Friday, March 23, 2007

Dissing The Dead

I have been meaning to do this for a while, but the original (and subsequent) post disappeared. But thanks to the sterling work of CoralPoetry, I have a copy of Terry Hamblin’s reprehensible and sickening attack on Sally Clark on the occasion of her premature death. So here we go, a fisk of the latest person to earn The Appalling Strangeness’s Worthless Cunt tag.

He begins:

“Sally Clark, the mother who was imprisoned for 3 years for killing her two infant sons, but later released following a campaign to discredit the medical witness against her”

Nope, following a campaign to prove her innocence. The discrediting of the medical witness was a pleasant and just side effect.

“has died under suspicious circumstances.”

Well, no, she died before her time. May not be usual. But is hardly unprecedented. Or that suspicious.

“News outlets are hinting at suicide”


Actually, the news outlets I saw quoted a family source who said Sally had been in poor health for some time, but don’t let details stand in your way, there, Terry.

“and that she was known to have had an alcohol problem and to have been a depressive.”

What, so everyone who is a depressive and/or an alcoholic commits suicide, then? Is that what you are trying to hint at? Because alcoholism and depression are very (and perhaps increasingly) common and to my knowledge, there has not been a sudden or proportionate rise in the number of suicides. Perhaps it is just easy for the likes of Terry to judge those who suffer from those problems. Rather than try to understand or empathise with them.

“So far response in the correspondence columns of the major newspapers has been that the ordeal of unjust imprisonment had driven her to it.”

Again, no proof of suicide. The general implication of the coverage and commentary on Sally’s premature death was that three years in prison, so soon after the deaths of her babies and with the stress and trauma of being classed as a child killer in one of our penal institutions, may have broken Sally. But fuck me, Terry, that would break all but the stoutest of hearts. How would you feel after the death of your children, being imprisoned for their murders, and then having to ensure the taunts of your fellow inmates and the constant threat of violence? I am guessing: not great.

“I wonder. Perhaps she was possessed by guilt that she really had killed her kids and remorse that she had brought down two eminent professors of paediatrics in getting the decision reversed.”

Already dealt with this. But I would reiterate - I hope Sally did not give a flying fuck about the ignorant medical charlatans who condemned falsely to two life sentences.

“I have not followed the case closely”

So why, *precisely*, do you feel you can comment on it so negatively just after Sally Clark died?

“but it seems to me that anyone who attacks motherhood is on a hiding to nothing, even if the mother is a lawyer.”


What?

What the fuck?

The false conviction of Sally Clark was not an attack on motherhood. It was an attack on Sally Clark. And as the woeful expert witness career of Roy Meadow shows, people are more than willing to convict mothers. Also, Sally was a solicitor, not a lawyer. Small point, I know, but still important, I would argue.

“There has been a prolonged and vituperative attack on the concept of Munchausen-by-proxy”

Which, by my understanding, is a symptom (albeit a highly destructive and awful symptom) of a wider mental disorder rather than a disease in itself. Making Munchausen’s Syndrome by Proxy the motive for double murder is a flawed diagnosis.

“and the doctor who videoed a mother harming her child in hospital was attacked for an intrusion into privacy.”

Yep, quick question, but what *precisely* does the above have to do with Sally Clark? It is an entirely separate incident, and entirely separate case. It has nothing to with the argument, and is irrelevant to the erroneous and flawed conviction of Sally Clark and her subsequent tragic death. The doctor in the case mentioned above was attacked for getting it right. The doctor(s) in the Sally Clark case got it wrong.

“It may be that Sally Clark was entirely innocent.”

Uh-huh, that was the conclusion of the court when the full facts of the case came to light.

“I suspect we will never know the truth.”

Perhaps not. So maybe we should go with the judgment of the court after, at the risk of repeating myself, the full facts of the case came to light.

“However, being declared innocent by a court doesn't make you innocent any more than being declared guilty by a court makes you guilty.”

Absolutely right. But what is your alternative, Terry? Because in this country, being declared innocent means you are innocent. For libel purposes, anyway.

“I rather suspect that more people are falsely declared innocent than are falsely declared guilty.”


Yep, the concept of “beyond reasonable doubt”, designed to save the innocent from circumstantial evidence. And if the full evidence had been known when Sally was first on trial I believe she would never have been convicted.

To publish this sort of hurtful, ignorant bullshit so soon after the death of someone is offensive in the extreme. I have no issue with calling people, such as our Dear Leader, total cunts. But – if they didn’t have far better things to do that construct retorts to a right-wing ranter – those people have the right of reply. I would never, ever, publish a mix of insults and total lies on the occasion of the death of the likes of Blair or Miliband.

And you know the reason why? I still see those people as human beings – stupid, flawed, fuckwitted twats, to be sure – but still human beings. So when they die, I will show them some respect, because they were humans at the end of the day, and will have loved ones who will mourn their passing. I can empathise with that. Because I still have some sort of emotional connection with the human race.

However, judging by these crass comments, Hamblin has no emotional connection to humanity. And it is the same as the cold, brutal emotional detachment from fellow humans that allowed Meadow to spout the statistical bollocks that allowed Sally Clark to be convicted in the first place.

Labels: , ,

15 Comments:

At 10:41 am , Blogger MrHunnybun said...

A solicitor is a type lawyer. The use is synonymous.

Very interesting post. I agree that just because Sally Clarke was depressed does not mean she killed herself. Terry is an idiot. I cannot believe that people actually vote for him.

 
At 1:38 pm , Blogger Bel said...

Thank you for writing this article. I was rendered speechless with rage by Terry Hamblin's sick article. There was so much I wanted to say in response to his imbecilic rant, and I am glad you have put it into (printable) words.

Terry Hmablin waited until she had died to publish his smears. Such cowardice. And he didn't even bother to get his facts right, either. There are many people in jail right now, falsely convicted on the say-so of the sort of people for whom he is a willing and shameless apologist.

Once again, thank you for your post.

 
At 2:07 pm , Blogger CoralPoetry said...

Thank you for this post and for the shout-out.

There is a distinct possibility that the blog supposedly written by an eminent professor, Terry Hamblin, might actually be run by a scurrilous person purporting to be a professor. There are plenty of fake blogs about - FakeSteveJobs,FakeHillaryClinton, FakeGWB, FakeRobScoble. The list is endless. Apparently, there’s no law against the practice.

I cannot imagine a genuine
professor writing in this unethical manner. Someone with an extensive education should know how to spell his own job description. He states that he is a Consultant Hamatologist; he must have read this mistake every time he logged into his blog since 2005. He also spells recuperate as “recouperate”. Now, I’m just guessing, but I should have thought this word would be used so consistently and persistently by doctors that I imagine it would be almost impossible to get this one wrong.

There are no conversations with other professionals in the field, no discussion about the next level of research – nobody is agreeing with his points, or disagreeing for that matter. Some of the subject matter looks like the stuff any high school student could lift for a science assignment. Most of his responders are anonymous posters, always a sign of a spoof blog. A blog costs nothing. There are thousands of people posing as doctors and blogging about their fictitious lives as busy general practitioners and hospital surgeons. Trouble is, they’ve read up on brain surgery and can speak at length about their latest keyhole colostomy techniques, but they don’t know what psoriasis means. Now, the doctors I have encountered use their (miniscule amount of) free time for pleasurable purposes, which doesn’t usually involve writing to nobody in particular in the virtual world.

Having regard to the speed at which Professor Hamblin’s cached Google copy libellous letter against Sally Clark was obliterated from the Internet, perhaps there’s a mischievous Google employee running this blog and he has access to the delete button, which functions like a whack-a-mole game. Regardless of whoever is in the driving seat of this blog that falls so far short of the full 100 watts, I suspect the genuine Professor will deny all knowledge of writing slurs against Sally Clark.

Now I must return to normal service which involves a bit of screaming and howling in abject pain.

Regards,
Coral

 
At 6:06 pm , Blogger DrD said...

How very odd all of this is, how unreasonable to direct such venomous, ill informed hatred at the musings of a Professor of Haematology who has wondered whether Sally Clark might have killed herself in remorse for the killing of her children. Another Professor's first case of salt poisoning( that's the method of killing children that is impossible according to those well informed journalists who no doubt have medical degrees hidden under their belts), was a little boy who kept coming into hospital laden with salt only to get better rapidly provided mother wasn't allowed near him. Whilst arrangements were being made to remove him to a place of safety he came in a final time and died. Mother wrote to the doctors and thanked them for all they had done and then tried to kill herself. The good paediatrician, and he was a very good one, had reluctantly to come to terms with the evidence that his natural ally in the care of the sick child might be the agent of its distress.
He was reminded of Munchausen's but one step removed in that affected patient was not the perpetrator. The child had a 'sort of Munchausen's by proxy' as he elegently and presciently put it when warning other doctors so that since then lives have been saved all over the world where this pattern of behaviour is seen(on video too for those too obtuse to understand). These lives he can add to the hundreds he has saved in his career only for his reputation to be sullied by the a narcissistic media whose self regard feeds on the unearned emotion of sentiment.Lies are embraced and spewed out by the ignorant, the malicious and the medically illiterate so that truth is buried. Sally Clark was not convicted on the evidence of Meadow. She was not released because of of his flawed evidence. The statistical figures were not his. The baby did not die of an infection and on and on. Lie after lie with fallacious arguement at every turn, vituperative ad hominem attacks and gross medical ignorance. Babies will die if they haven't already. Why do we abuse our children so ?

 
At 3:25 pm , Blogger TOOTLEPIP said...

DR. D. -

Seems ironic that David Southall, the professor who wrongly accused Sally Clark’s husband of murdering his child whilst he was away from home, has been involved with smothering experimentation WITHOUT PARENTAL CONSENT.


http://edmi.parliament.uk/EDMi/EDMDetails.aspx?EDMID=31383&SESSION=875

EDM 2767

WORK OF PROFESSOR DAVID SOUTHALL
17.10.2006


Hemming, John

That this House notes that according to the report written by Professor David Hull for North Staffordshire Trust about the work of Professor David Southall in the report written for the University Hospital of North Staffordshire by Professor McLeish and Dr Durbin, Professor McLeish said that Professor Southall `pursued multiple clinical research studies that were poorly designed and therefore were unlikely to produce new knowledge of worth. More worryingly he appears to have had insufficient regard for the ethical standards that should surround all clinical studies in babies'; believes that such comments are important comments that require proper consideration; is surprised that the University Hospital of North Staffordshire is unable to find a copy of this report; calls for the hospital to find a copy of this report and publish its contents; and further calls for an independent judicial or Parliamentary inquiry into the research and clinical activities of Professor David Southall, the failure of the regulatory system to prevent unethical experiments on babies managed by Professor Southall and the misuse of child protection and judicial procedures both to prevent parents from raising complaints about his research and procure children for his research.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,1859611,00.html

Monday August 28, 2006
Guardian

Detectives have stepped up an investigation into claims that the leading paediatrician David Southall left a child brain damaged as a result of a controversial breathing experiment 15 years ago, the Guardian has learned.

South Wales police have broadened their inquiry into an allegation that Professor Southall assaulted the boy by carrying out the test and are asking dozens of parents whose children may have come into contact with the paediatrician over the years to come forward if their child suffered any injuries as a result of his treatment. Professor Southall has denied that his treatment has harmed any child.

In a letter to parents last week, Detective Inspector Chris Mullane, of the force's child protection unit, said further inquiries could be opened as a result of the responses from parents. The letter says police are investigating an allegation of assault on a boy that may have occurred while he was undergoing treatment by Prof Southall at the University Hospital of Wales. It asks parents: "Has your child been treated directly or indirectly by Professor Southall ... Did your child suffer any injuries or adverse effects from that treatment ... Have you reported this matter to the police or any other body?"

The investigation began after the parents of Ben McLean alleged that he had been left brain damaged by Prof Southall's experiments at the University Hospital of Wales in 1991.

The child's mother, Davina McLean, believes that without their informed consent, her five-year-old son was given carbon dioxide to breathe and his airway was occluded during a sleep study. She claims that she and her husband were forced to take part in the study after Prof Southall said they were suffering from Munchausen's syndrome by proxy, and warned that unless they allowed Ben to take part he would be taken into care. Prof Southall has also denied these claims.

When Ben left hospital he was placed in foster care, but a year later a court found the McLeans had not harmed their child. Ben, now 20, lives with his parents and has severe speech and learning difficulties. Mrs McLean told the Guardian: "We are pleased that other parents out there who may have concerns are being contacted. All we want is justice for our son."

Prof Southall has attracted praise and controversy during his long career. Last year he was found guilty of serious professional misconduct and banned from child protection work for three years after wrongly accusing the husband of Sally Clark of killing their baby sons.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/england/realmedia/midlandstoday/bulletin.ram

South Wales Police Heddlu De Cymru

Working with the Community Cydweithio Gyda’r Gymuned

Public Protection Unit
Central Police Station
King Edward VII Avenue
Cathays Park
CARDIFF
CF10 3NN

Telephone (029) 20527272

10th August 2006



Dear

South Wales Police are currently investigating an allegation of assault on a young boy that may have occurred whilst undergoing treatment by Professor David Southall at the University Hospital of Wales.

I have been given your details by Mr William BACHE, Solicitor, who assures me that he has your authority for me to make contact with you.

I would be obliged if I could be provided with certain replies to the below questions. I must emphasise that South Wales Police are not carrying out an enquiry into Professor Southall, but are investigating one allegation of assault carried out in our force area. It may well transpire that further enquiries are carried out in the future if document dictate that to be the appropriate course of action. Please reply via email if you wish or I have enclosed a S.A.E.for your convenience.

1. Has your child been treated directly or indirectly by Professor Southall.
2. If yes please outline the document of that treatment.
3. Did your child suffer any injuries or adverse effects from that treatment.
4. Have you reported this matter to the Police or any other body such as the GMC (please specify).
5. If you reported the matter to the police
i) which force
ii) when
iii) have you details of an investigating officer or any other means of reference
iv) Result of the Police investigation

My apologies for being brief and to the point, but I am sure you appreciate the complexities of this enquiry.

Yours faithfully


Chris Mullane
DETECTIVE INSPECTOR
chris.mullane@south-wales.pnn.police.uk



DAILY EXPRESS TUESDAY FEBRUARY 6 2001 Page 30

Scandal of 'smothered' babies in cot death test
Police investigate experiments on little children with lung problems

EXCLUSIVE
BY LUCY JOHNSTON
AND JONATHAN CALVERT


SECRET hospital cot death experiments in which doctors planned deliberately
to `smother' babies are being investigated by police.


The research project, devised by some of Britain's leading child specialists,
envisaged using tiny infants with severe breathing difficulties.

The babies' faces were to be covered with a mask attached to a breathing
machine and their mouths `smothered' for up to 10 seconds on five occasions.


It is not clear whether the scheme was ever fully carried out, but it
appears that some parts did take place.


The controversial procedure, approved by an ethics committee, was regarded
as safe. The infants would be secretly monitored by doctors as they got
older. If they died of unrelated illness, pieces of their lungs, brains,
livers, and hearts would be sent to a pathologist in Sheffield Children's
Hospital for analysis and comparison with the project data.


The study was designed to help discover whether cot death was caused by
breathing and heart abnormalities and involved children across the country.


In a highly unusual move, doctors decided they would not seek written
consent from parents because they did not want to cause alarm.


The study, named the Sudden Infant Death Project, was planned to be carried
out at three hospitals: Rotherham District General, the Doncaster Royal
Infirmary and the Barnsley District Hospital during the late Eighties and
early Nineties.

A spokesperson for the Rotherham District General Hospital said: "Our
consultant has said that the study did go ahead so I'm pretty sure it did."


A spokeswoman for the Doncaster Royal Infirmary said it could not comment on
the matter "because it is subject of a police inquiry".


The Daily Express has evidence the experiment could also have been conducted
at other hospitals. Two sets of parents believe their children were brain
damaged after being put into similar experiments.


The two children, whose brains were developing normally, now have speech and
co-ordination problems and severe learning difficulties.


The parents have not been able to find out what happened while their
children were in hospital.

 
At 3:50 pm , Blogger TOOTLEPIP said...

More importantly,here is the British Medical Journal paper recording the experimentation in smothering. One could not hope for a higher authority on this evil matter.

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/316/7135/887

or condensed link here

bmj.com

 
At 5:24 pm , Blogger TOOTLEPIP said...

Medical staff and police officers at the hospital where resuscitation was attempted did not observe the alleged bruises on Sally Clark’s, son Christopher. It is also possible that some of the reported injuries may have been caused by resuscitative efforts.

Pub-Med.gov have recorded these cases of post-mortem bruising in this article:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=10736761&dopt=Abstract

or a condensed link here:


Pub_Med.gov


It is not sufficiently emphasized in our country that bruising can also appear post-mortem. We report two cases in which we observed discolorations that looked like ante-mortem bruising.

Case 1: A 37-year-old man was found prone on a river shore and taken out of the water by a rescuer by grasping at the right upper arm approximately one hour and 30 minutes after death. At inspection, two thumb-sized discolorations resembling ante-mortem bruising were observed on the lateral and frontal surfaces of the right upper arm.

Case 2: A 40-year-old woman was found prone immersed in a moat and taken out of the water in the above-mentioned manner approximately one hour and 45 minutes after death. At inspection, two thumb-sized discolorations appearing to be ante-mortem bruising were observed on the inner surface of the right upper arm. The cause of death in both instances was drowning. Bibliographic investigation revealed that bruising of significant size can appear after death. We speculate generally on conditions for generation of post-mortem bruising. Additionally, we believe that post-mortem bruising should be sufficiently considered, because it can be important whether a person was grasped when he or she was alive or dead.

 
At 12:28 pm , Blogger DrD said...

I pointed out the medical illiteracy that accompanies the personally directed venom of the child abuse deniers and here they are as gratuitous examples of that base art. Changing inhaled oxygen concentration to induce relative hypoxia is rendered as "smothering" and anecdotal tales of evil paediatricians are reminiscent of the blood libels on Jews. Trying to protect babies from those who seek their harm or destruction draws a mighty crowd of misfits whose delight is to mock the good and limit their effectiveness.It is a paradox that just like the number of complaints made about the Israelis at the UN is inversly related to the merit of those cases so in paediatrics where the number of complaints made about a doctor are directly related to his or her competence and success in saving infant lives. Professors Meadow and Southall score highly because they draw out the worst of men in the destructive pursuit of the best.

 
At 1:39 am , Blogger BLOGGING-CHAMP said...

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1832002

Tiny_Url


THERE IS NO HIGHER AUTHORITY TO CONFIRM THAT A PERSON WAS WRONGLY CONVICTED.

THERE IS NO HIGHER AUTHORITY TO CONFIRM THE EVIL PRACTICES OF CERTAIN (Dr. Mengele type) DOCTORS WHO CARRY OUT EVIL EXPERIMENTS ON BABIES IN HOSPITALS.

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/316/7135/887

Tiny_Url

Dr. David Murray,DrD a responder here is NOT a doctor. He is a stalking pervert who posts from scads and scads of different servers from all around the world.

So...Dr.David Murry, the above poster aka. Celerman of Celermansworld, aka Rob Cooper and Monk Bretton - answer this question:

Whilst we are on the subject of babies, and doctors neglecting babies,, why are you NOT DEFENDING Madeleine McCann's parents (a GP and a Consultant) for leaving THREE babies alone in their apartment for at least an hour whilst they went to dinner?

I have not said anything in my blog because that will not bring her back, but I intend making great inroads to prevent perverts from stalking families and their children as is evidenced by new Policing Laws in Britain. The Police can now stop and question ANYBODY under the Prevention of Terrorism Act for NO REASON in particular. I intend to give families and civilians similar powers to stop ANYBODY for stalking other people's children and that includes creating websites for that purpose, one of which is here:

www.debcooper.blogspot.com

 
At 7:51 pm , Blogger DrD said...

I may not be a doctor in the formal sense of that courtesy title but I know far more about the Sally Clark case than all the posters on this blog and the other similar ones where a hint of the truth is intolerable and my delicate guidance is refuted with intemperate abuse or never sees the light of day.Truth is easy for it requires no design whereas the lie needs work to sustain it for in truth it has no substance. Tangled webs indeed.How anyone of common decency could introduce the notion that the appalling tragedy of the MCanns who just happen to be doctors bears on the duty of paediatricians to be alert to the murder of children by their parents is beyond my understanding unless I were to suppose that there are in this imperfect world souls so hostile to concepts that conflict with their own that they chose any means to defend their inconsistent and fallacious argument, even the agony of a parent's loss.

 
At 3:49 pm , Blogger BLOGGING-CHAMP said...

Dr.D, aka TERRY HAMBLIN blog author

There are hundreds of blogs criticising the McCanns for leaving their three children alone. It is an offence in the UK and the Police and Social Services would have charged the parents with neglect. But you wouldn't know this fact because you aren't British.

I do not see you jumping into these blogs to defend the McCanns. Why not? Because you are stalking one blog in particular.

How would you know anything about Sally Clark? You aren’t British. You only heard of Sally Clark and Roy Meadows in March 2007.

(Link below) This is what the BRITISH police are saying in a forum about Roy Meadows, which I do not agree with, because it is judgment carried out with hindsight, and it is useless. In my opinion, Roy Meadows carried out his job to the best of his ability AT THE TIME, which was biased and derisory, as his wife will testify.

http://www.policeoracle.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=4370&PID=111874#111874


http://tinyurl.com/2qf8fw


“We could start by "stripping" Sir Roy Meadows of his Knighthood !!!

"Put him in the same queue as Jeffrey Archer”

 
At 6:01 pm , Blogger DrD said...

blogging-champ, you may care to know that it's Meadow not 'Meadows'. A small mistake but telling.

 
At 6:41 pm , Blogger BLOGGING-CHAMP said...

DRD

It was deliberate. The case isn't about Meadows. It is about you stalking and sitting at a blog 24/7.

 
At 7:09 pm , Blogger BLOGGING-CHAMP said...

DRD

I meant sitting at "somebody else's blog" because yours at DrD is empty, like your head.

Didn't anyone tell you it is rude to interrupt people when they are eating their corgi-burger?

 
At 3:44 pm , Blogger DrD said...

Bacon et al have reviewed the literature on double 'cot deaths'(Archives Diseases of Childhood) and find that two are very rare indeed in some categories. If you read the paper and its references you will not find a single case of such an event in an affluent middle class non smoking home. As a general rule, provided the right tests are carried out, they think that the risk of having one cot death is now down to one in about 3000 and the conditional risk of having another is likely to be higher but only slightly so. Were one to be provocative one could do a rather facile calculation of the sort that statisticians, who understand figures but not death like to do, and muliply 3000 by 3000 to get the probabillty of having two cot deaths when one sets out for parenthood.To be fair one could place the chance of a second death somewhat higher in case of missed genetic or other influences, say 1 in 2000 and that would give a risk of 1 in 6 million of being the unlucky mother who has two babies that die in the night. Once we stratify the risk with the highest being those mother shacked up with whichever thug currently occupies her attention and the lowest those middle class non smoking affluent parents who would be obsessional in the care of their children if one had died then the figures are different and rather familiar. Does 1 in 73 million ring any bells?

 

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home