It is two years since my last update and Sally has just spent her third Christmas in prison.

The first appeal

The consensus is that the jury were influenced by that prejudicial statistic. But the Appeal Court, whilst accepting that the statistic was wrong, thought it would not have influenced the jury unduly; and that there was other evidence. This ruling has been described by a leading QC (not connected with the case) as a "breathtakingly intellectually dishonest judgment".

The Appeal Court accepted the controversial evidence of the initial pathologist, crediting him as a "paediatric" pathologist, which he is not. Supported as he was by one expert who presupposed the pathology to be competent. It seemed not to matter that five eminent paediatric pathologists were scathingly critical of that pathology and disputed the findings. Nor that three of the prosecution's experts disputed much of the pathology and thought that the deaths should be `unascertained'.