has been busy denying tax donations connected to dubious charities that dish out charitable receipts for a multiple of the actual "donation." There are said to be dozens of "charities" operating in Canada that issue these tax receipts and now many Canadian taxpayers are facing tax penalties and larger-than-expected tax bills. I applaud the CRA for cracking down on these schemes. I also applaud the CRA for going after businesses that don't pay their fair share of taxes. The CRA has been trying to get their hands on records kept by eBay Canada on servers outside Canada. The CRA wants access so they can go after eBay's top online vendors. In November the Federal Court of Appeal sided with the CRA and ordered eBay to make the records available to the CRA. This decision has received criticism by many who believe that individuals who buy and resell items on eBay shouldn't have to pay tax on their earnings. Surely these small eBay businesses shouldn't be treated any differently from any other business. A business operated out of a garage is still a business and must pay income taxes.
PEDIATRIC PATHOLOGY
3. The Inquiry into Pediatric Forensic Pathology in Ontario led by Justice Stephen Goudge concluded. This is the inquiry into the incompetence of pathologist Dr. Charles Smith and how he destroyed the lives of innocent people by making "false and misleading statements" in court. One hopes that the reforms arising from the Goudge Report will eliminate wrongful conviction arising out of erroneous coroner's reports. Losing a loved one is one of life's tragedies but it is compounded to an incomprehensible degree when you are wrongly accused of killing that loved one.
4. In case you've forgotten about our very own alleged home-grown terrorists charged in Toronto, the so-called Toronto 18, here's an update. A 20-year-old (17 at the time of the offence, so he can't be named) has now been convicted of belonging to a terrorist group. The others in this group await their trials. In the meantime in Ottawa Justice Douglas Rutherford found Canadian-born Mohammad Momin Khawaja, 29, guilty on charges of financing and facilitating terrorism as well as two offences involving building a remote-control device to trigger bombs.
CHARTER OF RIGHTS
5. We can't leave a legal list without mentioning the 26-year-old Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The big debate right now surrounds how to deal with obviously guilty people and reliable evidence obtained through Charter violations. In the recently argued Bradley Harrison case police found 35 kg of cocaine in a car. The officer's suspicions were apparently aroused because the car was being operated at the posted speed limit. Even I don't think that's probable cause. But do we acquit and ignore the evidence?
The Ontario Court of Appeal upheld the conviction but the Supreme Court of Canada has reserved its decision. If a cop makes a mistake do we let the criminals go free? Stay tuned.
ALAN SHANOFF; TORONTO SUN;
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Smith featured in columnest Alan Shanoff's second half of his year-end review of the "top legal stories/developments in 2008 published in the Toronto Sun on December 28, 2008;
Here is Shanoff's list;
1. We started the year with a stunning decision in January staying criminal corruption charges against six members of the Central Field Command drug squad of the Toronto Police Service. The decision was based on violation of the accuseds' right to have a trial within a reasonable period of time. Even though the charges were laid some six years after many of the events, the Crown was unable to get the case ready for trial in under four years from the laying of the charges.
So, by the end of the year things should have improved, you'd think. Sorry. Ontario Auditor-General Jim McCarter's report in December noted the number of Ontario charges pending is 275,000 which is 17% higher than the figure five years earlier. With these numbers we're going to be seeing even more charges withdrawn for delay. Perhaps there is some improvement coming with the adoption of recommendations submitted by former judge Patrick LeSage and Professor Michael Code.
2. Can you imagine people dumb enough to make a charitable donation and then filing a claim for many times more than the actual donation? Apparently tens of thousands of Canadians are that dumb. The Canada Revenue Agency has been busy denying tax donations connected to dubious charities that dish out charitable receipts for a multiple of the actual "donation." There are said to be dozens of "charities" operating in Canada that issue these tax receipts and now many Canadian taxpayers are facing tax penalties and larger-than-expected tax bills. I applaud the CRA for cracking down on these schemes. I also applaud the CRA for going after businesses that don't pay their fair share of taxes. The CRA has been trying to get their hands on records kept by eBay Canada on servers outside Canada. The CRA wants access so they can go after eBay's top online vendors. In November the Federal Court of Appeal sided with the CRA and ordered eBay to make the records available to the CRA. This decision has received criticism by many who believe that individuals who buy and resell items on eBay shouldn't have to pay tax on their earnings. Surely these small eBay businesses shouldn't be treated any differently from any other business. A business operated out of a garage is still a business and must pay income taxes.
PEDIATRIC PATHOLOGY
3. The Inquiry into Pediatric Forensic Pathology in Ontario led by Justice Stephen Goudge concluded. This is the inquiry into the incompetence of pathologist Dr. Charles Smith and how he destroyed the lives of innocent people by making "false and misleading statements" in court. One hopes that the reforms arising from the Goudge Report will eliminate wrongful conviction arising out of erroneous coroner's reports. Losing a loved one is one of life's tragedies but it is compounded to an incomprehensible degree when you are wrongly accused of killing that loved one.
4. In case you've forgotten about our very own alleged home-grown terrorists charged in Toronto, the so-called Toronto 18, here's an update. A 20-year-old (17 at the time of the offence, so he can't be named) has now been convicted of belonging to a terrorist group. The others in this group await their trials. In the meantime in Ottawa Justice Douglas Rutherford found Canadian-born Mohammad Momin Khawaja, 29, guilty on charges of financing and facilitating terrorism as well as two offences involving building a remote-control device to trigger bombs.
CHARTER OF RIGHTS
5. We can't leave a legal list without mentioning the 26-year-old Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The big debate right now surrounds how to deal with obviously guilty people and reliable evidence obtained through Charter violations. In the recently argued Bradley Harrison case police found 35 kg of cocaine in a car. The officer's suspicions were apparently aroused because the car was being operated at the posted speed limit. Even I don't think that's probable cause. But do we acquit and ignore the evidence?
The Ontario Court of Appeal upheld the conviction but the Supreme Court of Canada has reserved its decision. If a cop makes a mistake do we let the criminals go free? Stay tuned.
Saturday, December 27, 2008
SUZANNE HOLDSWORTH RETRIAL: PART 30; CANNINGS SEEKS PUBLIC INQUIRY INTO HER CASE, HOLDSWORTH CASE AND OTHER RELATED MISCARRIAGES OF JUSTICE;
"AFTER 18 MONTHS IN PRISON, MRS CANNINGS WON HER FREEDOM IN DECEMBER 2003 AFTER TAKING HER CASE TO THE COURT OF APPEAL.
SHE WAS THE THIRD WOMAN IN A YEAR TO HAVE HER CONVICTION QUASHED AFTER THE EVIDENCE OF PAEDIATRICIAN PROFESSOR ROY MEADOW WAS DISCREDITED.
AMONG THE OTHERS WAS SALLY CLARK, WHO DIED AGED 42 OF NATURAL CAUSES IN MARCH THIS YEAR.
MRS CANNINGS ADDED: "I HAVE BEEN THROUGH ALL OF THIS MYSELF AND WILL BE THERE FOR SUZANNE HOLDSWORTH."
PETERLEE MAIL;
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Angela Cannings call for a thorough public inquiry at the highest level is reported in a story by reporter Paul Watson in the Peterlee Mail under the heading, "Cot death mum in Kyle case plea," which ran on December 27, 2008;
"A COT death mum who was wrongly convicted of killing two of her children is backing calls for a Government probe into the death of two-year-old Kyle Fisher," the story began;
"Angela Cannings, 45, spent 18 months in jail before being freed by the Court of Appeal during the infamous Professor Roy Meadow scandal in which the medic was discredited and struck off," it continued;.
"Mrs Cannings, now seen as a national figurehead against injustice, has vowed to support Hartlepool babysitter Suzanne Holdsworth, who spent three years behind bars after being wrongly convicted of murdering Kyle.
She was jailed for life in April 2005. But after new medical evidence was unearthed the Court of Appeal quashed her conviction and ordered a re-trial.
After damning new medical evidence was produced, the 38-year-old, who maintained Kyle suffered a fit before unexpectedly collapsing, was unanimously cleared of his murder at her home in Millpool Close, Hartlepool, in July 2004.
The jury was told she battered the youngster's head against a wooden banister, which caused him to collapse with swelling of the brain.
But medical evidence showed the tragic child suffered from a number of pre-exisiting brain conditions which pre-disposed him to epilepsy and the possibility of an unexpected fit.
At the forefront of calls for a Government probe is Mrs Cannings, who lost her first-born, Gemma, to cot death, and who was then wrongly convicted of smothering two of her other children, 18-week-old Matthew and seven-week-old Jason.
She and fellow campaigner Penny Mellor, of the Angela Cannings Foundation, have demanded action from the Attorney General, Baroness Scotland, Children's Minister Ed Balls, Solicitor General Vera Baird and Cleveland Police Chief Constable Sean Price.
Mrs Cannings told the Mail: "There are chilling similarities between our cases.
"When I was arrested police kept telling me I had done it and to admit it and the same thing has happened with Suzanne.
"They just kept going for me from the start and what kept going through my mind with this case was the fact that they just went for Suzanne.
"When I was freed there were promises that investigations would be thorough and reviews carried out. But here we are five years on with the case of Suzanne Holdsworth.
"Cases of this nature are still not being investigated thoroughly and innocent people are being sent to prison.
"Suzanne's case is the latest injustice and a full inquiry needs to be carried out at the highest national level."
After 18 months in prison, Mrs Cannings won her freedom in December 2003 after taking her case to the Court of Appeal.
She was the third woman in a year to have her conviction quashed after the evidence of paediatrician Professor Roy Meadow was discredited.
Among the others was Sally Clark, who died aged 42 of natural causes in March this year.
Mrs Cannings added: "I have been through all of this myself and will be there for Suzanne Holdsworth.
"Her life has been ruined and now she has to build it back up.
"Thankfully she has a strong family to help with that.
"The case mirrors everything I went through and I will be there to help her get through this.""
Harold Levy...hlevy15@gmail.com;
SHE WAS THE THIRD WOMAN IN A YEAR TO HAVE HER CONVICTION QUASHED AFTER THE EVIDENCE OF PAEDIATRICIAN PROFESSOR ROY MEADOW WAS DISCREDITED.
AMONG THE OTHERS WAS SALLY CLARK, WHO DIED AGED 42 OF NATURAL CAUSES IN MARCH THIS YEAR.
MRS CANNINGS ADDED: "I HAVE BEEN THROUGH ALL OF THIS MYSELF AND WILL BE THERE FOR SUZANNE HOLDSWORTH."
PETERLEE MAIL;
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Angela Cannings call for a thorough public inquiry at the highest level is reported in a story by reporter Paul Watson in the Peterlee Mail under the heading, "Cot death mum in Kyle case plea," which ran on December 27, 2008;
"A COT death mum who was wrongly convicted of killing two of her children is backing calls for a Government probe into the death of two-year-old Kyle Fisher," the story began;
"Angela Cannings, 45, spent 18 months in jail before being freed by the Court of Appeal during the infamous Professor Roy Meadow scandal in which the medic was discredited and struck off," it continued;.
"Mrs Cannings, now seen as a national figurehead against injustice, has vowed to support Hartlepool babysitter Suzanne Holdsworth, who spent three years behind bars after being wrongly convicted of murdering Kyle.
She was jailed for life in April 2005. But after new medical evidence was unearthed the Court of Appeal quashed her conviction and ordered a re-trial.
After damning new medical evidence was produced, the 38-year-old, who maintained Kyle suffered a fit before unexpectedly collapsing, was unanimously cleared of his murder at her home in Millpool Close, Hartlepool, in July 2004.
The jury was told she battered the youngster's head against a wooden banister, which caused him to collapse with swelling of the brain.
But medical evidence showed the tragic child suffered from a number of pre-exisiting brain conditions which pre-disposed him to epilepsy and the possibility of an unexpected fit.
At the forefront of calls for a Government probe is Mrs Cannings, who lost her first-born, Gemma, to cot death, and who was then wrongly convicted of smothering two of her other children, 18-week-old Matthew and seven-week-old Jason.
She and fellow campaigner Penny Mellor, of the Angela Cannings Foundation, have demanded action from the Attorney General, Baroness Scotland, Children's Minister Ed Balls, Solicitor General Vera Baird and Cleveland Police Chief Constable Sean Price.
Mrs Cannings told the Mail: "There are chilling similarities between our cases.
"When I was arrested police kept telling me I had done it and to admit it and the same thing has happened with Suzanne.
"They just kept going for me from the start and what kept going through my mind with this case was the fact that they just went for Suzanne.
"When I was freed there were promises that investigations would be thorough and reviews carried out. But here we are five years on with the case of Suzanne Holdsworth.
"Cases of this nature are still not being investigated thoroughly and innocent people are being sent to prison.
"Suzanne's case is the latest injustice and a full inquiry needs to be carried out at the highest national level."
After 18 months in prison, Mrs Cannings won her freedom in December 2003 after taking her case to the Court of Appeal.
She was the third woman in a year to have her conviction quashed after the evidence of paediatrician Professor Roy Meadow was discredited.
Among the others was Sally Clark, who died aged 42 of natural causes in March this year.
Mrs Cannings added: "I have been through all of this myself and will be there for Suzanne Holdsworth.
"Her life has been ruined and now she has to build it back up.
"Thankfully she has a strong family to help with that.
"The case mirrors everything I went through and I will be there to help her get through this.""
Harold Levy...hlevy15@gmail.com;
Friday, December 26, 2008
SUZANNE HOLDSWORTH'S RETRIAL: PART 29; HER ACCOUNT OF HER ORDEAL TO REPORTER JOHN SWEENEY FOR THE MAIL;
"AFTER THE SECOND TRIAL, EXPERT FOR THE DEFENCE BILL DOBYNS, PROFESSOR OF NEUROLOGY, PAEDIATRICS AND GENETICS AT CHICAGO UNIVERSITY, TOLD ME: 'IT'S ALMOST EMBARRASSING THE NUMBER OF MEDICAL FACTORS THEY (THE POLICE AND PROSECUTION) FIRST COMPLETELY MISSED, AND WHEN I AND OTHER DEFENCE WITNESSES POINTED OUT, THEY THEN IGNORED.'"
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Suzanne Holdsworth's account appeared under the heading, "Justice delayed: Kyle's babysitter spent three years in prison for a crime she did not commit," on Saturday December 27, 2008;
A sub-heading indicated that: "Three years ago Suzanne was jailed for a little boy's murder. But a damning investigation by the Mail found police had missed key evidence. Days after being released, she tells her haunting story to the man who helped clear her."
"For Suzanne Holdsworth, the long, dark December nights were always the worst," the story began.
"But then, every minute she spent incarcerated in Low Newton prison, County Durham, was a living nightmare," it continued;
"As the monotonous weeks and months stretched on, she would often sit and wonder how her partner and two daughters were coping without her.
But it was at night, in her sparse, cramped cell, that the 38-year-old mother would lie awake, weeping silent lonely tears and wondering if she would ever spend another Christmas and New Year with her family again.
'Everybody who's got children and who's in prison knows that every day is hell, but birthdays, Christmas Day and New Year's Eve are the worst days of your life,' she says. 'Everyone else is having a happy time with their families, but you are locked inside.
'You can't have visits on Christmas Day: you have phone calls, but only at certain times of the day. All that me and the other girls wanted to do was talk to our children all day.
'But there's nothing you can do but close the door behind you and cry and cry and cry.'
Were Suzanne a cold-blooded killer, or even a part-time petty criminal, it might be hard to feel any sympathy.
But the fact is she was serving a life sentence for a crime she did not commit.
In 2005, she was convicted of the murder of two-year-old Kyle Fisher, the son of a 19-year-old single mother who had left him in her charge. Suzanne has always denied harming the little boy in her care.
She was jailed for life for Kyle's murder. In May this year, however, the Court of Appeal ruled that her conviction was unsafe after new medical evidence emerged suggesting the baby may have died from an epileptic seizure. A retrial was ordered, and at the new trial a jury unanimously found Suzanne not guilty.
Just eight days ago, on December 18, Suzanne was freed. She stood, hand-in-hand with her partner Lee Spencer, on the steps of Teesside Crown Court, enjoying her first taste of freedom in more than 1,000 days.
She is now home, spending Christmas and New Year with Lee and daughters Lesley, 20, and Jamie-Leigh, 14, as well as her new grandson, Matthew.
She falters as she speaks: 'Did I ever think this day would come? No. I thought I would be in prison forever.'
At the time of Kyle's death, police investigating accused Suzanne, from Seacroft, Leeds, of repeatedly smashing his head against a banister in a fit of rage.
'I never harmed him, I loved him,' she said, and certainly it left family and friends bewildered that the woman they called a modern-day Mary Poppins could have any connection to such horror.
But Cleveland police were adamant: Suzanne Holdsworth, a former supermarket shelf-stacker, was a brazen liar and a baby killer.
Only something didn't quite add up. If there was a smashing of Kyle's head into a wooden banister, why was there no sign of impact? No blood, no hair, no traces of Kyle's skin anywhere in Suzanne's house. Why had no DNA test - which could have cleared Suzanne in the first instance - ever been carried out?
'It was horrendous'
Kyle also suffered from myriad problems. First, heterotopia - brain matter in the wrong place, which can cause fits; second, megalencephaly - an abnormally big brain, which can cause fits; third, hydrocephaly - water on the brain, which can also cause fits; fourth, subdural haemorrhage, which can also cause fits.
Fifth, Kyle had been accidentally stabbed in the brain, in someone else's care, a year before he died - a terrible injury that caused his eye to droop as his damaged brain squeezed down 'like toothpaste through the tube'. It was pressing down through a hole in his eye socket onto the back of his eye.
Stabbing, squeezing and scarring of the brain can cause fits, too. And fits can kill.
These five brain disorders, any one of which could trigger an epileptic fit, eluded Cleveland Police's 'relentless investigation'.
So when Suzanne told the first trial jury in 2005 that Kyle had suffered from a fit, no one believed her.
'I remember the verdict coming,' says Suzanne, who even now is traumatised when talking about her ordeal. 'I remember seeing my partner Lee. Next minute, I was in a prison cell with just a bed and a CCTV camera looking at me. It was horrendous. Having no freedom, having people tell you what to do all the time.
Clare Fisher, Kyle's mum, had gone out clubbing and left her son in Suzanne's care
'Missing my two children was the most terrible thing, and to begin with some of the other prisoners called me names: nonce, child killer. It didn't matter that I knew I'd done nothing wrong, no one can ever understand what that feeling is like - to be locked away in such a dreadful place and for murder no less, when you have done nothing wrong.'
Today, as they prepare to welcome in 2009, she and Lee, a lorry driver, want to put the past behind them. But they are angry and bitter at how such a grotesque miscarriage of justice could tear their family apart for over four years.
I first reported on the possibility that Suzanne was in jail thanks to a grotesque miscarriage of justice a year ago for BBC2's Newsnight.
Since 2001, I have helped free or clear the names of eight people who have been wrongly accused of child murder and manslaughter, starting with cot death mothers Sally Clark, who died of grief last year, Angela Cannings and Donna Anthony.
All eight stories are double tragedies: the death of a child compounded by the false conviction of an innocent parent or carer. In seven of the eight cases, police and the courts were misled by rogue experts such as Professor Sir Roy Meadow or disputed scientific theories such as 'shaken baby syndrome'.
I was approached about Suzanne's case by her lawyer, whom I had worked with on previous occasions and court cases. The minute he showed me all the evidence - NOT taken into account by police officers working on the original murder inquiry - it seemed obvious that this was one of the worst miscarriages of justice I had ever encountered.
And it was also deeply troubling because it raises questions about the thoroughness of the original inquiry carried out by Cleveland Police.
It was led by Detective Superintendent Tony Hutchinson, who has since retired.
Hutchinson was Cleveland's bullet-headed super-cop, leading dozens of murder inquiries, who shot to international fame when he nailed missing 'canoe man' John Darwin.
Hutchinson maintained after Suzanne's first trial that she 'must have known very quickly that she had inflicted serious, if not fatal, injuries, and while she called for medical assistance' - the 999 call - 'she also began to manipulate the situation. She very calmly applied her mind as to how she would explain the injury to the authorities.'
Could she really be such a calculating killer, though? Naturally, Suzanne's own version of events - and the 999 call itself, which was broadcast last week for the first time - does not appear to suggest it.
It was late evening on July 21, 2004, when Suzanne was babysitting Kyle because his mother Clare Fisher had gone out clubbing. Suzanne's daughters were with Lee, who was working abroad.
Jon Taylor, Kyle's father, has said he never believed Suzanne was responsible for his son's murder.
Suzanne explains the events of that terrible night: 'Clare came over with Kyle, then went out to a nightclub with a friend. Kyle had his yoghurt and juice and we sat together, watching the reality show Big Brother on TV.
'We were having a lovely evening and then I must have yawned, because Kyle said: "Suzie tired". Then, as he shuffled to get off the sofa, his head went down, in a sort of flopping motion. I moved the coffee table out of the way and his head fell to the floor. I put him down on the sofa and threw water on him, the shock of it should have woken him because he hated water. Nothing. I dialled 999.'
A miscarriage of justice
The emergency call was played in court at Suzanne's trial. In it, clearly panicking, Suzanne describes Kyle as going 'all floppy, he's not breathing, his eyes are rolling and everything' - a classic description of an epileptic fit.
Suzanne is screaming and sobbing so much the operator cannot understand what she is saying, hard to reconcile with Hutchinson's concept of a calm, manipulative mind at work.
Then there is the so-called murder weapon. Andrew Robertson QC, prosecuting, alleged at trial and retrial that Suzanne had smashed Kyle's head against a banister at her house. But nothing was visible on the banister - no dent, no blood, nothing.
At the first trial, Judge Grigson said that the evidence presented by the Crown's forensic expert was of 'breathtaking banality'.
At the second trial, the jury pointedly asked whether Kyle's DNA was on the banister. The answer? No tests had been carried out.
Lee, Suzanne's partner, shakes his head in disbelief, still unable to fathom why the police didn't carry out tests on the banister.
'They didn't do a DNA test on the alleged weapon. I'm no Sherlock Holmes, but what kind of investigation was that?' he says. 'DNA profiling can distinguish between snot, tears, saliva, hair follicles, scalp. Technology can distinguish between all of them, but no DNA test was done.'
Then there is the question of Kyle's general well-being. Cleveland Police said that Kyle was an essentially healthy boy whom Suzanne had murdered.
'They told me again and again, "You did it, you did it",' says Suzanne. 'They were so wrong. Look at his drooping eye.'
On March, 15, 2003 - more than a year before he died - Kyle was taken to hospital with an injury to that eye.
On that very day, Lee had noticed Clare Fisher cradling her injured son outside her house in Troutpool Close, Hartlepool. She explained that he had fallen from his pram onto a spike from a fireguard. His eye socket was filling with blood.
It was patched up, but months later when Kyle's eye began to droop, he was taken back to the James Cook hospital in Hartlepool, and in February 2004 he was seen by face surgeon Professor Brian Avery and brain surgeon Sid Marks.
They carried out brain scans, found a hole in the eye socket through which the brain was squeezing 'like toothpaste through the tube' and planned to operate on him. This should have been crucial evidence in the investigation. But Cleveland Police never took statements from the two surgeons.
Suzanne is livid about what appears to be a gross lapse of normal police procedure: 'The drooping eye should have been investigated properly by the police,' she says.
'Kyle died of a head injury. The droopy eye was a head injury.'
What angered Suzanne and Lee most, though, was that her own defence team didn't call a single defence expert at her first trial.
Finally, a free woman
After Suzanne was convicted, Lee - who never doubted her innocence - found a new defence solicitor, Campbell Malone. He helped free wrongly convicted Stefan Kiszko, who spent 16 years in prison for the murder of schoolgirl Lesley Molseed.
Malone contacted me and we set about gathering the evidence that would help clear Suzanne's name. Malone found three experts on human brain disorders.
Dr Waney Squier, a neuropathologist at Oxford University, was the first to identify that Kyle was in danger of suffering fits from his brain abnormalities and his injury, and the conviction against Suzanne could be a miscarriage of justice.
Last December, while Suzanne was still in prison, Dr Squier told BBC's Newsnight programme that Kyle had 'abnormalities in his brain that would predispose him to having seizures. And seizures can kill.'
After the second trial, expert for the defence Bill Dobyns, professor of neurology, paediatrics and genetics at Chicago University, told me: 'It's almost embarrassing the number of medical factors they (the police and prosecution) first completely missed, and when I and other defence witnesses pointed out, they then ignored.'
On top of this, there is also the ordinary evidence of Suzanne's character. Trusted by friends and family as a babysitter, Suzanne was said to be 'very good with children'.
Even Kyle's father - who had long since split with Kyle's mother - believed her to be innocent.
But the same could not be said for the character of Kyle's own mother. One woman juror at the second trial was seen holding her hand in front of her mouth in horror as the court watched a video of Clare Fisher's house: clothes strewn about, objects were lying around, and Kyle's bedroom looked like a junkyard, with a broken cot on the floor.
Judge Grigson at the first trial told the jury that the house had been described as a 's***-pit'.
Clare even admitted at the second trial that she had been a negligent, 'home-alone' mother.
Four nights before he died, she had locked Kyle in a bedroom by blocking the door with a broom handle and tying it with a belt, before going out clubbing.
A neighbour heard Kyle crying and called the police. Suzanne only realised what had happened afterwards, but says Clare asked her to cover up and say she had been with Kyle that night to stop Clare getting into trouble. Suzanne agreed to help her friend and neighbour.
'I was wrong to cover up for Clare,' says Suzanne. 'I told a white lie - but the prosecution made it much darker. I ended up paying for it for three years inside.'
Another issue at both trials was unexplained bruising on Kyle's head. Both babysitter and mother deny causing the bruising.
Another expert, Professor Renzo Guerrini from the University of Florence, gave evidence that it could have been caused by Kyle himself, banging his own head in an unseen fit. And if the bruising had been caused by one of the two women, then which one?
As Suzanne adjusts to life back with her family, Cleveland Police have announced they will not be apologising for what they describe as a 'thorough, diligent and professional investigation'.
Chief Constable Sean Price says: 'I can't criticise my officers for doing their job. The reason we have jury trials is so they can decide when they have heard all the facts.
'I don't really have any intention of speaking to Suzanne Holdsworth, and she probably just wants to be allowed to get on with things now.'
Suzanne and Lee are naturally disappointed, but not surprised, at the police's reaction.
'I spent three years in prison for a murder that didn't happen so the chief constable is wrong,' says Suzanne.
'I'll never forget Kyle. I loved him very much, but it is utterly wrong that I have had to suffer, too, for something I haven't done. Yes, I'm thankful to be free, but an apology is something I would like very much.'"
Harold Levy...hlevy15@gmail.com;
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Suzanne Holdsworth's account appeared under the heading, "Justice delayed: Kyle's babysitter spent three years in prison for a crime she did not commit," on Saturday December 27, 2008;
A sub-heading indicated that: "Three years ago Suzanne was jailed for a little boy's murder. But a damning investigation by the Mail found police had missed key evidence. Days after being released, she tells her haunting story to the man who helped clear her."
"For Suzanne Holdsworth, the long, dark December nights were always the worst," the story began.
"But then, every minute she spent incarcerated in Low Newton prison, County Durham, was a living nightmare," it continued;
"As the monotonous weeks and months stretched on, she would often sit and wonder how her partner and two daughters were coping without her.
But it was at night, in her sparse, cramped cell, that the 38-year-old mother would lie awake, weeping silent lonely tears and wondering if she would ever spend another Christmas and New Year with her family again.
'Everybody who's got children and who's in prison knows that every day is hell, but birthdays, Christmas Day and New Year's Eve are the worst days of your life,' she says. 'Everyone else is having a happy time with their families, but you are locked inside.
'You can't have visits on Christmas Day: you have phone calls, but only at certain times of the day. All that me and the other girls wanted to do was talk to our children all day.
'But there's nothing you can do but close the door behind you and cry and cry and cry.'
Were Suzanne a cold-blooded killer, or even a part-time petty criminal, it might be hard to feel any sympathy.
But the fact is she was serving a life sentence for a crime she did not commit.
In 2005, she was convicted of the murder of two-year-old Kyle Fisher, the son of a 19-year-old single mother who had left him in her charge. Suzanne has always denied harming the little boy in her care.
She was jailed for life for Kyle's murder. In May this year, however, the Court of Appeal ruled that her conviction was unsafe after new medical evidence emerged suggesting the baby may have died from an epileptic seizure. A retrial was ordered, and at the new trial a jury unanimously found Suzanne not guilty.
Just eight days ago, on December 18, Suzanne was freed. She stood, hand-in-hand with her partner Lee Spencer, on the steps of Teesside Crown Court, enjoying her first taste of freedom in more than 1,000 days.
She is now home, spending Christmas and New Year with Lee and daughters Lesley, 20, and Jamie-Leigh, 14, as well as her new grandson, Matthew.
She falters as she speaks: 'Did I ever think this day would come? No. I thought I would be in prison forever.'
At the time of Kyle's death, police investigating accused Suzanne, from Seacroft, Leeds, of repeatedly smashing his head against a banister in a fit of rage.
'I never harmed him, I loved him,' she said, and certainly it left family and friends bewildered that the woman they called a modern-day Mary Poppins could have any connection to such horror.
But Cleveland police were adamant: Suzanne Holdsworth, a former supermarket shelf-stacker, was a brazen liar and a baby killer.
Only something didn't quite add up. If there was a smashing of Kyle's head into a wooden banister, why was there no sign of impact? No blood, no hair, no traces of Kyle's skin anywhere in Suzanne's house. Why had no DNA test - which could have cleared Suzanne in the first instance - ever been carried out?
'It was horrendous'
Kyle also suffered from myriad problems. First, heterotopia - brain matter in the wrong place, which can cause fits; second, megalencephaly - an abnormally big brain, which can cause fits; third, hydrocephaly - water on the brain, which can also cause fits; fourth, subdural haemorrhage, which can also cause fits.
Fifth, Kyle had been accidentally stabbed in the brain, in someone else's care, a year before he died - a terrible injury that caused his eye to droop as his damaged brain squeezed down 'like toothpaste through the tube'. It was pressing down through a hole in his eye socket onto the back of his eye.
Stabbing, squeezing and scarring of the brain can cause fits, too. And fits can kill.
These five brain disorders, any one of which could trigger an epileptic fit, eluded Cleveland Police's 'relentless investigation'.
So when Suzanne told the first trial jury in 2005 that Kyle had suffered from a fit, no one believed her.
'I remember the verdict coming,' says Suzanne, who even now is traumatised when talking about her ordeal. 'I remember seeing my partner Lee. Next minute, I was in a prison cell with just a bed and a CCTV camera looking at me. It was horrendous. Having no freedom, having people tell you what to do all the time.
Clare Fisher, Kyle's mum, had gone out clubbing and left her son in Suzanne's care
'Missing my two children was the most terrible thing, and to begin with some of the other prisoners called me names: nonce, child killer. It didn't matter that I knew I'd done nothing wrong, no one can ever understand what that feeling is like - to be locked away in such a dreadful place and for murder no less, when you have done nothing wrong.'
Today, as they prepare to welcome in 2009, she and Lee, a lorry driver, want to put the past behind them. But they are angry and bitter at how such a grotesque miscarriage of justice could tear their family apart for over four years.
I first reported on the possibility that Suzanne was in jail thanks to a grotesque miscarriage of justice a year ago for BBC2's Newsnight.
Since 2001, I have helped free or clear the names of eight people who have been wrongly accused of child murder and manslaughter, starting with cot death mothers Sally Clark, who died of grief last year, Angela Cannings and Donna Anthony.
All eight stories are double tragedies: the death of a child compounded by the false conviction of an innocent parent or carer. In seven of the eight cases, police and the courts were misled by rogue experts such as Professor Sir Roy Meadow or disputed scientific theories such as 'shaken baby syndrome'.
I was approached about Suzanne's case by her lawyer, whom I had worked with on previous occasions and court cases. The minute he showed me all the evidence - NOT taken into account by police officers working on the original murder inquiry - it seemed obvious that this was one of the worst miscarriages of justice I had ever encountered.
And it was also deeply troubling because it raises questions about the thoroughness of the original inquiry carried out by Cleveland Police.
It was led by Detective Superintendent Tony Hutchinson, who has since retired.
Hutchinson was Cleveland's bullet-headed super-cop, leading dozens of murder inquiries, who shot to international fame when he nailed missing 'canoe man' John Darwin.
Hutchinson maintained after Suzanne's first trial that she 'must have known very quickly that she had inflicted serious, if not fatal, injuries, and while she called for medical assistance' - the 999 call - 'she also began to manipulate the situation. She very calmly applied her mind as to how she would explain the injury to the authorities.'
Could she really be such a calculating killer, though? Naturally, Suzanne's own version of events - and the 999 call itself, which was broadcast last week for the first time - does not appear to suggest it.
It was late evening on July 21, 2004, when Suzanne was babysitting Kyle because his mother Clare Fisher had gone out clubbing. Suzanne's daughters were with Lee, who was working abroad.
Jon Taylor, Kyle's father, has said he never believed Suzanne was responsible for his son's murder.
Suzanne explains the events of that terrible night: 'Clare came over with Kyle, then went out to a nightclub with a friend. Kyle had his yoghurt and juice and we sat together, watching the reality show Big Brother on TV.
'We were having a lovely evening and then I must have yawned, because Kyle said: "Suzie tired". Then, as he shuffled to get off the sofa, his head went down, in a sort of flopping motion. I moved the coffee table out of the way and his head fell to the floor. I put him down on the sofa and threw water on him, the shock of it should have woken him because he hated water. Nothing. I dialled 999.'
A miscarriage of justice
The emergency call was played in court at Suzanne's trial. In it, clearly panicking, Suzanne describes Kyle as going 'all floppy, he's not breathing, his eyes are rolling and everything' - a classic description of an epileptic fit.
Suzanne is screaming and sobbing so much the operator cannot understand what she is saying, hard to reconcile with Hutchinson's concept of a calm, manipulative mind at work.
Then there is the so-called murder weapon. Andrew Robertson QC, prosecuting, alleged at trial and retrial that Suzanne had smashed Kyle's head against a banister at her house. But nothing was visible on the banister - no dent, no blood, nothing.
At the first trial, Judge Grigson said that the evidence presented by the Crown's forensic expert was of 'breathtaking banality'.
At the second trial, the jury pointedly asked whether Kyle's DNA was on the banister. The answer? No tests had been carried out.
Lee, Suzanne's partner, shakes his head in disbelief, still unable to fathom why the police didn't carry out tests on the banister.
'They didn't do a DNA test on the alleged weapon. I'm no Sherlock Holmes, but what kind of investigation was that?' he says. 'DNA profiling can distinguish between snot, tears, saliva, hair follicles, scalp. Technology can distinguish between all of them, but no DNA test was done.'
Then there is the question of Kyle's general well-being. Cleveland Police said that Kyle was an essentially healthy boy whom Suzanne had murdered.
'They told me again and again, "You did it, you did it",' says Suzanne. 'They were so wrong. Look at his drooping eye.'
On March, 15, 2003 - more than a year before he died - Kyle was taken to hospital with an injury to that eye.
On that very day, Lee had noticed Clare Fisher cradling her injured son outside her house in Troutpool Close, Hartlepool. She explained that he had fallen from his pram onto a spike from a fireguard. His eye socket was filling with blood.
It was patched up, but months later when Kyle's eye began to droop, he was taken back to the James Cook hospital in Hartlepool, and in February 2004 he was seen by face surgeon Professor Brian Avery and brain surgeon Sid Marks.
They carried out brain scans, found a hole in the eye socket through which the brain was squeezing 'like toothpaste through the tube' and planned to operate on him. This should have been crucial evidence in the investigation. But Cleveland Police never took statements from the two surgeons.
Suzanne is livid about what appears to be a gross lapse of normal police procedure: 'The drooping eye should have been investigated properly by the police,' she says.
'Kyle died of a head injury. The droopy eye was a head injury.'
What angered Suzanne and Lee most, though, was that her own defence team didn't call a single defence expert at her first trial.
Finally, a free woman
After Suzanne was convicted, Lee - who never doubted her innocence - found a new defence solicitor, Campbell Malone. He helped free wrongly convicted Stefan Kiszko, who spent 16 years in prison for the murder of schoolgirl Lesley Molseed.
Malone contacted me and we set about gathering the evidence that would help clear Suzanne's name. Malone found three experts on human brain disorders.
Dr Waney Squier, a neuropathologist at Oxford University, was the first to identify that Kyle was in danger of suffering fits from his brain abnormalities and his injury, and the conviction against Suzanne could be a miscarriage of justice.
Last December, while Suzanne was still in prison, Dr Squier told BBC's Newsnight programme that Kyle had 'abnormalities in his brain that would predispose him to having seizures. And seizures can kill.'
After the second trial, expert for the defence Bill Dobyns, professor of neurology, paediatrics and genetics at Chicago University, told me: 'It's almost embarrassing the number of medical factors they (the police and prosecution) first completely missed, and when I and other defence witnesses pointed out, they then ignored.'
On top of this, there is also the ordinary evidence of Suzanne's character. Trusted by friends and family as a babysitter, Suzanne was said to be 'very good with children'.
Even Kyle's father - who had long since split with Kyle's mother - believed her to be innocent.
But the same could not be said for the character of Kyle's own mother. One woman juror at the second trial was seen holding her hand in front of her mouth in horror as the court watched a video of Clare Fisher's house: clothes strewn about, objects were lying around, and Kyle's bedroom looked like a junkyard, with a broken cot on the floor.
Judge Grigson at the first trial told the jury that the house had been described as a 's***-pit'.
Clare even admitted at the second trial that she had been a negligent, 'home-alone' mother.
Four nights before he died, she had locked Kyle in a bedroom by blocking the door with a broom handle and tying it with a belt, before going out clubbing.
A neighbour heard Kyle crying and called the police. Suzanne only realised what had happened afterwards, but says Clare asked her to cover up and say she had been with Kyle that night to stop Clare getting into trouble. Suzanne agreed to help her friend and neighbour.
'I was wrong to cover up for Clare,' says Suzanne. 'I told a white lie - but the prosecution made it much darker. I ended up paying for it for three years inside.'
Another issue at both trials was unexplained bruising on Kyle's head. Both babysitter and mother deny causing the bruising.
Another expert, Professor Renzo Guerrini from the University of Florence, gave evidence that it could have been caused by Kyle himself, banging his own head in an unseen fit. And if the bruising had been caused by one of the two women, then which one?
As Suzanne adjusts to life back with her family, Cleveland Police have announced they will not be apologising for what they describe as a 'thorough, diligent and professional investigation'.
Chief Constable Sean Price says: 'I can't criticise my officers for doing their job. The reason we have jury trials is so they can decide when they have heard all the facts.
'I don't really have any intention of speaking to Suzanne Holdsworth, and she probably just wants to be allowed to get on with things now.'
Suzanne and Lee are naturally disappointed, but not surprised, at the police's reaction.
'I spent three years in prison for a murder that didn't happen so the chief constable is wrong,' says Suzanne.
'I'll never forget Kyle. I loved him very much, but it is utterly wrong that I have had to suffer, too, for something I haven't done. Yes, I'm thankful to be free, but an apology is something I would like very much.'"
Harold Levy...hlevy15@gmail.com;
Monday, December 22, 2008
SUZANNE HOLDSWORTH RETRIAL; PART TWENTY-EIGHT; WHAT THE CHIEF CONSTABLE SHOULD HAVE SAID;
I felt a sense of deja vue when I read Chief Constable Sean Price's unabashed defence of his police force; We just did our job; it was the prosecutor's job to pursue the case; The Appeal Court set things straight; The system worked as it should have... yada yada yada and so forth;
Here is what I would have preferred to hear Chief Constable Price say:
"Let me begin by extending my personal apology - and that of the police force I head - to Ms. Holdsworth. The spectre of a miscarriage of justice is an anathema to any professional police force. It is anathema to us. We deeply regret the loss of freedom, damage to reputation, and horrific tension and anxiety that Ms. Holdsworth has been exposed to as a result of our inadequate investigation; If there is any consolation for her, it is that this police force plans to learn as much as we can from her bitter experience. For a start, we have learned that the death's of infants are extremely different physiologically from those of adults and must be approached by police and coroners in a very different way. We made a very serious error when we abandoned our traditional investigative approach -which should have involved intensive examination at the scene for DNA and other forensic evidence - because of our reliance on "experts." In short, we passed the buck to them - and the result is there for all to see. Without minimizing our failings, I think it is imperative that all actors in our criminal justice system - and that includes prosecutors, defence lawyer's and judges, be made aware through education of the very special attributes of these cases - and the importance of obtaining well-grounded, unbiased, medical opinions to assist the court. Ms. Holdsworth's case should have been screened by a committee of specially trained prosecutors before a charge was laid. Opinions should have been obtained from a balance spectrum of appropriately experienced specialists; The judge should have been required to warn the jurors of the danger of attaching too much weight to the expert opinion testimony - as opposed to considering the real, tangible - or lack of tangible evidence in the case. Not surprisingly, there have been calls for a public inquiry. I personally would welcome such a hearing as an opportunity for all of us to learn from our mistakes - and not merely to hide from them, or from the spectre of a civil lawsuit. We will certainly hold our own inquest into our investigation and make the results known to the public because we want to restore public confidence in our force; Yes, we did our job. But we did not do it well enough, and not nearly in the professional way that the public, including Ms. Holdsworth, demands and deserves. Ms. Holdsworth I do hope you will agree to talk with us - and help our educational process. Once again. We are sorry Ms. Holdsworth. Deeply sorry, and committed to doing a far better professional job. Thank you very much;
Harold Levy...hlevy15@gmail.com;
Here is what I would have preferred to hear Chief Constable Price say:
"Let me begin by extending my personal apology - and that of the police force I head - to Ms. Holdsworth. The spectre of a miscarriage of justice is an anathema to any professional police force. It is anathema to us. We deeply regret the loss of freedom, damage to reputation, and horrific tension and anxiety that Ms. Holdsworth has been exposed to as a result of our inadequate investigation; If there is any consolation for her, it is that this police force plans to learn as much as we can from her bitter experience. For a start, we have learned that the death's of infants are extremely different physiologically from those of adults and must be approached by police and coroners in a very different way. We made a very serious error when we abandoned our traditional investigative approach -which should have involved intensive examination at the scene for DNA and other forensic evidence - because of our reliance on "experts." In short, we passed the buck to them - and the result is there for all to see. Without minimizing our failings, I think it is imperative that all actors in our criminal justice system - and that includes prosecutors, defence lawyer's and judges, be made aware through education of the very special attributes of these cases - and the importance of obtaining well-grounded, unbiased, medical opinions to assist the court. Ms. Holdsworth's case should have been screened by a committee of specially trained prosecutors before a charge was laid. Opinions should have been obtained from a balance spectrum of appropriately experienced specialists; The judge should have been required to warn the jurors of the danger of attaching too much weight to the expert opinion testimony - as opposed to considering the real, tangible - or lack of tangible evidence in the case. Not surprisingly, there have been calls for a public inquiry. I personally would welcome such a hearing as an opportunity for all of us to learn from our mistakes - and not merely to hide from them, or from the spectre of a civil lawsuit. We will certainly hold our own inquest into our investigation and make the results known to the public because we want to restore public confidence in our force; Yes, we did our job. But we did not do it well enough, and not nearly in the professional way that the public, including Ms. Holdsworth, demands and deserves. Ms. Holdsworth I do hope you will agree to talk with us - and help our educational process. Once again. We are sorry Ms. Holdsworth. Deeply sorry, and committed to doing a far better professional job. Thank you very much;
Harold Levy...hlevy15@gmail.com;
Saturday, December 20, 2008
SUZANNE HOLDSWORTH RETRIAL; PART TWENTY-SEVEN; THE POLICE RESPONSE: (SHOCK, SHOCK!) "MY OFFICERS WERE ONLY DOING THEIR JOB";
"THE Chief Constable of Cleveland Police last night defended his force for taking the Suzanne Holdsworth case to trial," a news report by reporter Dani Webb, published on December 20, 2008. begins;
"Sean Price spoke out after the BBC’s Newsnight programme on Thursday night criticised the people working on the case of the Hartlepool babysitter," the report continues;
"Miss Holdsworth was cleared of murdering twoyear- old Kyle Fisher at her home in 2004, by a jury at Teesside Crown Court.
It was the second time she had been tried for his murder after the Appeal Court overturned her first conviction when her legal team proved they had new medical evidence showing the toddler had brain abnormalities.
Mr Price said: “Cleveland Police were a little disappointed at the one-sided nature of the presentation in the programme. There were a number of issues we spoke to Newsnight about earlier in the week.
Nonetheless, they went ahead unchanged.
“In order to get to court, we have to go through the Crown Prosecution Service.
We gather the evidence, we don’t decide if it should go to court.
“Newsnight said we did not look at pre-existing conditions, that is completely untrue. The Home Office pathologist works out the cause of death and anything that may have caused it.
“Our inquiries go from there.
“The pathologist was very clear with the injuries and he had full knowledge of his medical records and pre-existing conditions. It was a very tragic death.”
Mother-of-two Miss Holdsworth was accused of repeatedly ramming Kyle’s head into the banister at her home in Mill Close, Hartlepool.
However, she always maintained that she did not harm him and said he appeared to have an epileptic fit before falling unconscious.
Cleveland Police say the pathologist died before the appeal hearing and the retrial, so for that reason they could not contradict the evidence given by experts by the defence.
Mr Price said: “Medical evidence was the key part of the first trial. We investigated this case like we would any other.
“I can’t criticise my officers for doing their job. The reason we have jury trials is so they can decide when they have heard all the facts.”
Mr Price said there were no plans by Cleveland Police to reopen the case at the present time.
He said he could understand if people had concerns, but that they would continue to investigate cases properly.
He said that Miss Holdsworth would not be getting an apology.
“I don’t really have any intention of speaking to Suzanne Holdsworth and she probably just wants to be allowed to get on with things now,” he said.
A spokeswoman for the BBC said: “We gave Cleveland Police the opportunity to be interviewed or give a statement and this was reflected in the piece.”"
Harold Levy...hlevy15@gmail.com;
"Sean Price spoke out after the BBC’s Newsnight programme on Thursday night criticised the people working on the case of the Hartlepool babysitter," the report continues;
"Miss Holdsworth was cleared of murdering twoyear- old Kyle Fisher at her home in 2004, by a jury at Teesside Crown Court.
It was the second time she had been tried for his murder after the Appeal Court overturned her first conviction when her legal team proved they had new medical evidence showing the toddler had brain abnormalities.
Mr Price said: “Cleveland Police were a little disappointed at the one-sided nature of the presentation in the programme. There were a number of issues we spoke to Newsnight about earlier in the week.
Nonetheless, they went ahead unchanged.
“In order to get to court, we have to go through the Crown Prosecution Service.
We gather the evidence, we don’t decide if it should go to court.
“Newsnight said we did not look at pre-existing conditions, that is completely untrue. The Home Office pathologist works out the cause of death and anything that may have caused it.
“Our inquiries go from there.
“The pathologist was very clear with the injuries and he had full knowledge of his medical records and pre-existing conditions. It was a very tragic death.”
Mother-of-two Miss Holdsworth was accused of repeatedly ramming Kyle’s head into the banister at her home in Mill Close, Hartlepool.
However, she always maintained that she did not harm him and said he appeared to have an epileptic fit before falling unconscious.
Cleveland Police say the pathologist died before the appeal hearing and the retrial, so for that reason they could not contradict the evidence given by experts by the defence.
Mr Price said: “Medical evidence was the key part of the first trial. We investigated this case like we would any other.
“I can’t criticise my officers for doing their job. The reason we have jury trials is so they can decide when they have heard all the facts.”
Mr Price said there were no plans by Cleveland Police to reopen the case at the present time.
He said he could understand if people had concerns, but that they would continue to investigate cases properly.
He said that Miss Holdsworth would not be getting an apology.
“I don’t really have any intention of speaking to Suzanne Holdsworth and she probably just wants to be allowed to get on with things now,” he said.
A spokeswoman for the BBC said: “We gave Cleveland Police the opportunity to be interviewed or give a statement and this was reflected in the piece.”"
Harold Levy...hlevy15@gmail.com;
SUZANNE HOLDSWORTH RETRIAL: (PART 26); CONNECTIONS MADE BETWEEN HOLDSWORTH AND STAGG CASES; FORENSIC FAILURES; BLACK MARKS IN BRITISH POLICING;
BACKGROUND:
Babysitter Suzanne Holdsworth, who was previously found guilty of murdering her neighbour's two-year-old son by repeatedly banging the boy's head against a wooden banister, won an appeal against her conviction. She was granted bail after Court of Appeal Judges declared her conviction for the murder of a toddler "unsafe" in the light of new medical evidence.
Acting for Suzanne, Henry Blaxland QC of Garden Court's Crime team argued that new evidence showed she was the victim of a miscarriage of justice over the death of the two-year old boy. The Court of Appeal was told that they child had abnormalities which predisposed him to epilepsy.
Henry Blaxland QC said that the doctors who gave evidence at trial "got it wrong" and "collectively failed to diagnose" that the Kyle had a "highly unusual brain", which indicated three abnormalities, two of which predisposed him to epilepsy."
Henry Blaxland QC also stated that the prosecution's case at trial 'was based on expert medical opinion evidence to the effect that the child died from fatal brain swelling or oedema which was caused by a blow or blows of significant force.'
A jury was told in 2005 that the mum-of-two smashed the toddler’s head against a bannister with the force of “a car crash at 60mph," Yet Kyles's skull was unbroken and there was no evidence of hair, blood or tissue on the wood.
One of the experts who provided fresh evidence on behalf of the defence at Holdsworth's second trial, was forensic pathologist Dr. Christopher Millroy who participated in the Ontario Chief Coroner's Review of suspicious death of infant's cases involving Dr. Charles Smith and later testified at the recently concluded Goudge Inquiry;
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There appears to be increasing recognition that the Holdsworth and Stagg cases - two black marks in British policing - are linked by incompetent police forensic work.
The link becomes apparent in reactions to a "leading article" published in the Independent on December 19, 2008, under the heading, "An incompetent police force."
"Robert Napper's guilty plea to manslaughter yesterday at the Old Bailey should have been an occasion for grim satisfaction," the leading article begins.
"A triple killer and serial rapist has been convicted, and he will be detailed indefinitely at Broadmoor hospital," it continues;
"But the primary emotion this outcome inspires is not satisfaction but revulsion at the incompetence and carelessness of police.
The investigation into the killing of Rachel Nickell, who was stabbed to death on Wimbledon Common in 1992, and which Napper finally admitted yesterday, was botched from the start.
The Metropolitan Police placed huge confidence in the judgement of a hired psychologist and went after a local oddball, Colin Stagg – apparently ignoring the possibility that they might have arrested the wrong man.
Officers went to extraordinary lengths to pin the crime on Stagg, resorting to constant surveillance and, as it turned out, illegal entrapment methods.
Meanwhile, the real killer, Napper, went on to murder Samantha Bissett, 27, and her four-year-old daughter, Jazmine, the following year.
Police had already missed several chances to bring Napper to justice even before the Nickell killing.
They failed to question him after his mother rang them in 1989 to say her son had confessed to a rape.
He was also questioned after a spate of sex attacks across south-east London in 1992, but was eliminated from the inquiries because of sloppy detective work.
Sadly, the incompetence did not end there.
Advances in forensic science should have been used by police to re-examine the DNA samples from the Nickell case.
It never happened.
It took a private forensic laboratory to look at the data again and link Napper to the killing.
There will doubtless be those tempted to cite yesterday's belated admission by Napper as a reason to ignore concerns about the headlong expansion of the national DNA database.
In fact, this sorry affair supports the opposite case.
It is when police fail to carry out basic detective work and rely heavily on new-fangled techniques that truly dangerous individuals are left at liberty.
The failure to catch Robert Napper earlier is not an argument for a police state – it is an argument for a competent police force."
And now for the link:
As one reader commented in a letter to the Independent:
"The police tell us there is no need for an inquiry because they have already learned from this case. Just as they have learned from the Birmingham Six, the Guildford Four, the Yorkshire Ripper, the Carl Bridgewater case, Evans and Christie, Bentley and Craig, Sally Clark - and that's a just a few of the most well known miscarriages of justice.
And will they learn anything from the Suzanne Holdsworth case? I don't think so: they have already refused to give the woman an apology.
To be sure, there are still many good coppers striving to do the right thing, but sadly the shallow political environment which they find themselves values quantity over quality. Hence lots of easy nicks with cameras, taking fines off harmless folk by post, and a lot less integrity and hard work."
Another reader pointed out to the Independent that the very same paper reporting the Stagg case contained a story in which, "the Cleveland Police are said to have failed in the case of the babysitter who was accused banging the baby's head against a wooden banister despite complete lack of forensic evidence...Time for root-and-branch reform."
Harold Levy...hlevy15@gmail.com...
Babysitter Suzanne Holdsworth, who was previously found guilty of murdering her neighbour's two-year-old son by repeatedly banging the boy's head against a wooden banister, won an appeal against her conviction. She was granted bail after Court of Appeal Judges declared her conviction for the murder of a toddler "unsafe" in the light of new medical evidence.
Acting for Suzanne, Henry Blaxland QC of Garden Court's Crime team argued that new evidence showed she was the victim of a miscarriage of justice over the death of the two-year old boy. The Court of Appeal was told that they child had abnormalities which predisposed him to epilepsy.
Henry Blaxland QC said that the doctors who gave evidence at trial "got it wrong" and "collectively failed to diagnose" that the Kyle had a "highly unusual brain", which indicated three abnormalities, two of which predisposed him to epilepsy."
Henry Blaxland QC also stated that the prosecution's case at trial 'was based on expert medical opinion evidence to the effect that the child died from fatal brain swelling or oedema which was caused by a blow or blows of significant force.'
A jury was told in 2005 that the mum-of-two smashed the toddler’s head against a bannister with the force of “a car crash at 60mph," Yet Kyles's skull was unbroken and there was no evidence of hair, blood or tissue on the wood.
One of the experts who provided fresh evidence on behalf of the defence at Holdsworth's second trial, was forensic pathologist Dr. Christopher Millroy who participated in the Ontario Chief Coroner's Review of suspicious death of infant's cases involving Dr. Charles Smith and later testified at the recently concluded Goudge Inquiry;
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There appears to be increasing recognition that the Holdsworth and Stagg cases - two black marks in British policing - are linked by incompetent police forensic work.
The link becomes apparent in reactions to a "leading article" published in the Independent on December 19, 2008, under the heading, "An incompetent police force."
"Robert Napper's guilty plea to manslaughter yesterday at the Old Bailey should have been an occasion for grim satisfaction," the leading article begins.
"A triple killer and serial rapist has been convicted, and he will be detailed indefinitely at Broadmoor hospital," it continues;
"But the primary emotion this outcome inspires is not satisfaction but revulsion at the incompetence and carelessness of police.
The investigation into the killing of Rachel Nickell, who was stabbed to death on Wimbledon Common in 1992, and which Napper finally admitted yesterday, was botched from the start.
The Metropolitan Police placed huge confidence in the judgement of a hired psychologist and went after a local oddball, Colin Stagg – apparently ignoring the possibility that they might have arrested the wrong man.
Officers went to extraordinary lengths to pin the crime on Stagg, resorting to constant surveillance and, as it turned out, illegal entrapment methods.
Meanwhile, the real killer, Napper, went on to murder Samantha Bissett, 27, and her four-year-old daughter, Jazmine, the following year.
Police had already missed several chances to bring Napper to justice even before the Nickell killing.
They failed to question him after his mother rang them in 1989 to say her son had confessed to a rape.
He was also questioned after a spate of sex attacks across south-east London in 1992, but was eliminated from the inquiries because of sloppy detective work.
Sadly, the incompetence did not end there.
Advances in forensic science should have been used by police to re-examine the DNA samples from the Nickell case.
It never happened.
It took a private forensic laboratory to look at the data again and link Napper to the killing.
There will doubtless be those tempted to cite yesterday's belated admission by Napper as a reason to ignore concerns about the headlong expansion of the national DNA database.
In fact, this sorry affair supports the opposite case.
It is when police fail to carry out basic detective work and rely heavily on new-fangled techniques that truly dangerous individuals are left at liberty.
The failure to catch Robert Napper earlier is not an argument for a police state – it is an argument for a competent police force."
And now for the link:
As one reader commented in a letter to the Independent:
"The police tell us there is no need for an inquiry because they have already learned from this case. Just as they have learned from the Birmingham Six, the Guildford Four, the Yorkshire Ripper, the Carl Bridgewater case, Evans and Christie, Bentley and Craig, Sally Clark - and that's a just a few of the most well known miscarriages of justice.
And will they learn anything from the Suzanne Holdsworth case? I don't think so: they have already refused to give the woman an apology.
To be sure, there are still many good coppers striving to do the right thing, but sadly the shallow political environment which they find themselves values quantity over quality. Hence lots of easy nicks with cameras, taking fines off harmless folk by post, and a lot less integrity and hard work."
Another reader pointed out to the Independent that the very same paper reporting the Stagg case contained a story in which, "the Cleveland Police are said to have failed in the case of the babysitter who was accused banging the baby's head against a wooden banister despite complete lack of forensic evidence...Time for root-and-branch reform."
Harold Levy...hlevy15@gmail.com...
SUZANNE HOLDSWORTH RETRIAL: PART TWENTY-FIVE; A USEFUL TIMELINE; THE HARTLEPOOL MALL;
BACKGROUND:
Babysitter Suzanne Holdsworth, who was previously found guilty of murdering her neighbour's two-year-old son by repeatedly banging the boy's head against a wooden banister, won an appeal against her conviction. She was granted bail after Court of Appeal Judges declared her conviction for the murder of a toddler "unsafe" in the light of new medical evidence.
Acting for Suzanne, Henry Blaxland QC of Garden Court's Crime team argued that new evidence showed she was the victim of a miscarriage of justice over the death of the two-year old boy. The Court of Appeal was told that they child had abnormalities which predisposed him to epilepsy.
Henry Blaxland QC said that the doctors who gave evidence at trial "got it wrong" and "collectively failed to diagnose" that the Kyle had a "highly unusual brain", which indicated three abnormalities, two of which predisposed him to epilepsy."
Henry Blaxland QC also stated that the prosecution's case at trial 'was based on expert medical opinion evidence to the effect that the child died from fatal brain swelling or oedema which was caused by a blow or blows of significant force.'
A jury was told in 2005 that the mum-of-two smashed the toddler’s head against a bannister with the force of “a car crash at 60mph," Yet Kyles's skull was unbroken and there was no evidence of hair, blood or tissue on the wood.
One of the experts who provided fresh evidence on behalf of the defence at Holdsworth's second trial, was forensic pathologist Dr. Christopher Millroy who participated in the Ontario Chief Coroner's Review of suspicious death of infant's cases involving Dr. Charles Smith and later testified at the recently concluded Goudge Inquiry;
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following timeline - published on December 20, 2008, will help readers appreciate the evolution of the Holdsworth case;
2004
July 20: Suzanne Holdsworth babysits Kyle Fisher for the first of two consecutive evenings.
July 21: Kyle collapses at the babysitter's home in Millpool Close and is rushed to hospital.
July 22: The still unconscious youngster is transferred to Newcastle General Hospital with severe swelling of the brain.
July 23: Treatment is stopped after Kyle is pronounced brain dead with no hope of recovering.
July 24: Both Suzanne Holdsworth and Kyle's mother Clare Fisher are quizzed by police investigating the death.
July 27: Police announce the death is being treated as murder.
August 17: Suzanne Holdsworth arrested by police on suspicion of murder.
August 18: She is charged with murder and appears at Hartlepool Magistrates Court and bailed to live at an address in her native Leeds.
November 14: Kyle's family hold a memorial service for what would have been his third birthday.
December 3: Kyle's funeral is held.
2005
February 22: Suzanne Holdsworth goes on trial at Teesside Crown Court.
March 8: She collapses in the dock after being found guilty by a unanimous verdict and jailed for life with a minimum 10-year tariff.
2008
April 21: Appeal hearing at the Royal Courts of Justice, in London, after new medical evidence casts doubt on the conviction.
April 25: Appeal Court judges reserve their decision after a four-day hearing.
May 1: The murder conviction is quashed and a re-trial is ordered.
May 2: Suzanne Holdsworth is released from prison and returns to live in her native Leeds.
June 6: She appears at Leeds Crown Court charged with murder and her bail is extended.
December 1: Re-trial starts at Teesside Crown Court.
December 18: Suzanne Holdsworth walks free after being cleared by the jury.
Harold Levy...hlevy15@gmail.com;
Babysitter Suzanne Holdsworth, who was previously found guilty of murdering her neighbour's two-year-old son by repeatedly banging the boy's head against a wooden banister, won an appeal against her conviction. She was granted bail after Court of Appeal Judges declared her conviction for the murder of a toddler "unsafe" in the light of new medical evidence.
Acting for Suzanne, Henry Blaxland QC of Garden Court's Crime team argued that new evidence showed she was the victim of a miscarriage of justice over the death of the two-year old boy. The Court of Appeal was told that they child had abnormalities which predisposed him to epilepsy.
Henry Blaxland QC said that the doctors who gave evidence at trial "got it wrong" and "collectively failed to diagnose" that the Kyle had a "highly unusual brain", which indicated three abnormalities, two of which predisposed him to epilepsy."
Henry Blaxland QC also stated that the prosecution's case at trial 'was based on expert medical opinion evidence to the effect that the child died from fatal brain swelling or oedema which was caused by a blow or blows of significant force.'
A jury was told in 2005 that the mum-of-two smashed the toddler’s head against a bannister with the force of “a car crash at 60mph," Yet Kyles's skull was unbroken and there was no evidence of hair, blood or tissue on the wood.
One of the experts who provided fresh evidence on behalf of the defence at Holdsworth's second trial, was forensic pathologist Dr. Christopher Millroy who participated in the Ontario Chief Coroner's Review of suspicious death of infant's cases involving Dr. Charles Smith and later testified at the recently concluded Goudge Inquiry;
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following timeline - published on December 20, 2008, will help readers appreciate the evolution of the Holdsworth case;
2004
July 20: Suzanne Holdsworth babysits Kyle Fisher for the first of two consecutive evenings.
July 21: Kyle collapses at the babysitter's home in Millpool Close and is rushed to hospital.
July 22: The still unconscious youngster is transferred to Newcastle General Hospital with severe swelling of the brain.
July 23: Treatment is stopped after Kyle is pronounced brain dead with no hope of recovering.
July 24: Both Suzanne Holdsworth and Kyle's mother Clare Fisher are quizzed by police investigating the death.
July 27: Police announce the death is being treated as murder.
August 17: Suzanne Holdsworth arrested by police on suspicion of murder.
August 18: She is charged with murder and appears at Hartlepool Magistrates Court and bailed to live at an address in her native Leeds.
November 14: Kyle's family hold a memorial service for what would have been his third birthday.
December 3: Kyle's funeral is held.
2005
February 22: Suzanne Holdsworth goes on trial at Teesside Crown Court.
March 8: She collapses in the dock after being found guilty by a unanimous verdict and jailed for life with a minimum 10-year tariff.
2008
April 21: Appeal hearing at the Royal Courts of Justice, in London, after new medical evidence casts doubt on the conviction.
April 25: Appeal Court judges reserve their decision after a four-day hearing.
May 1: The murder conviction is quashed and a re-trial is ordered.
May 2: Suzanne Holdsworth is released from prison and returns to live in her native Leeds.
June 6: She appears at Leeds Crown Court charged with murder and her bail is extended.
December 1: Re-trial starts at Teesside Crown Court.
December 18: Suzanne Holdsworth walks free after being cleared by the jury.
Harold Levy...hlevy15@gmail.com;
SUZANNE HOLDSWORTH RETRIAL: PART TWENTY-FOUR; AN INNOCENT WOMAN'S JAIL TORMENT: BBC INTERVIEW;
BACKGROUND:
Babysitter Suzanne Holdsworth, who was previously found guilty of murdering her neighbour's two-year-old son by repeatedly banging the boy's head against a wooden banister, won an appeal against her conviction. She was granted bail after Court of Appeal Judges declared her conviction for the murder of a toddler "unsafe" in the light of new medical evidence.
Acting for Suzanne, Henry Blaxland QC of Garden Court's Crime team argued that new evidence showed she was the victim of a miscarriage of justice over the death of the two-year old boy. The Court of Appeal was told that they child had abnormalities which predisposed him to epilepsy.
Henry Blaxland QC said that the doctors who gave evidence at trial "got it wrong" and "collectively failed to diagnose" that the Kyle had a "highly unusual brain", which indicated three abnormalities, two of which predisposed him to epilepsy."
Henry Blaxland QC also stated that the prosecution's case at trial 'was based on expert medical opinion evidence to the effect that the child died from fatal brain swelling or oedema which was caused by a blow or blows of significant force.'
A jury was told in 2005 that the mum-of-two smashed the toddler’s head against a bannister with the force of “a car crash at 60mph," Yet Kyles's skull was unbroken and there was no evidence of hair, blood or tissue on the wood.
One of the experts who provided fresh evidence on behalf of the defence at Holdsworth's second trial, was forensic pathologist Dr. Christopher Millroy who participated in the Ontario Chief Coroner's Review of suspicious death of infant's cases involving Dr. Charles Smith and later testified at the recently concluded Goudge Inquiry;
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Suzanne Holdsworth described the torment she experienced in prison in an interview with the BBC which appeared on December 18, 2008 under the heading, "Freed babysitter's jail torment."
"Suzanne Holdsworth was called a "nonce" in prison," the story began;
"From the moment she was convicted of child murder babysitter Suzanne Holdsworth was mentally abused and taunted in jail," it continued;
"But the 38-year-old does not blame her fellow inmates for their treatment of her during the three years she was locked up for the killing of two-year-old Kyle Fisher.
Speaking to the BBC by telephone from prison, she said: "When I went in I was abused and called a 'nonce'.
"I would go back to my cell and cry and cry and cry.
"But I can't fault people, I would have been exactly the same. They thought I was a murderer.
"But I was innocent and had done nothing wrong."
Ms Holdsworth's nightmare began in 2004 when she was looking after Kyle, the son of her teenage neighbour Clare Fisher.
Ms Holdsworth was caring for him at her home in Hartlepool when he suffered a fit.
During her 999 call she said the youngster's eyes were rolling and he had gone floppy.
But the police insisted the former supermarket worker had battered Kyle's head against the banister in her home in Millpool Close in a bout of rage.
In March 2005, a jury agreed with the prosecution case and Ms Holdsworth was given a life sentence and told she would spend at least 10 years behind bars.
But according to experts for the defence the case against her was deeply flawed.
During the retrial Professor Bill Dobyns, of the Department of Human Genetics at Chicago University, condemned the investigation.
Prof Dobyns, who has been studying the brains of young children for 25 years, said the medical evidence did not support a murder charge and trying someone for killing the toddler was "embarrassing".
He said Kyle was vulnerable with complex developmental problems.
'Patently ridiculous'
He had water on his brain, a brain that was a lot larger that normal and had many abnormal cells. He was also predisposed to epilepsy.
Prof Dobyns said that the "mild to moderate" bruises on Kyle's face were just not consistent with him suffering a severe head injury.
There were no obvious signs of injury and little doubt he had a fit
Prof Dobyns
He said: "It is patently ridiculous - the prosecution clearly did not look at this boy in any way, shape or form.
"Then when the developmental disorders were discovered they were ignored by the prosecution.
"There were so many other features here that were not consistent with a severe blow to the head.
"It was almost embarrassing - it seemed a difficult case, but in fact it wasn't - there were clues up front that could have been looked at and led to further studies.
"There was an embarrassingly poor evaluation of evidence by the prosecution."
In Prof Dobyn's opinion, Kyle died of water on the brain and an epileptic fit.
He added: "This was a perfect storm of unfavourable events - anything is possible but there is a more reasonable explanation.
"There were no obvious signs of injury and little doubt he had a fit."
Kyle Fisher had suffered a head injury that left him with a drooping eye
Throughout Ms Holdsworth's trial, the most common picture shown of the little boy shows a beaming Kyle with a prominently drooping right eye.
This was triggered by a fall some months previous to his death during which he fractured his eye socket.
Behind the eye there was a hole the size of a coin and he was due to have an operation.
According to the prosecution the long-standing injury had nothing to do with his death.
But according to Prof Dobyns: "Kyle Fisher was never a normal boy.
"He was walking and talking, but part of his brain was hanging down into his eye socket. He was vulnerable to medical complications."
Crucially, according to the defence, no evidence was found to prove the boy's head had been battered against the banister.
'No murderer'
No hair, tissue or blood was found, not even a dent in the wood, according to Neil Garton, a forensic scientist.
Ms Holdsworth's partner Lee Spencer has never doubted her innocence.
He said: "I've known Suzanne for 18 years of my life and she is no murderer.
"If I thought she could ever snap in the way that they say she did, she would never be near my children."
Even Kyle's father, John Taylor, is still bewildered that she was ever convicted in the first place, and believes she was in the wrong place at the wrong time."
He said: "It just happened to be that she was babysitting.
"I could have been babysitting that night and could have been the one who was sent to prison.""
Harold Levy...hlevy15@gmail.com;
Babysitter Suzanne Holdsworth, who was previously found guilty of murdering her neighbour's two-year-old son by repeatedly banging the boy's head against a wooden banister, won an appeal against her conviction. She was granted bail after Court of Appeal Judges declared her conviction for the murder of a toddler "unsafe" in the light of new medical evidence.
Acting for Suzanne, Henry Blaxland QC of Garden Court's Crime team argued that new evidence showed she was the victim of a miscarriage of justice over the death of the two-year old boy. The Court of Appeal was told that they child had abnormalities which predisposed him to epilepsy.
Henry Blaxland QC said that the doctors who gave evidence at trial "got it wrong" and "collectively failed to diagnose" that the Kyle had a "highly unusual brain", which indicated three abnormalities, two of which predisposed him to epilepsy."
Henry Blaxland QC also stated that the prosecution's case at trial 'was based on expert medical opinion evidence to the effect that the child died from fatal brain swelling or oedema which was caused by a blow or blows of significant force.'
A jury was told in 2005 that the mum-of-two smashed the toddler’s head against a bannister with the force of “a car crash at 60mph," Yet Kyles's skull was unbroken and there was no evidence of hair, blood or tissue on the wood.
One of the experts who provided fresh evidence on behalf of the defence at Holdsworth's second trial, was forensic pathologist Dr. Christopher Millroy who participated in the Ontario Chief Coroner's Review of suspicious death of infant's cases involving Dr. Charles Smith and later testified at the recently concluded Goudge Inquiry;
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Suzanne Holdsworth described the torment she experienced in prison in an interview with the BBC which appeared on December 18, 2008 under the heading, "Freed babysitter's jail torment."
"Suzanne Holdsworth was called a "nonce" in prison," the story began;
"From the moment she was convicted of child murder babysitter Suzanne Holdsworth was mentally abused and taunted in jail," it continued;
"But the 38-year-old does not blame her fellow inmates for their treatment of her during the three years she was locked up for the killing of two-year-old Kyle Fisher.
Speaking to the BBC by telephone from prison, she said: "When I went in I was abused and called a 'nonce'.
"I would go back to my cell and cry and cry and cry.
"But I can't fault people, I would have been exactly the same. They thought I was a murderer.
"But I was innocent and had done nothing wrong."
Ms Holdsworth's nightmare began in 2004 when she was looking after Kyle, the son of her teenage neighbour Clare Fisher.
Ms Holdsworth was caring for him at her home in Hartlepool when he suffered a fit.
During her 999 call she said the youngster's eyes were rolling and he had gone floppy.
But the police insisted the former supermarket worker had battered Kyle's head against the banister in her home in Millpool Close in a bout of rage.
In March 2005, a jury agreed with the prosecution case and Ms Holdsworth was given a life sentence and told she would spend at least 10 years behind bars.
But according to experts for the defence the case against her was deeply flawed.
During the retrial Professor Bill Dobyns, of the Department of Human Genetics at Chicago University, condemned the investigation.
Prof Dobyns, who has been studying the brains of young children for 25 years, said the medical evidence did not support a murder charge and trying someone for killing the toddler was "embarrassing".
He said Kyle was vulnerable with complex developmental problems.
'Patently ridiculous'
He had water on his brain, a brain that was a lot larger that normal and had many abnormal cells. He was also predisposed to epilepsy.
Prof Dobyns said that the "mild to moderate" bruises on Kyle's face were just not consistent with him suffering a severe head injury.
There were no obvious signs of injury and little doubt he had a fit
Prof Dobyns
He said: "It is patently ridiculous - the prosecution clearly did not look at this boy in any way, shape or form.
"Then when the developmental disorders were discovered they were ignored by the prosecution.
"There were so many other features here that were not consistent with a severe blow to the head.
"It was almost embarrassing - it seemed a difficult case, but in fact it wasn't - there were clues up front that could have been looked at and led to further studies.
"There was an embarrassingly poor evaluation of evidence by the prosecution."
In Prof Dobyn's opinion, Kyle died of water on the brain and an epileptic fit.
He added: "This was a perfect storm of unfavourable events - anything is possible but there is a more reasonable explanation.
"There were no obvious signs of injury and little doubt he had a fit."
Kyle Fisher had suffered a head injury that left him with a drooping eye
Throughout Ms Holdsworth's trial, the most common picture shown of the little boy shows a beaming Kyle with a prominently drooping right eye.
This was triggered by a fall some months previous to his death during which he fractured his eye socket.
Behind the eye there was a hole the size of a coin and he was due to have an operation.
According to the prosecution the long-standing injury had nothing to do with his death.
But according to Prof Dobyns: "Kyle Fisher was never a normal boy.
"He was walking and talking, but part of his brain was hanging down into his eye socket. He was vulnerable to medical complications."
Crucially, according to the defence, no evidence was found to prove the boy's head had been battered against the banister.
'No murderer'
No hair, tissue or blood was found, not even a dent in the wood, according to Neil Garton, a forensic scientist.
Ms Holdsworth's partner Lee Spencer has never doubted her innocence.
He said: "I've known Suzanne for 18 years of my life and she is no murderer.
"If I thought she could ever snap in the way that they say she did, she would never be near my children."
Even Kyle's father, John Taylor, is still bewildered that she was ever convicted in the first place, and believes she was in the wrong place at the wrong time."
He said: "It just happened to be that she was babysitting.
"I could have been babysitting that night and could have been the one who was sent to prison.""
Harold Levy...hlevy15@gmail.com;
Thursday, December 18, 2008
SUZANNE HOLDSWORTH RETRIAL: PART TWENTY-THREE; KYLE'S FATHER; A POST-VERDICT INTERVIEW WITH THE NORTHUMBERLAND GAZETTE;
BACKGROUND:
Babysitter Suzanne Holdsworth, who was previously found guilty of murdering her neighbour's two-year-old son by repeatedly banging the boy's head against a wooden banister, won an appeal against her conviction. She was granted bail after Court of Appeal Judges declared her conviction for the murder of a toddler "unsafe" in the light of new medical evidence.
Acting for Suzanne, Henry Blaxland QC of Garden Court's Crime team argued that new evidence showed she was the victim of a miscarriage of justice over the death of the two-year old boy. The Court of Appeal was told that they child had abnormalities which predisposed him to epilepsy.
Henry Blaxland QC said that the doctors who gave evidence at trial "got it wrong" and "collectively failed to diagnose" that the Kyle had a "highly unusual brain", which indicated three abnormalities, two of which predisposed him to epilepsy."
Henry Blaxland QC also stated that the prosecution's case at trial 'was based on expert medical opinion evidence to the effect that the child died from fatal brain swelling or oedema which was caused by a blow or blows of significant force.'
A jury was told in 2005 that the mum-of-two smashed the toddler’s head against a bannister with the force of “a car crash at 60mph," Yet Kyles's skull was unbroken and there was no evidence of hair, blood or tissue on the wood.
One of the experts who provided fresh evidence on behalf of the defence at Holdsworth's second trial, was forensic pathologist Dr. Christopher Millroy who participated in the Ontario Chief Coroner's Review of suspicious death of infant's cases involving Dr. Charles Smith and later testified at the recently concluded Goudge Inquiry;
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Northumberland Gazette story appeared on December 18, 2008, under the heading "Father demands answers after babysitter cleared."
The story was sub-headed: "The Wearside father of a tragic toddler has demanded answers after his babysitter was cleared of murder."
"Jon Taylor, who is separated from Kyle Fisher's mother, supported Suzanne Holdsworth's family in their campaign to win a retrial for her," the story began.
"The 27-year-old DJ, from Houghton-le-Spring, said: "I backed them because we had to find out what was happening," it continued;
""Kyle was neglected, I believe. Kyle's mother left him in the house on his own. Something should be done about that. I am not happy about that at all."
During both of Ms Holdsworth's trials, the juries were told that Clare Fisher left her two-year-old at home alone while she went out drinking in Hartlepool one Saturday night in 2004.
The babysitter - a family friend - threatened to tell Ms Fisher's mother Linda when she returned from holiday, causing Ms Fisher great anxiety.
Days later Kyle collapsed while Ms Holdsworth was looking after him, and he died later in hospital.
Mr Taylor separated from Ms Fisher when Kyle was still a baby, and when he moved from Hartlepool to Houghton, he rarely got to see his son because he had no car, Mr Taylor said. He had not seen his son for about six months before he died.
"There are no winners today," he said. "I'm still the one without a son.
"All I want is the truth, and I haven't got that yet.""
Harold Levy...hlevy15@gmail.com;
Babysitter Suzanne Holdsworth, who was previously found guilty of murdering her neighbour's two-year-old son by repeatedly banging the boy's head against a wooden banister, won an appeal against her conviction. She was granted bail after Court of Appeal Judges declared her conviction for the murder of a toddler "unsafe" in the light of new medical evidence.
Acting for Suzanne, Henry Blaxland QC of Garden Court's Crime team argued that new evidence showed she was the victim of a miscarriage of justice over the death of the two-year old boy. The Court of Appeal was told that they child had abnormalities which predisposed him to epilepsy.
Henry Blaxland QC said that the doctors who gave evidence at trial "got it wrong" and "collectively failed to diagnose" that the Kyle had a "highly unusual brain", which indicated three abnormalities, two of which predisposed him to epilepsy."
Henry Blaxland QC also stated that the prosecution's case at trial 'was based on expert medical opinion evidence to the effect that the child died from fatal brain swelling or oedema which was caused by a blow or blows of significant force.'
A jury was told in 2005 that the mum-of-two smashed the toddler’s head against a bannister with the force of “a car crash at 60mph," Yet Kyles's skull was unbroken and there was no evidence of hair, blood or tissue on the wood.
One of the experts who provided fresh evidence on behalf of the defence at Holdsworth's second trial, was forensic pathologist Dr. Christopher Millroy who participated in the Ontario Chief Coroner's Review of suspicious death of infant's cases involving Dr. Charles Smith and later testified at the recently concluded Goudge Inquiry;
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Northumberland Gazette story appeared on December 18, 2008, under the heading "Father demands answers after babysitter cleared."
The story was sub-headed: "The Wearside father of a tragic toddler has demanded answers after his babysitter was cleared of murder."
"Jon Taylor, who is separated from Kyle Fisher's mother, supported Suzanne Holdsworth's family in their campaign to win a retrial for her," the story began.
"The 27-year-old DJ, from Houghton-le-Spring, said: "I backed them because we had to find out what was happening," it continued;
""Kyle was neglected, I believe. Kyle's mother left him in the house on his own. Something should be done about that. I am not happy about that at all."
During both of Ms Holdsworth's trials, the juries were told that Clare Fisher left her two-year-old at home alone while she went out drinking in Hartlepool one Saturday night in 2004.
The babysitter - a family friend - threatened to tell Ms Fisher's mother Linda when she returned from holiday, causing Ms Fisher great anxiety.
Days later Kyle collapsed while Ms Holdsworth was looking after him, and he died later in hospital.
Mr Taylor separated from Ms Fisher when Kyle was still a baby, and when he moved from Hartlepool to Houghton, he rarely got to see his son because he had no car, Mr Taylor said. He had not seen his son for about six months before he died.
"There are no winners today," he said. "I'm still the one without a son.
"All I want is the truth, and I haven't got that yet.""
Harold Levy...hlevy15@gmail.com;
SUZANNE HOLDSWORTH RETRIAL: PART TWENTY-TWO; REPORTER JOHN SWEENEY FOCUSSES ON THE MEDICAL ASPECTS OF THE CASE FOR BBC NEWS;
BACKGROUND:
Babysitter Suzanne Holdsworth, who was previously found guilty of murdering her neighbour's two-year-old son by repeatedly banging the boy's head against a wooden banister, won an appeal against her conviction. She was granted bail after Court of Appeal Judges declared her conviction for the murder of a toddler "unsafe" in the light of new medical evidence.
Acting for Suzanne, Henry Blaxland QC of Garden Court's Crime team argued that new evidence showed she was the victim of a miscarriage of justice over the death of the two-year old boy. The Court of Appeal was told that they child had abnormalities which predisposed him to epilepsy.
Henry Blaxland QC said that the doctors who gave evidence at trial "got it wrong" and "collectively failed to diagnose" that the Kyle had a "highly unusual brain", which indicated three abnormalities, two of which predisposed him to epilepsy."
Henry Blaxland QC also stated that the prosecution's case at trial 'was based on expert medical opinion evidence to the effect that the child died from fatal brain swelling or oedema which was caused by a blow or blows of significant force.'
A jury was told in 2005 that the mum-of-two smashed the toddler’s head against a bannister with the force of “a car crash at 60mph," Yet Kyles's skull was unbroken and there was no evidence of hair, blood or tissue on the wood.
One of the experts who provided fresh evidence on behalf of the defence at Holdsworth's second trial, was forensic pathologist Dr. Christopher Millroy who participated in the Ontario Chief Coroner's Review of suspicious death of infant's cases involving Dr. Charles Smith and later testified at the recently concluded Goudge Inquiry;
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reporter John Sweeney is no stranger to the Charles Smith Blog because he has played an active role in exposing many of the British cases in which innocent parents and caregivers, like Suzanne Holdsworth, have been charged with murdering their children.
Sweeney's first story following the acquittal runs on BBC News under the heading, "Mistakes that convicted innocent babysitter."
...Sweeney's post-verdict interview with Holdsworth may be seen by copying the following address into your browser:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/newsnight/7791075.stm...
"The child was two years old at the time of his death," Sweeney's story begins.
"Look at Kyle Fisher's right eye. Behind his drooping eye was a damaged brain" the story continues.".
"Look at his head. It was abnormally big.
Babysitter Suzanne Holdsworth - free today after a retrial - spent three years in prison after she was convicted in 2005 of murdering Kyle because of this simple logic: Kyle was essentially healthy, then he was killed.
The simple logic was wrong - Kyle's brain had five separate disorders - and that mistake led to a terrible miscarriage of justice.
That miscarriage only became clear when Newsnight reported on it a year ago when Ms Holdsworth was still in prison, and was only righted when a jury at Teesside Crown Court found her not guilty.
After Ms Holdsworth, 38, was convicted in 2005, Cleveland Police boasted of "a relentless investigation" led by Det Supt Tony Hutchinson, the now retired "super cop" who nailed "canoe man" John Darwin.
Far from being relentless, too many things that should have been investigated properly were not investigated.
Ms Holdsworth was alleged to have smashed Kyle's head against the banister at her home.
But there was no visible blood, no hair, no skin on the banister, and no DNA test was carried out.
The accused's partner, Lee Spencer, who has stuck by her throughout, told me: "They didn't do a DNA test on the alleged murder weapon.
"I'm no Sherlock Holmes, I drive a cement mixer, but what kind of investigation was that?"
Earlier injury
The babysitter said in her frantic 999 call that Kyle was suffering from a fit - and never changed her story.
Home Office pathologist James Sunter, now dead, reported after the toddler's death in July 2004 that Kyle's brain was essentially normal - one of eight findings he got wrong.
New defence experts like neuro-pathologist Dr Waney Squier and Professor Bill Dobyns from Chicago University say that Kyle suffered five separate brain disorders.
They were: scarring caused by the brain pressing down through the hole in his eye socket onto his eye; an abnormally big brain; brain matter in the wrong place; bleeding on the brain; water on the brain.
Suzanne Holdsworth always denied killing Kyle
Any one of the five can cause a fit or epileptic seizure and, as Dr Squier told Newsnight a year ago, "seizures can kill".
The eye injury that caused Kyle's brain to scar has never been properly investigated by Cleveland Police.
It happened in March 2003, when Kyle allegedly fell from his pram on to a fire prong, which punctured his eye socket and stabbed his brain.
It happened while he was in the care, not of Ms Holdsworth, but of his mother, Claire Fisher.
The retrial heard evidence that four nights before he died Ms Fisher left Kyle home alone, locked in a bedroom by tying a belt to a broom handle to block the door.
Ms Fisher admitted that she had been a negligent mother.
The court heard evidence that Ms Holdsworth was, in contrast, a caring mother to her two daughters, Leslie and Jamie-Leigh, who have never questioned her innocence.
Gross lapse
Both women deny causing bruising to Kyle's head on the night in question - but it could have been caused while Kyle suffered an unseen fit.
Early on, Cleveland Police decided that the eye and brain injury was irrelevant to the murder inquiry though the police say they relied on the opinion of the Home Office pathologist.
Kyle's medical notes showed that two surgeons had planned to operate on Kyle's injury.
Newsnight understands that in mid-August 2004, Det Con Paul Hook logged a phone call with James Cook University Hospital brain surgeon Sid Marks.
The two men were said to have discussed the brain injury and at the end of the call Cleveland Police continued to believe the eye injury was irrelevant.
But Mr Marks has no recollection of the call and said that he would never discuss the death of a patient with a stranger over the phone.
Cleveland Police say that the detective was only given the task of logging and reviewing the medical records so these could be assessed by the pathologist.
What is clear is that Cleveland Police did not take statements from the two surgeons in the context of a murder inquiry - a gross lapse in normal police procedure.
Chief Supt Mark Braithwaite told Newsnight: "I am satisfied that Cleveland Police carried out a thorough, diligent and professional investigation and that the prosecution of Suzanne Holdsworth was properly brought on the basis of the available evidence."
Suzanne Holdsworth is now free to spend her first Christmas at her home, with her family, after three Christmases inside for a crime she did not commit.
John Sweeney, who reported this story for BBC2's Newsnight, has helped free or clear the name of eight people falsely accused of murder or manslaughter. His latest report will be on Newsnight tonight at 22:30 GMT on BBC2."
Harold Levy...hlevy15@gmail.com;
Babysitter Suzanne Holdsworth, who was previously found guilty of murdering her neighbour's two-year-old son by repeatedly banging the boy's head against a wooden banister, won an appeal against her conviction. She was granted bail after Court of Appeal Judges declared her conviction for the murder of a toddler "unsafe" in the light of new medical evidence.
Acting for Suzanne, Henry Blaxland QC of Garden Court's Crime team argued that new evidence showed she was the victim of a miscarriage of justice over the death of the two-year old boy. The Court of Appeal was told that they child had abnormalities which predisposed him to epilepsy.
Henry Blaxland QC said that the doctors who gave evidence at trial "got it wrong" and "collectively failed to diagnose" that the Kyle had a "highly unusual brain", which indicated three abnormalities, two of which predisposed him to epilepsy."
Henry Blaxland QC also stated that the prosecution's case at trial 'was based on expert medical opinion evidence to the effect that the child died from fatal brain swelling or oedema which was caused by a blow or blows of significant force.'
A jury was told in 2005 that the mum-of-two smashed the toddler’s head against a bannister with the force of “a car crash at 60mph," Yet Kyles's skull was unbroken and there was no evidence of hair, blood or tissue on the wood.
One of the experts who provided fresh evidence on behalf of the defence at Holdsworth's second trial, was forensic pathologist Dr. Christopher Millroy who participated in the Ontario Chief Coroner's Review of suspicious death of infant's cases involving Dr. Charles Smith and later testified at the recently concluded Goudge Inquiry;
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reporter John Sweeney is no stranger to the Charles Smith Blog because he has played an active role in exposing many of the British cases in which innocent parents and caregivers, like Suzanne Holdsworth, have been charged with murdering their children.
Sweeney's first story following the acquittal runs on BBC News under the heading, "Mistakes that convicted innocent babysitter."
...Sweeney's post-verdict interview with Holdsworth may be seen by copying the following address into your browser:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/newsnight/7791075.stm...
"The child was two years old at the time of his death," Sweeney's story begins.
"Look at Kyle Fisher's right eye. Behind his drooping eye was a damaged brain" the story continues.".
"Look at his head. It was abnormally big.
Babysitter Suzanne Holdsworth - free today after a retrial - spent three years in prison after she was convicted in 2005 of murdering Kyle because of this simple logic: Kyle was essentially healthy, then he was killed.
The simple logic was wrong - Kyle's brain had five separate disorders - and that mistake led to a terrible miscarriage of justice.
That miscarriage only became clear when Newsnight reported on it a year ago when Ms Holdsworth was still in prison, and was only righted when a jury at Teesside Crown Court found her not guilty.
After Ms Holdsworth, 38, was convicted in 2005, Cleveland Police boasted of "a relentless investigation" led by Det Supt Tony Hutchinson, the now retired "super cop" who nailed "canoe man" John Darwin.
Far from being relentless, too many things that should have been investigated properly were not investigated.
Ms Holdsworth was alleged to have smashed Kyle's head against the banister at her home.
But there was no visible blood, no hair, no skin on the banister, and no DNA test was carried out.
The accused's partner, Lee Spencer, who has stuck by her throughout, told me: "They didn't do a DNA test on the alleged murder weapon.
"I'm no Sherlock Holmes, I drive a cement mixer, but what kind of investigation was that?"
Earlier injury
The babysitter said in her frantic 999 call that Kyle was suffering from a fit - and never changed her story.
Home Office pathologist James Sunter, now dead, reported after the toddler's death in July 2004 that Kyle's brain was essentially normal - one of eight findings he got wrong.
New defence experts like neuro-pathologist Dr Waney Squier and Professor Bill Dobyns from Chicago University say that Kyle suffered five separate brain disorders.
They were: scarring caused by the brain pressing down through the hole in his eye socket onto his eye; an abnormally big brain; brain matter in the wrong place; bleeding on the brain; water on the brain.
Suzanne Holdsworth always denied killing Kyle
Any one of the five can cause a fit or epileptic seizure and, as Dr Squier told Newsnight a year ago, "seizures can kill".
The eye injury that caused Kyle's brain to scar has never been properly investigated by Cleveland Police.
It happened in March 2003, when Kyle allegedly fell from his pram on to a fire prong, which punctured his eye socket and stabbed his brain.
It happened while he was in the care, not of Ms Holdsworth, but of his mother, Claire Fisher.
The retrial heard evidence that four nights before he died Ms Fisher left Kyle home alone, locked in a bedroom by tying a belt to a broom handle to block the door.
Ms Fisher admitted that she had been a negligent mother.
The court heard evidence that Ms Holdsworth was, in contrast, a caring mother to her two daughters, Leslie and Jamie-Leigh, who have never questioned her innocence.
Gross lapse
Both women deny causing bruising to Kyle's head on the night in question - but it could have been caused while Kyle suffered an unseen fit.
Early on, Cleveland Police decided that the eye and brain injury was irrelevant to the murder inquiry though the police say they relied on the opinion of the Home Office pathologist.
Kyle's medical notes showed that two surgeons had planned to operate on Kyle's injury.
Newsnight understands that in mid-August 2004, Det Con Paul Hook logged a phone call with James Cook University Hospital brain surgeon Sid Marks.
The two men were said to have discussed the brain injury and at the end of the call Cleveland Police continued to believe the eye injury was irrelevant.
But Mr Marks has no recollection of the call and said that he would never discuss the death of a patient with a stranger over the phone.
Cleveland Police say that the detective was only given the task of logging and reviewing the medical records so these could be assessed by the pathologist.
What is clear is that Cleveland Police did not take statements from the two surgeons in the context of a murder inquiry - a gross lapse in normal police procedure.
Chief Supt Mark Braithwaite told Newsnight: "I am satisfied that Cleveland Police carried out a thorough, diligent and professional investigation and that the prosecution of Suzanne Holdsworth was properly brought on the basis of the available evidence."
Suzanne Holdsworth is now free to spend her first Christmas at her home, with her family, after three Christmases inside for a crime she did not commit.
John Sweeney, who reported this story for BBC2's Newsnight, has helped free or clear the name of eight people falsely accused of murder or manslaughter. His latest report will be on Newsnight tonight at 22:30 GMT on BBC2."
Harold Levy...hlevy15@gmail.com;
SUZANNE HOLDSWORTH RETRIAL: PART TWENTY-ONE; PENNY MELLOR; AN EDITORIAL VIEW;
BACKGROUND:
Babysitter Suzanne Holdsworth, who was previously found guilty of murdering her neighbour's two-year-old son by repeatedly banging the boy's head against a wooden banister, won an appeal against her conviction. She was granted bail after Court of Appeal Judges declared her conviction for the murder of a toddler "unsafe" in the light of new medical evidence.
Acting for Suzanne, Henry Blaxland QC of Garden Court's Crime team argued that new evidence showed she was the victim of a miscarriage of justice over the death of the two-year old boy. The Court of Appeal was told that they child had abnormalities which predisposed him to epilepsy.
Henry Blaxland QC said that the doctors who gave evidence at trial "got it wrong" and "collectively failed to diagnose" that the Kyle had a "highly unusual brain", which indicated three abnormalities, two of which predisposed him to epilepsy."
Henry Blaxland QC also stated that the prosecution's case at trial 'was based on expert medical opinion evidence to the effect that the child died from fatal brain swelling or oedema which was caused by a blow or blows of significant force.'
A jury was told in 2005 that the mum-of-two smashed the toddler’s head against a bannister with the force of “a car crash at 60mph," Yet Kyles's skull was unbroken and there was no evidence of hair, blood or tissue on the wood.
One of the experts who provided fresh evidence on behalf of the defence at Holdsworth's second trial, was forensic pathologist Dr. Christopher Millroy who participated in the Ontario Chief Coroner's Review of suspicious death of infant's cases involving Dr. Charles Smith and later testified at the recently concluded Goudge Inquiry;
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Penny Mellor, a co-founder of the Angela Cannings Foundation, runs a Web-site which is dedicated to exposing "Shaken Baby and unsafe convictions."
Her postings are accompanied by the words of John F. Kennedy, who said: "The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie -- deliberate, contrived and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic. Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought. John F. Kennedy 35th president of US 1961-1963 (1917 - 1963);"
"The verdict has come in on Suzanne's case, NOT GUILTY no doubt there will be a media furore, some claiming to have "solved" the case, some reporting on "how could this happen again", the Clark and Cannings cases being cited as other examples along with the shaken baby appeals," Mellor begins her first comments following the acquittal;
"First of all without Suzanne and Lee continually protesting her innocence, there would have been no appeal or retrial and believe me, given the incentives to cop a plea, lesser sentences and early release dates, it's no mean feat to hold on to that truth and shout it from the rooftops, not to mention how much attention that attracts for the family bringing a whole new set of problems," she continues;
"So before everyone takes title to this case, let me make it clear, Suzanne, Lee, Jamie-lee and Leslie are the true heroes.
Secondly, Suzanne has had the benefit of an outstanding legal team, a legal team who have a particular expertise in cases like this, their appointment of experts for the defence was a very carefully thought through and absolutely brilliant process in which they ensured that they instructed the very best experts in the world with regard to Kyle's brain conditions. I take my hat off to Campbell Malone, Peter Wilcock (from my favourite Chambers, Tooks who was also Ian Gay's barrister) and the absolutely outstanding silk Andrew Thomas, who inherited this case only weeks before the retrial started and has been able to absorb and present this very complex medical case in such a short space of time; fearless in the face of a very difficult job, genius in its presentation to the jury, these are the sort of lawyers that make our legal system the very best in the world.
Thirdly I want to thank the jury for their diligence in a case that at times must have been very hard for them emotionally, these are the hardest cases to listen to. So thank you from the bottom of my heart.
Finally, I have to thank the media for highlighting this case, this, however is their job and without the cooperation of the above, they would not have this case, they also have more money to chuck around than the defence, who are on a very tight legally aided budget, so are able to cherry pick which bits of a case they investigate.
Sue, Lee and the children, live your lives for today from now on, it has been an absolute pleasure working with you all and this is yet another friendship that will only go onto grow.
May Kyle now rest in peace in your hearts, I know how much you all loved him and I hope that now you will have time to grieve for the little boy you cared for and nurtured, who became so much part of your wonderful family and whose short life was so much more enhanced because of you all. Never forget that and hold onto the knowledge that nothing you could have done would have saved his life, so remember the good times you had with him and live your lives with the happy memories, not those that have been created by the system.
Love you all XXX;
Harold Levy...hlevy15@gmail.com;
Babysitter Suzanne Holdsworth, who was previously found guilty of murdering her neighbour's two-year-old son by repeatedly banging the boy's head against a wooden banister, won an appeal against her conviction. She was granted bail after Court of Appeal Judges declared her conviction for the murder of a toddler "unsafe" in the light of new medical evidence.
Acting for Suzanne, Henry Blaxland QC of Garden Court's Crime team argued that new evidence showed she was the victim of a miscarriage of justice over the death of the two-year old boy. The Court of Appeal was told that they child had abnormalities which predisposed him to epilepsy.
Henry Blaxland QC said that the doctors who gave evidence at trial "got it wrong" and "collectively failed to diagnose" that the Kyle had a "highly unusual brain", which indicated three abnormalities, two of which predisposed him to epilepsy."
Henry Blaxland QC also stated that the prosecution's case at trial 'was based on expert medical opinion evidence to the effect that the child died from fatal brain swelling or oedema which was caused by a blow or blows of significant force.'
A jury was told in 2005 that the mum-of-two smashed the toddler’s head against a bannister with the force of “a car crash at 60mph," Yet Kyles's skull was unbroken and there was no evidence of hair, blood or tissue on the wood.
One of the experts who provided fresh evidence on behalf of the defence at Holdsworth's second trial, was forensic pathologist Dr. Christopher Millroy who participated in the Ontario Chief Coroner's Review of suspicious death of infant's cases involving Dr. Charles Smith and later testified at the recently concluded Goudge Inquiry;
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Penny Mellor, a co-founder of the Angela Cannings Foundation, runs a Web-site which is dedicated to exposing "Shaken Baby and unsafe convictions."
Her postings are accompanied by the words of John F. Kennedy, who said: "The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie -- deliberate, contrived and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic. Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought. John F. Kennedy 35th president of US 1961-1963 (1917 - 1963);"
"The verdict has come in on Suzanne's case, NOT GUILTY no doubt there will be a media furore, some claiming to have "solved" the case, some reporting on "how could this happen again", the Clark and Cannings cases being cited as other examples along with the shaken baby appeals," Mellor begins her first comments following the acquittal;
"First of all without Suzanne and Lee continually protesting her innocence, there would have been no appeal or retrial and believe me, given the incentives to cop a plea, lesser sentences and early release dates, it's no mean feat to hold on to that truth and shout it from the rooftops, not to mention how much attention that attracts for the family bringing a whole new set of problems," she continues;
"So before everyone takes title to this case, let me make it clear, Suzanne, Lee, Jamie-lee and Leslie are the true heroes.
Secondly, Suzanne has had the benefit of an outstanding legal team, a legal team who have a particular expertise in cases like this, their appointment of experts for the defence was a very carefully thought through and absolutely brilliant process in which they ensured that they instructed the very best experts in the world with regard to Kyle's brain conditions. I take my hat off to Campbell Malone, Peter Wilcock (from my favourite Chambers, Tooks who was also Ian Gay's barrister) and the absolutely outstanding silk Andrew Thomas, who inherited this case only weeks before the retrial started and has been able to absorb and present this very complex medical case in such a short space of time; fearless in the face of a very difficult job, genius in its presentation to the jury, these are the sort of lawyers that make our legal system the very best in the world.
Thirdly I want to thank the jury for their diligence in a case that at times must have been very hard for them emotionally, these are the hardest cases to listen to. So thank you from the bottom of my heart.
Finally, I have to thank the media for highlighting this case, this, however is their job and without the cooperation of the above, they would not have this case, they also have more money to chuck around than the defence, who are on a very tight legally aided budget, so are able to cherry pick which bits of a case they investigate.
Sue, Lee and the children, live your lives for today from now on, it has been an absolute pleasure working with you all and this is yet another friendship that will only go onto grow.
May Kyle now rest in peace in your hearts, I know how much you all loved him and I hope that now you will have time to grieve for the little boy you cared for and nurtured, who became so much part of your wonderful family and whose short life was so much more enhanced because of you all. Never forget that and hold onto the knowledge that nothing you could have done would have saved his life, so remember the good times you had with him and live your lives with the happy memories, not those that have been created by the system.
Love you all XXX;
Harold Levy...hlevy15@gmail.com;
SUZANNE HOLDSWORTH RETRIAL: PART TWENTY; FREED BABYSITTER'S REACTION TO VERDICT; OTHER REACTIONS; NORTHERN ECHO STORY;
BACKGROUND:
Babysitter Suzanne Holdsworth, who was previously found guilty of murdering her neighbour's two-year-old son by repeatedly banging the boy's head against a wooden banister, won an appeal against her conviction. She was granted bail after Court of Appeal Judges declared her conviction for the murder of a toddler "unsafe" in the light of new medical evidence.
Acting for Suzanne, Henry Blaxland QC of Garden Court's Crime team argued that new evidence showed she was the victim of a miscarriage of justice over the death of the two-year old boy. The Court of Appeal was told that they child had abnormalities which predisposed him to epilepsy.
Henry Blaxland QC said that the doctors who gave evidence at trial "got it wrong" and "collectively failed to diagnose" that the Kyle had a "highly unusual brain", which indicated three abnormalities, two of which predisposed him to epilepsy."
Henry Blaxland QC also stated that the prosecution's case at trial 'was based on expert medical opinion evidence to the effect that the child died from fatal brain swelling or oedema which was caused by a blow or blows of significant force.'
A jury was told in 2005 that the mum-of-two smashed the toddler’s head against a bannister with the force of “a car crash at 60mph," Yet Kyles's skull was unbroken and there was no evidence of hair, blood or tissue on the wood.
One of the experts providing fresh evidence on behalf of the defence on Holdsworth's second trial was forensic pathologist Dr. Christopher Millroy who participated in the Ontario Chief Coroner's Review of suspicious death of infant's cases involving Dr. Charles Smith and later testified at the recently concluded Goudge Inquiry;
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"SUZANNE Holdsworth said she had always loved Kyle Fisher, the child she had twice been accused of murdering," the story, by reporter Matt Westcott, begins under the heading, "I always loved Kyle, says Holdsworth after clearing her name."
.
"Speaking outside court, Lee Spencer, Ms Holdsworth's partner, read a statement out on her behalf," the December 18, 2008 story continues;
""This case has always been about Kyle, a loving child, a little boy who Suzanne has always loved and helped look after," he said.
"We know his family deeply loved him and miss him.
"Sadly, we now know that he had some bad medical features that led to his sudden collapse and death.
"We hope that this knowledge will help his family come to terms with his death.
"This has been a terrible experience for Suzanne and our family and we just now want to try and pick up the pieces and put our lives together.
"The legal team have been outstanding throughout all of this."
Solicitor Campbell Malone, who represented Ms Holdsworth, said the family would be seeking an apology from Cleveland Police.
Responding to reporters questions, Mr Malone said: "I think, if you are trying to extract wider principles, these cases like Suzanne's, where you are talking about infant head injuries, shows the importance of people being open-minded.
"When Suzanne was originally convicted, the police, in their annual publication, congratulated themselves and I hope they are going to take a deep, serious look at this investigation.
"I know that the one thing Suzanne would like to come out of this case is an apology from them.""
Harold Levy...hlevy15@gmail.com;
Babysitter Suzanne Holdsworth, who was previously found guilty of murdering her neighbour's two-year-old son by repeatedly banging the boy's head against a wooden banister, won an appeal against her conviction. She was granted bail after Court of Appeal Judges declared her conviction for the murder of a toddler "unsafe" in the light of new medical evidence.
Acting for Suzanne, Henry Blaxland QC of Garden Court's Crime team argued that new evidence showed she was the victim of a miscarriage of justice over the death of the two-year old boy. The Court of Appeal was told that they child had abnormalities which predisposed him to epilepsy.
Henry Blaxland QC said that the doctors who gave evidence at trial "got it wrong" and "collectively failed to diagnose" that the Kyle had a "highly unusual brain", which indicated three abnormalities, two of which predisposed him to epilepsy."
Henry Blaxland QC also stated that the prosecution's case at trial 'was based on expert medical opinion evidence to the effect that the child died from fatal brain swelling or oedema which was caused by a blow or blows of significant force.'
A jury was told in 2005 that the mum-of-two smashed the toddler’s head against a bannister with the force of “a car crash at 60mph," Yet Kyles's skull was unbroken and there was no evidence of hair, blood or tissue on the wood.
One of the experts providing fresh evidence on behalf of the defence on Holdsworth's second trial was forensic pathologist Dr. Christopher Millroy who participated in the Ontario Chief Coroner's Review of suspicious death of infant's cases involving Dr. Charles Smith and later testified at the recently concluded Goudge Inquiry;
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"SUZANNE Holdsworth said she had always loved Kyle Fisher, the child she had twice been accused of murdering," the story, by reporter Matt Westcott, begins under the heading, "I always loved Kyle, says Holdsworth after clearing her name."
.
"Speaking outside court, Lee Spencer, Ms Holdsworth's partner, read a statement out on her behalf," the December 18, 2008 story continues;
""This case has always been about Kyle, a loving child, a little boy who Suzanne has always loved and helped look after," he said.
"We know his family deeply loved him and miss him.
"Sadly, we now know that he had some bad medical features that led to his sudden collapse and death.
"We hope that this knowledge will help his family come to terms with his death.
"This has been a terrible experience for Suzanne and our family and we just now want to try and pick up the pieces and put our lives together.
"The legal team have been outstanding throughout all of this."
Solicitor Campbell Malone, who represented Ms Holdsworth, said the family would be seeking an apology from Cleveland Police.
Responding to reporters questions, Mr Malone said: "I think, if you are trying to extract wider principles, these cases like Suzanne's, where you are talking about infant head injuries, shows the importance of people being open-minded.
"When Suzanne was originally convicted, the police, in their annual publication, congratulated themselves and I hope they are going to take a deep, serious look at this investigation.
"I know that the one thing Suzanne would like to come out of this case is an apology from them.""
Harold Levy...hlevy15@gmail.com;
SUZANNE HOLDSWORTH RETRIAL: PART NINETEEN; NOT GUILTY; SKY NEWS STORY;
BACKGROUND:
Babysitter Suzanne Holdsworth, who was previously found guilty of murdering her neighbour's two-year-old son by repeatedly banging the boy's head against a wooden banister, won an appeal against her conviction. She was granted bail after Court of Appeal Judges declared her conviction for the murder of a toddler "unsafe" in the light of new medical evidence.
Acting for Suzanne, Henry Blaxland QC of Garden Court's Crime team argued that new evidence showed she was the victim of a miscarriage of justice over the death of the two-year old boy. The Court of Appeal was told that they child had abnormalities which predisposed him to epilepsy.
Henry Blaxland QC said that the doctors who gave evidence at trial "got it wrong" and "collectively failed to diagnose" that the Kyle had a "highly unusual brain", which indicated three abnormalities, two of which predisposed him to epilepsy."
Henry Blaxland QC also stated that the prosecution's case at trial 'was based on expert medical opinion evidence to the effect that the child died from fatal brain swelling or oedema which was caused by a blow or blows of significant force.'
A jury was told in 2005 that the mum-of-two smashed the toddler’s head against a bannister with the force of “a car crash at 60mph," Yet Kyles's skull was unbroken and there was no evidence of hair, blood or tissue on the wood.
One of the experts providing fresh evidence on behalf of the defence at Holdsworth's second trial was forensic pathologist Dr. Christopher Millroy who participated in the Ontario Chief Coroner's Review of suspicious death of infant's cases involving Dr. Charles Smith and later testified at the recently concluded Goudge Inquiry;
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Suzanne Holdsworth, the babysitter who spent three years behind bars for the murder of toddler Kyle Fisher who died in august, 2004, has been found not guilty of the crime at her retrial.
"Suzanne Holdsworth's unanimous acquittal by the jury at Teesside Crown Court marks the end of a long campaign to clear her name," the Sky New story begins.
"Ms Holdsworth, 38, of Boggart Hill Drive, Seacroft, Leeds, collapsed in tears in the dock in tears upon hearing the verdict, which also cleared her of an alternative charge of manslaughter" the story continues;
"The mother-of-two had been originally convicted of the murder of her neighbour's two-year-old son in March 2005 and jailed for life.
But the ruling was overturned at the Court of Appeal in May after doubts were raised about medical evidence presented in the original trial.
During the re-trial the jury was given the stark choice of deciding whether Ms Holdsworth or Kyle's mother, Clare Fisher, 24, caused the severe head injuries.
During Ms Holdsworth's original trial she was accused of repeatedly banging Kyle's head against a wooden bannister with as much force as a 60mph crash, after losing her temper.
The court heard that the youngster had bruising and marks to his head but Ms Holdsworth's defence maintained they were inflicted the previous day - blaming Kyle's mother - and coupled with brain abnormalities, led to the unexpected fit.
Fresh evidence established there was a reasonable possibility the toddler suffered a prolonged epileptic seizure.
Neuro-pathologist Dr Wainey Squier told the jury that her opinion was that a seizure was "far more likely".
When she rang 999, Ms Holdsworth said Kyle was "floppy, hitting himself and drifting in and out of consciousness".
Medics said the description matched such a fit and was far too sophisticated for a member of the public to invent.
Members of Kyle's family, including his grandmother, burst into tears at news of the verdict.
They had supported Ms Holdsworth's claims of innocence since the original trial.
Cleveland Police said they would not be reopening the investigation into Kyle's death."
Harold Levy...hlevy15@gmail.com;
Babysitter Suzanne Holdsworth, who was previously found guilty of murdering her neighbour's two-year-old son by repeatedly banging the boy's head against a wooden banister, won an appeal against her conviction. She was granted bail after Court of Appeal Judges declared her conviction for the murder of a toddler "unsafe" in the light of new medical evidence.
Acting for Suzanne, Henry Blaxland QC of Garden Court's Crime team argued that new evidence showed she was the victim of a miscarriage of justice over the death of the two-year old boy. The Court of Appeal was told that they child had abnormalities which predisposed him to epilepsy.
Henry Blaxland QC said that the doctors who gave evidence at trial "got it wrong" and "collectively failed to diagnose" that the Kyle had a "highly unusual brain", which indicated three abnormalities, two of which predisposed him to epilepsy."
Henry Blaxland QC also stated that the prosecution's case at trial 'was based on expert medical opinion evidence to the effect that the child died from fatal brain swelling or oedema which was caused by a blow or blows of significant force.'
A jury was told in 2005 that the mum-of-two smashed the toddler’s head against a bannister with the force of “a car crash at 60mph," Yet Kyles's skull was unbroken and there was no evidence of hair, blood or tissue on the wood.
One of the experts providing fresh evidence on behalf of the defence at Holdsworth's second trial was forensic pathologist Dr. Christopher Millroy who participated in the Ontario Chief Coroner's Review of suspicious death of infant's cases involving Dr. Charles Smith and later testified at the recently concluded Goudge Inquiry;
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Suzanne Holdsworth, the babysitter who spent three years behind bars for the murder of toddler Kyle Fisher who died in august, 2004, has been found not guilty of the crime at her retrial.
"Suzanne Holdsworth's unanimous acquittal by the jury at Teesside Crown Court marks the end of a long campaign to clear her name," the Sky New story begins.
"Ms Holdsworth, 38, of Boggart Hill Drive, Seacroft, Leeds, collapsed in tears in the dock in tears upon hearing the verdict, which also cleared her of an alternative charge of manslaughter" the story continues;
"The mother-of-two had been originally convicted of the murder of her neighbour's two-year-old son in March 2005 and jailed for life.
But the ruling was overturned at the Court of Appeal in May after doubts were raised about medical evidence presented in the original trial.
During the re-trial the jury was given the stark choice of deciding whether Ms Holdsworth or Kyle's mother, Clare Fisher, 24, caused the severe head injuries.
During Ms Holdsworth's original trial she was accused of repeatedly banging Kyle's head against a wooden bannister with as much force as a 60mph crash, after losing her temper.
The court heard that the youngster had bruising and marks to his head but Ms Holdsworth's defence maintained they were inflicted the previous day - blaming Kyle's mother - and coupled with brain abnormalities, led to the unexpected fit.
Fresh evidence established there was a reasonable possibility the toddler suffered a prolonged epileptic seizure.
Neuro-pathologist Dr Wainey Squier told the jury that her opinion was that a seizure was "far more likely".
When she rang 999, Ms Holdsworth said Kyle was "floppy, hitting himself and drifting in and out of consciousness".
Medics said the description matched such a fit and was far too sophisticated for a member of the public to invent.
Members of Kyle's family, including his grandmother, burst into tears at news of the verdict.
They had supported Ms Holdsworth's claims of innocence since the original trial.
Cleveland Police said they would not be reopening the investigation into Kyle's death."
Harold Levy...hlevy15@gmail.com;
SUZANNE HOLDSWORTH RETRIAL: PART EIGHTEEN: JURY ENTERS SECOND DAY OF DELIBERATIONS;
BACKGROUND:
Babysitter Suzanne Holdsworth, who has previously found guilty of murdering her neighbour's two-year-old son by repeatedly banging the boy's head against a wooden banister, has won an appeal against her conviction. She has been granted bail after Court of Appeal Judges declared her conviction for the murder of a toddler "unsafe" in the light of new medical evidence.
Acting for Suzanne, Henry Blaxland QC of Garden Court's Crime team argued that new evidence showed she was the victim of a miscarriage of justice over the death of the two-year old boy. The Court of Appeal was told that they child had abnormalities which predisposed him to epilepsy.
Henry Blaxland QC said that the doctors who gave evidence at trial "got it wrong" and "collectively failed to diagnose" that the Kyle had a "highly unusual brain", which indicated three abnormalities, two of which predisposed him to epilepsy."
Henry Blaxland QC also stated that the prosecution's case at trial 'was based on expert medical opinion evidence to the effect that the child died from fatal brain swelling or oedema which was caused by a blow or blows of significant force.'
A jury was told in 2005 that the mum-of-two smashed the toddler’s head against a bannister with the force of “a car crash at 60mph," Yet Kyles's skull was unbroken and there was no evidence of hair, blood or tissue on the wood.
One of the experts providing fresh evidence on behalf of the defence is forensic pathologist Dr. Christopher Millroy who participated in the Ontario Chief Coroner's Review of suspicious death of infant's cases involving Dr. Charles Smith and later testified at the recently concluded Goudge Inquiry;
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"A MURDER trial jury began its second day of deliberations in the case of babysitter Suzanne Holdsworth today," reporter Gareth Lightfoot reports in a December 18, 2008 story headed "Second day for jury in Holdsworth trial";
"The jury of eight men and four women began their considerations yesterday morning," the sEvening Gazette story continues;
"Suzanne Holdsworth, 38, of Boggart Hill Drive, Seacroft, Leeds, denies the murder of two-year-old Kyle Fisher.
The prosecution alleged she attacked the toddler, causing him to collapse with fatal brain swelling, at her then home on Millpool Close, Hartlepool on July 21, 2004.
The defence suggested Kyle was mistreated by his mother Clare, and he collapsed with an seizure because of earlier injuries and a series of brain conditions."
Harold Levy...hlevy15@gmail.com'
Babysitter Suzanne Holdsworth, who has previously found guilty of murdering her neighbour's two-year-old son by repeatedly banging the boy's head against a wooden banister, has won an appeal against her conviction. She has been granted bail after Court of Appeal Judges declared her conviction for the murder of a toddler "unsafe" in the light of new medical evidence.
Acting for Suzanne, Henry Blaxland QC of Garden Court's Crime team argued that new evidence showed she was the victim of a miscarriage of justice over the death of the two-year old boy. The Court of Appeal was told that they child had abnormalities which predisposed him to epilepsy.
Henry Blaxland QC said that the doctors who gave evidence at trial "got it wrong" and "collectively failed to diagnose" that the Kyle had a "highly unusual brain", which indicated three abnormalities, two of which predisposed him to epilepsy."
Henry Blaxland QC also stated that the prosecution's case at trial 'was based on expert medical opinion evidence to the effect that the child died from fatal brain swelling or oedema which was caused by a blow or blows of significant force.'
A jury was told in 2005 that the mum-of-two smashed the toddler’s head against a bannister with the force of “a car crash at 60mph," Yet Kyles's skull was unbroken and there was no evidence of hair, blood or tissue on the wood.
One of the experts providing fresh evidence on behalf of the defence is forensic pathologist Dr. Christopher Millroy who participated in the Ontario Chief Coroner's Review of suspicious death of infant's cases involving Dr. Charles Smith and later testified at the recently concluded Goudge Inquiry;
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"A MURDER trial jury began its second day of deliberations in the case of babysitter Suzanne Holdsworth today," reporter Gareth Lightfoot reports in a December 18, 2008 story headed "Second day for jury in Holdsworth trial";
"The jury of eight men and four women began their considerations yesterday morning," the sEvening Gazette story continues;
"Suzanne Holdsworth, 38, of Boggart Hill Drive, Seacroft, Leeds, denies the murder of two-year-old Kyle Fisher.
The prosecution alleged she attacked the toddler, causing him to collapse with fatal brain swelling, at her then home on Millpool Close, Hartlepool on July 21, 2004.
The defence suggested Kyle was mistreated by his mother Clare, and he collapsed with an seizure because of earlier injuries and a series of brain conditions."
Harold Levy...hlevy15@gmail.com'