Baby Christopher's death was first certified as `natural causes', with some experts convinced that he died of respiratory infection. Some fourteen months later, following the second death, on the very same findings, his death changed to smothering.

Baby Harry was first said by the same pathologist to have suffered retinal haemorrhages and other signs of shaking. Twenty months later, and three days before the trial, the Defence proved that there were no retinal haemorrhages - and the prosecution's expert admitted that he had been confused by the slides! Over the intervening weekend, though the findings otherwise remained unchanged, Harry's death changed to smothering!

At committal the evidence had been that Harry showed no signs of smothering - now he did!

At committal the evidence was that Christopher had no blood in his lungs but now there was "lots" - a contradiction explained by the prosecution's expert that he had been too busy to look at his notes.

At committal another prosecution expert opined that Sally's reactions were consistent with other mothers who had abused children, but, pressed to produce this research, he discovered that his secretary had shredded the papers!

Perhaps the most blatant contradiction was that the pathologist on whose autopsy the prosecution was founded had said at Committal that there was no pathological evidence that Harry had been smothered. But both cases proceeded on the basis of smothering for which both the presence and absence of physical signs can be consistent. There is no test known to science to prove that a baby has NOT been smothered. No mother is safe.

Only the pathologist and the one expert who seemingly accepted his pathology without question stated unequivocally that the children died unnatural deaths. The five defence experts stated that the findings were artefactual, non-specific or just plain wrong. Even the three other prosecution experts demurred saying that the deaths should be recorded as `unascertained'. The pathologist could not explain how the injuries he claimed could possibly be occasioned without damage to the surrounding tissues, of which there was none. This is the stuff on which Sally was convicted.