Against All Odds: A mother's fight to prove her innocence: The Angela Cannings Story

Product Information

Evidence from one prosecution expert, the paediatrician Professor Sir Roy Meadow, was a key factor in each case. In that case Professor Roy Meadow told the original trial that two cot deaths in one family were a "one in 73 million chance" - something disputed by statisticians. In June 2003, the CPS used Meadow's expert testimony against Trupti Patel, a pharmacist accused of killing three of her babies. Gentleman's offer to contribute, with his expertise and background knowledge, and I extend that welcome to all hon.

Angela Cannings - Wikipedia

Although the individuals involved may not be in custody, the stigma of conviction is over their heads—with potentially far-reaching implications for their abilities as families to be allowed to bring up children in future. The alternative approach is to start with the same fact, that three unexplained deaths in the same family are indeed rare, but thereafter to proceed on the basis that if there is nothing to explain them, in our current state of knowledge at any rate, they remain unexplained, and still, despite the known fact that some parents do smother their infant children, possible natural deaths. No account had been taken of conditions specific to individual families (such as the hypothesised cot death gene) which might make some more vulnerable than others. This trend was to reach its apogee in 1999 when solicitor Sally Clark was tried for allegedly murdering her two babies. The Court of Appeal said that, in relation to unexplained infant deaths when the outcome of the trial depended exclusively or almost exclusively on a serious disagreement between distinguished and reputable experts, it would often be unsafe to proceed.In Cannings' case Professor Meadow told the jury her babies could not have died a normal cot death because they appeared healthy immediately before they died. How pro-Palestine boycott movement is fuelling the fast food high street cancellation sweeping social media. We should recognise that for women who have lost a child and then had another child taken away, prison is no penalty compared with the terrible suffering that they have endured. The critical point of each such death is that it is indeed unexplained, and that its cause or causes, although natural, is or are as yet unknown.

Wrongly convicted by an incompetent court | Comment | The

The Attorney-General has acted swiftly, as he should, to enable challenges to be made to unsafe verdicts. This states that: "one sudden infant death is a tragedy, two is suspicious and three is murder, unless proven otherwise.The Daily Mail's front page on Wednesday April 17, 2002, dictating the judge ruling Angela Cannings guilty. The Home Office has a statutory duty to make an award if a conviction is quashed on an appeal following a referral by the Criminal Cases Review Commission - the organisation that investigates alleged miscarriage of justice cases that failed to be overturned at their first appeal. Amongst the prosecution team was Meadow, whose evidence included a soundbite which was to provoke much argument: he testified that the odds against two cot deaths occurring in the same family was 73,000,000:1, a figure which he erroneously obtained by squaring the observed ratio of live-births to cot deaths in affluent non-smoking families (approximately 8,500:1). Earlier this week the Home Office decided that Angela Cannings is not entitled to compensation for the 18 months she spent in prison, convicted for the murder of her two children, seven-week-old Jason in 1991 and 18-week-old Matthew in 1999.