Chief Sean Price's defence of his force was published today in the Peterlee Mail;
The paper notes that: "THE death of Hartlepool toddler Kyle Fisher and subsequent acquittal at re-trial of his babysitter Suzanne Holdsworth has sparked national headlines. Here Sean Price, Chief Constable of Cleveland Police, defends his officers:
"It was perhaps inevitable following the acquittal of Suzanne Holdsworth that emotions would run high," Price's defence begins;
"The case revolved around the tragic death of two-year-old Kyle Fisher in July 2004. His babysitter, Ms Holdsworth, was subsequently convicted in 2005 of his murder and then acquitted at a re-trial last month," the defence continues;
"Publicly I have said very little about this case. I felt it was right that, after the initial interest, the dust be allowed to settle and those involved be given a chance to rebuild their lives away from the spotlight.
But now the reporting of this case in certain quarters has reached a level of inaccuracy which is unfair to the officers involved, and which has the potential to be extremely damaging to the reputation of Cleveland Police.
I understand there is to be a further flurry of coverage and that is why I have decided the time is now right to put the record straight.
I must start by making it absolutely clear that I make no criticism whatsoever of the jury's decision in the recent re-trial of Suzanne Holdsworth. They performed their duties correctly and delivered the verdict based on the evidence before them, and I accept that verdict fully and without reservation.
But following that acquittal, certain individuals seem convinced that someone is to "blame" for the original conviction, and I have been asked whether Cleveland Police will apologise to Suzanne Holdsworth. I will address that question, but first it is important that I address inaccuracies that have sprung up in the reporting of the original investigation.
Kyle was admitted to hospital on July 21 2004 following a 999 call by his babysitter Ms Holdsworth. He died in hospital two days later.
The cause of death is crucial in deciding whether to launch a murder inquiry. Police officers are not medically qualified to establish a cause of death, so, in line with established national practice in such cases, we act on information supplied by experts. In the case of Kyle Fisher that expert was the highly respected Home Office independently appointed Forensic Pathologist Dr James Sunter.
After carrying out a full autopsy, considering Kyle's medical history and visiting Suzanne Holdsworth's home address, he concluded that Kyle died as a result of blunt force injury to the head.
It has been suggested that the police had missed or ignored Kyle's previous medical history and clinical condition. This is completely untrue. Kyle's full medical history was known to both the defence and the prosecution teams in advance of Suzanne Holdsworth's first trial.
Forensic Pathologist Dr Sunter was fully aware of Kyle's pre existing conditions and medical history but determined in his expert opinion that they had no bearing on Kyle's death. He concluded the boy had died as a result of blunt force injury to the head.
After a thorough examination of Ms Holdsworth's house, which was conducted in conjunction with an independent Forensic Scientist and a Cleveland Police Crime Scene Manager, Dr Sunter observed (and gave evidence at the first trial) that the injuries could be accounted for by the child being gripped by the neck/shoulders and having the top of his head struck several times against the banister rails. This conclusion was reached given the large and complex pattern of bruising to Kyle's head.
In some of the more sensationalist reporting of the retrial it has been suggested that no scientific examination was carried out on this banister. That is untrue. Tests were carried out and no fragments of blood, skin or hair were discovered. This information was known to both prosecution and defence teams.
It is correct that no low copy DNA test was carried out on the banister. Low Copy Number DNA testing is an extremely sensitive test to detect microscopic amounts of cellular material. This type of test would ordinarily be used to prove or disprove whether a person had been present at a scene. In this case, there was no dispute as to whether Kyle had been present at the scene as he was a regular visitor to Ms Holdsworth's house. As such this type of his DNA could be expected to be present on innumerable surfaces within the premises.
Such testing would not, in the opinion of the Senior Investigating Officer, have assisted the police investigation, nor would it have assisted the prosecution or defence cases at trial.
At the original trial it was evidenced that Suzanne Holdsworth had lied to the police on two separate occasions. The first occasion was to cover up, in conjunction with Kyle's mother the fact that Clare Fisher had left Kyle 'home alone' whilst she went out socialising some days before Kyle's death. The second occasion related to the alleged timing of bruising that Kyle had sustained. Suzanne Holdsworth subsequently admitted that she had lied. She said it was to protect Kyle's mother and that this was due to her concern that the boy could be taken into care. She accepted she was wrong to lie, and stated on oath at her retrial that she believed it may have been the exposure of her lies that led to the original jury convicting her.
Lessons can be learned from all murder inquiries, but one of the most important lessons to be learnt from the tragedy of Kyle Fisher's death, is how essential it is that people are honest with the police at every stage of the enquiry – particularly where the welfare and safety of children are concerned.
Following the conviction of Ms Holdsworth, an alternative medical hypothesis was identified by the new defence team. This suggested Kyle may have died as a result of a seizure brought on by a pre-existing medical condition, rather than resulting from an assault as opined by Dr Sunter. When the new medical evidence emerged, it was properly put before the Court of Appeal which directed that a retrial be held.
Normally, as happened in the original trial, Dr Sunter would be called as a prosecution witness and cross-examined by the defence as to his view on the cause of Kyle's tragic death. However, sadly, he had died in the intervening period so could not be cross examined at Suzanne Holdsworth's retrial in December. This meant that he did not have the opportunity to explain the conflict between his conclusions and the alternative hypothesis put forward by the medical experts called by the defence.
It has also been suggested that concerns about the prosecution of Suzanne Holdsworth raised by a member of the original enquiry team were ignored. Again this is untrue. When the Senior Investigating Officer learned of these concerns, he quite rightly raised the issue with the Crown Prosecution Service and trial counsel. The original trial was halted so that the officer concerned could be interviewed at length by the leading Counsel for the defence.
I have little doubt that if Mr Richardson QC had considered that what the officer had to say was relevant to his client's defence, she would have been called to give evidence when the trial resumed. She was not so called.
In conclusion, there was no suppression of evidence or ignoring of previous medical history. There was no failure to carry out appropriate forensic tests, and the only falsification was by Suzanne Holdsworth who acknowledges, and now regrets lying to the investigating officers.
None of the Judges at the original trial, the Court of Appeal or the retrial have raised any criticism of the conduct of Cleveland Police officers, and to date no-one has made any complaint against Cleveland Police.
The adversarial judicial system as it applies in this country relies on a number of organisations each with a specific role.
The job of a pathologist is to establish the cause of death, the job of the police is to gather evidence and put it before the Crown Prosecution Service. The CPS must then decide if there is a basis for a prosecution and sufficient evidence to put before a jury. The defence team then has access to all relevant evidence and can call their own experts and other witnesses in contested trials where they seek to challenge the prosecution case.
The strength of the jury system is that jurors act independently. They and they alone decide a verdict based on the evidence before them, and only when they are certain beyond reasonable doubt are they directed by the trial judge that they should convict.
When people are acquitted, it does not automatically follow that mistakes have been made. Up and down the land people are often acquitted where all components of the judicial system have carried out their job properly, and that is what has happened in the retrial of Suzanne Holdsworth.
I firmly believe that when you make a mistake you should apologise. I have done this on behalf of Cleveland Police in the past when the conduct of individuals has fallen below that which would be expected of a professional police service.
However, to issue an apology when officers have carried out their job diligently and professionally is inappropriate.
This has been a truly tragic set of circumstances for all involved, especially for Kyle's family, and not least for Ms Holdsworth, but seeking to wrongly apportion blame will help no-one."
Harold Levy...hlevy15@gmail.com;