Press: An expert witness falls from grace
Authors: Naomi Marks
Journal: BMJ (2003)

Since the Court of Appeal cleared Sally Clark in January of murdering her two babies and, more recently, a jury took just 90 minutes to acquit Trupti Patel of triple murder, Sir Roy Meadow, professor of paediatrics and expert witness, has faced a growing critical onslaught from press and broadcast journalists.​journalists.




Figure 1



A campaigner against Meadow's medical evidence, outside the High Court in London

Credit: CHRIS YOUNG/PA




But it was not so long ago that the media was ringing enthusiastically to Sir Roy's soundbites. These included the one in 73 million statistic he cited in the Clark trial as the chance of a cot death occurring twice in the same family, or the so called Meadow's law—that one cot death is a tragedy, two suspicious, three murder—put forward in the Patel case.

So what is going on? Have the media reappraised the eminent professor's work, considered new evidence in the field of genetics, studied the defects in the UK pathology system, and generally got to grips with the multitude of complex, interdependent issues that are at the heart of the Clark and Patel cases?

Or is it more likely that while once stories in which dead infants, vilified mothers, and trailblazing professors proved too good to be true, now stories about dead infants, wronged mothers, and professors ready to be pulled off pedestals are proving just as irresistible.

Joyce Epstein, director of the Foundation for the Study of Infant Deaths, says that few journalists want even to attempt to tackle the issues involved. “No matter how much we try to tell the media there are serious difficulties about what kicks into place or doesn't kick into place when a baby dies suddenly—that it's not one person or two but the system that's at fault—it's not sexy enough for them,” she says. “The media always want to simplify things and identify a villain of the piece.”

For former journalist and MP Martin Bell, though, things are not that simple. Closely involved in the Clark case, he particularly commends the work of investigative journalist John Sweeney, whose prolific output, including a Radio 4 File on Four programme and a BBC 2 documentary (BMJ 2003;326: 402), has proved pivotal in the public reassessing of Sir Roy's standing.

Bell says: “Journalists must be able to point the finger without being accused of running a witchhunt. [Sir Roy] has a right not to be convicted by the media but, my goodness, the media has certainly shown there's a case to be answered.”

Sweeney says the difference between rigorous journalism and a witchhunt is that with the former you have evidence. He adds: “I have evidence to say that some people are more prone to cot death than the general population. But Meadow, it seems, has no evidence to back up his `Meadow's law'—other than his own experiences—and that's in a databank which he shredded.”

Sweeney is something of an exception among journalists, however, a tenacious campaigner who has been following and continuously researching his story for more than two years.

Stephen Clark believes the vast majority of journalists at his wife's trial were uninterested in the medical evidence, appearing either unable or unwilling to understand it. Sir Roy's “one in 73 million” statistic was a godsend to them, he says, used to imply that Sally must be guilty.

“In order to free Sally,” he explains, “not only did we have to prove how our babies died but we also had to turn the press around and get them on our side.”

History shows that that is, eventually, what did happen. However, as Stephen Clark points out: “Even then, very few of the journalists were prepared to try to understand the medical evidence, the appalling errors in the pathology... Instead, the coverage concentrated almost exclusively on the false statistic because now, as before, it was an easy soundbite.”

He adds: “The [media] bandwagon has since developed its own momentum as it accelerates directly towards Professor Meadow.”

Sue Stapely, the lawyer-turned-media consultant who worked on the Clark campaign, notes the media u turn too. She points out: “If you are going to carve a career for yourself writing and broadcasting and giving evidence in court then you run the risk if your evidence is questioned of being treated like this.”

Sir Roy's views on the changing media climate remain private; he did not return the BMJ's calls.

But, fair or unfair, the views of Stephen Clark will be understandable to most. “Forgive me, if I cannot find it within myself to feel sympathy for the professor,” he told the BMJ. “He is now being beaten with the same false evidence with which he once beat us.

“Nothing which now happens to him can be as bad as what happened to an innocent, bereaved mother, her surviving little boy, and her loving husband.”