Donna Anthony
Item first appeared on the F.A.C.T website on 12th April 2005, and was submitted by Graham
DONNA Anthony is the fourth woman to walk free after cases which relied on the key evidence of Prof Sir Roy Meadow.These allegations are similar to many FACT cases, in that there is no evidence to reach a conclusion of guilt other than the allegation. There is no conclusive evidence as to the cause of death. Just as in the cases of historic abuse there is no other evidence than the claims of the alleged victim. These are very emotive issues, and repulsive alleged crimes for the jury to consider in an objective manner The conviction of Donna Anthony depended upon the opinion of an expert witness and a willingness by the jury to believe that on the balance of probability Donna Anthony killed her children, that probability was then given the weight of beyond reasonable doubt required for a conviction. Prof Sir Roy Meadow was the expert witness used by the CPS to support the case. To strengthen the case he was required to harden his views into a remote statistical chance of accidental death. Prof Sir Roy Meadow is not a statistician, a parliamentary select committee have warned of the dangers of accepting expert witness statistics. Expert witness evidence counter to that of Sir Roy’s always existed but it is obvious that to remain a Police expert witness you are required to provide evidence to support prosecution, if you will not supply that evidence then you will be quickly discarded for another who will support the prosecution case.
Using the adversarial system of justice, the CPS and the Police are concerned with securing a conviction, not necessarily exposing the truth and will use expert witnesses accordingly. If it were not the expert witness Prof Sir Roy Meadow who provided the required view then it would be another sought out by the police. The alternative view of these cot deaths always existed but none were willing to speak out against Prof Sir Roy Meadow until the legal and public view of these cases had changed. Jurors were willing to accept the evidence of Prof Sir Roy Meadow without question I believe that the view of local authorities who pay vast sums for unproven allegations of historic abuse without question, the public, and hence juries, is that those who alleged historic abuse are always telling the truth. The willingness to believe allegations without evidence has resulted in unjust convictions of many. The adversarial system, with pressure to secure conviction, as a measure of both police and CPS efficiency is, out dated; it does not secure the truth. The jury system that makes no check on intelligence, literacy, nor language fluency of its members is flawed. Emotive cases leave the jury with the sense of wanting to avoid making a mistake and releasing a guilty person. This neurosis secures the guilty verdict which is not bases on logical reasoning by a jury who unlike other judicial bodies are not required to give the rational behind their decisions
Thankyou Graham for submitting this - what do other people think ? Email the news editor