Strength of Character

Accepting Donations while Claiming Innocence

[ Jury Verdict - Guilty as Charged]

Iain Henderson crowed to the Buckinghamshire Advertiser. He told them " There are always nasty comments on that website which are completely needless and very often wrong. The person who is running it does not even have the strength of character to say who they are so I don't want to respond to comments they make."

Of course, Iain makes no response to all the questions asked on this blog showing the quality of his own strength of character. By the way, I have advised Justice4Maeve to keep her anonymity because we don't want those harassers involved with the Henderson campaign to make life hell for her. Justice4Maeve asks some vital questions. It is interesting that Ian Henderson does not like challenge and opts to undermine this legitimate blog that had the guts to ask the relevant questions.

While Mr Henderson speaks of "strength of character", can he tells us [ the legitimate thinkers in the public] what the breakdown of the donations is? This question has been asked repeatedly but its all been silence in the bloggers court. We can only assume that Mr Henderson feels threatened by the new challenge by Justice4Maeve, a fearless woman who started to question and go where no one dared to. I admire her anyway. If it were not for Justice4Maeve, I would not have put my thinking cap on and applied it to the spin campaign constructed by Ian Henderson. It is also excellent to see Justice4Maeve return in full force with some excellent graphics and some brilliant ideas.

So Mr Henderson [ ex police] lets see the breakdown of the donations that has been accepted from the blinded public. It would be ironic if all these people were blinded by the "narrow spectrum" information you place on your website. Lets see the wider spectrum evidence, lets see all the expert reports, the court transcripts and the actual judgment. Of course, none of us like being told what we should believe. Let us all judge for ourself.

Of course, Panorama is around on Monday. Yet another "innocent even when proven guilty" media spin no doubt. I am though interested in Mr Sheppard's narrative.

NOTHING BUT THE HALF TRUTH

In the litigation arena permission to appeal/appeal cannot be obtained by publicity alone. Publicity though can influence-which is essentially our argument here. That would be the only reason to use publicity in the Henderson case - to act to influence. The Henderson campaign trial knows how to use its publicity. Money is one objective ie harvesting donations. The other objective is to influence - influencing the public, influencing the courts and blinding everyone with fragments of the truth. That is what the Henderson campaign offers us. It believes the public are unintelligent. It therefore feeds that public, half truths. If said enough, it becomes the fictional truth. The kind of truth that makes people reach deep into their pockets to donate. Of course, to my mind there are a million causes to donate to in the world.

At no time has the audience and the public been presented with ALL the court documentation so that we [ the public] can make up our minds. Of course, much like Labour Party spin, we aren't allowed to assess the evidence for ourselves. We have to be told what to believe and what is right. The Henderson campaign team does not present the medical expert reports for the prosecution on their website and infact we have no court documents at all. To date, no one has placed the entire transcripts online nor any court documentation. Do we conclude that the Henderson campaign trail have something to conceal?

We can though see that the majority of permissions/appeals to fail. The Henderson campaign trail will already have first hand evidence of this. There is nothing like a failed attempt to provide full proof appeal advice. Failure instills confidence in the public? Afterall, England always congratulates the loser and not the winner.

Anyway, we shall move onto other matters relating to appeals itself. This research was commissioned to inform the Committee about factors affecting the success of appeals against conviction. Crime and Criminal Justice Research Findings No. 12 (1996) applies to the Scottish Courts but is nevertheless interesting. "The Sutherland Committee on Appeals Criteria and Alleged Miscarriages of Justice was set up in 1994 by the then Secretary of State for Scotland to examine the criteria governing the consideration of criminal appeals against conviction and the procedures for dealing with alleged miscarriages of justice. This research was commissioned to inform the Committee about factors affecting the success of appeals against conviction and was carried out during 1995 by analysis of appeal records held by Crown Office and the Scottish Legal Aid Board (SLAB), as well as through discussions with lawyers involved in criminal appeals. Factors affecting appeals against sentence were not considered. Some of the main findings are summarised below".

The findings are listed below

Most appeals (65%) were abandoned before the Appeal Court passed judgement on their merits; of the remainder 25% were refused and 10% were allowed.

Most abandonments (85%) took place before the first Appeal Court hearing: 48% were abandoned through a Notice or Minute of Abandonment; 27% through failure (whether intentional or not) to comply with various procedural deadlines; and a further 10% were deemed abandoned owing to the appellant's failure to appear at the first hearing. The remaining 15% of abandonments occurred at or sometime after the first appeal court hearing.

Defence agents thought that several factors influenced the abandonment of appeals. Some were related to the quality of the appeal and were often interlinked (these were: a realisation by the appellant that the initial impulse to appeal was misconceived; an unhelpful stated case or charge to the jury; an unfavourable counsel opinion; and, closely related to the latter two factors, a refusal of legal aid.) Other factors not related to the quality of the appeal but which were thought to lead to abandonment were the refusal of interim liberation and a perceived greater propensity to appeal, regardless of the strength of the case, by people sentenced to custody.

The success rate for appeals ranged from 5% of all appeals lodged against decisions of the High Court to 15% of appeals lodged from district courts. In between were appeals from sheriff court solemn (11% allowed) and sheriff court summary procedures (10% allowed).

Around half of the appeals were based on multiple grounds and a total of 30 different grounds were identified. Many of these were used only occasionally but there was an extremely high use of a small number of grounds, with the five most popular accounting for 68% of all grounds cited. Most of these grounds raised questions about the quality of the evidence rather than being based upon technical points of procedure.

Although the more frequently cited grounds of appeal tended to have higher abandonment rates, they did not generally appear to have different success rates.

Applications for Legal Aid were more likely to be granted for appeals against decisions of the higher courts which reflects the fact that these were the most serious cases. Where legal aid was refused, the appeal was abandoned in three quarters of cases; where legal aid was granted, however, abandonments occurred in less than one-third of cases.

The refusal of interim liberation did not affect the rate of abandonment although it made an early abandonment more likely

To summarise the grounds of appeal more succinctly than the clear ramblings on a neighbouring website

1.misdirection of law;

2.non-direction on the law;

3,failure to refer to a defence;

4. misdirection on the facts;

5.inappropriate comment by the judge;

6. wrongful admission or exclusion of the evidence;

7. defects in the indictment;

8. rejection of no case to answer;

9. jury irregularities;

10. irregularity in relation to verdict;

11. prosecution responsibilities such as non-disclosure or late change in nature of the case.

Now this would be a much better aide memoire for the public.

As for the Sally Clark's case, it was run by the PR machine Quiller Consultants. Of course, it was a media spin machine. Of course, it got her the public sympathy vote. Of course,millions of women cried for her. I have the actual transcripts of the original trial though and its amazing what we find out about Mr Stephen Clark. You see much, like the Henderson case, if we dissect the factual evidence within the trial and the actual evidence, we come to a rather different conclusion. That is of course a matter for another day. One thing is for certain, Quillers controlled what the public heared and what the public read. Of course, much like the Henderson spin machine, only the partial truth is in the public domain. We are interested in facts. That is of course a matter for another sunny day.

Related Links

Forms for Leave to Appeal

CPS material - Appeals to the Court of Appeal

Criminal appeal office - Advice for Relatives

£3000 plus the "Innocent" Card

Keran's message can be read here. Her community supports her.

Then we all have to remember that Harold Shipman's patients supported him as well. Do criminals often admit to guilt? Well, I suppose they sometimes do. If Keran was guilty, would she admit to it or would she do everything in her power to save face? That is of course the real question. I have often thought that loners who have nothing to save of their reputation often admit to their crimes but those who are a part of a community always maintain their innocence. Keran comes in the second set of people.

A recent newspaper stated as follows "The petition, which calls for "a change in the process which allows wrongful convictions based solely on unscientifically proven theories", was signed by 350 adults". The problem though is that Keran's conviction was on scientific analysis as asssessed by the jury.

My question is this, would a woman with so much in the way of reputation to lose in her community admit to her guilt? I would say probably not. I don't see a lady like Keran who was a main player in the local community admitting to much at all. Then of course there are her children who understandably will believe their mother is innocent. On a balance sheet, this case has more to gain by the "innocent" card. Of course, there is a very remote possibility that Keran could be innocent.

The Henderson campaign is doing well donations wise. We are yet to see any breakdown of the finances. While the Henderson campaign insists that the legal team are working probono, Mr Henderson writes as follows " [Donations page on his wesbite] Your generosity will enable the Committee to assist in the financing of an appeal, and in meeting the direct and indirect costs which are being incurred in supporting Keran and her family during her period of imprisonment. By donating to the fund you are expressing your willingness to right a terrible wrong through the activities of the Committee expending those funds on your behalf".

So there we are, the public is indeed funding Bill Bache's silk handkerchiefs. £3000 plus by now should be funding a few hours of lawyer time. I believe though that there are tons of miscarriages of justice. Personally, I believe funds should be shared between all the families. Afterall, it wouldn't be fair to keep the entire pot of money just incase Keran was actually guilty.

Related Link

Interesting book - A Review of Justice In Error.

Public Funds

"A website has been set up and a campaign fund started, which, on the first day was sent £3,000 by anonymous donors" Daily Mail [ on the Henderson Campaign Trail].

And more recently the Henderson Campaign stated

"So for clarification, every bit of work being undertaken by the legal team in Henderson is being done pro bono"

So can we have a breakdown of exactly how much campaign funds where raised and what happened to donated money?

I postulate as follows in terms of the pro bono work :-

1. Media stories [ Spinmeister time]

2. Soundbites [ Creator time]

3. Getting further clients on the back of publicity [ Fame]

My question is - have the team got any decent experts to back Henderson or is everyone going to ride on her fame. Thats if she is innocent of course. Perhaps the team is going to play the technicality card and the media card. A winning combination no doubt. By the way, can we get that juror a paediatric textbook from Amazon so she can do some bedtime reading. Much like John Hemming MP she feels unable to read a textbook.

Related Link

http://www.legalservices.gov.uk/

No such thing as a free lunch.

The Minority Report

In an account in the Daily Mail by Mr Henderson, he writes as follows :-

"One, neuropathologist Dr Waney Squier, suggested Maeve's injuries could have been months old. But that did not suit the prosecution, so the next day they brought someone in to say the injuries must have been more recent. "

Dr Waney Squier works at the John Radcliffe Hospital Oxford. By Mr Henderson's own admission she was the only expert [ out of the possible 12] that had a differing view. She was also the only expert witness that went public .

She then told the Daily Mail ""What I cannot say is whether those injuries were accidental or inflicted. But it's incredibly unlikely it was shaken-baby syndrome. There is absolutely nothing to indicate she was shaken".

So, the words "incredibly unlikely" does not fit with " There is absolutely nothing to indicate she was shaken". "Incredibly unlikely" gives us the idea that there was a possibility no matter how remote. So Waney is seen to contradict herself here. Even worse she states " What I cannot say is whether those injuries were accidental or inflicted". So basically Waney cannot tell us what happened at all. In any event each sentence of hers conflicts with everything else she states in the papers.

In any case, by Iain Henderson's own admission, the jury were already aware of Dr Waney Squire's view when they made their judgment. It is nothing new. The media spin on this is rather interesting. No media outlet tells us how many experts actually supported the prosecution. At the last count there were 12 experts [ I could be wrong].

What is interesting is this, Dr Waney Squier works in the same hospital where Maeve Sheppard had been admitted. The Express pointed out "Maeve was taken to Wexham Park Hospital, then transferred to intensive care at John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford". Waney Squier's witness evidence can hardly be said to be completely "independent". I believe others who have done this sort of thing in the past have been accused of a breach of confidentiality by the scientology award winner. Waney though hasn't been accused of this at all showing that the accusations by the Henderson camp supporter is normally made just for convenience. Dr John Chapman who wrote in the BMJ (2005) about a case already in the public domain. He stated "I posted a response yesterday. I did not include my email address deliberately. This morning I have received an email from PM who is reporting me to the GMC and the Royal College of Paediatrics & Child Health for a perceived breach of patient confidentiality. Beware" .

Of course, I often think that it is a very brave expert witness to go public on a case she has been involved with. This has the net effect of distressing Maeve's parents [ who feel compelled to defend themselves] and influences the forthcoming appeal of Mrs Henderson.

The Henderson case supporter and Scientology award winner then wrote " Finally unless you have obtained permission from the family to give details of the case in which you were an attending doctor, I do believe that you have breached patient confidentiality by leading the reader of your response to the article in which the child's name appears" (2005). Of course, Waney was one of the first doctors to review the brain of this child because it was the hospital where she was treated.

Dr Squier, from the John Radcliffe Hospital in Oxford, said: "I spend all my life reading papers and studying my field of expertise". It is therefore interesting that she ignores the views of all clinicians in the case completely. Well, she considers herself as a neuropathologist to be the only expert that counts, the rest of the experts are now apparently irrelevant according to her. That is what she and the Henderson camp would like to think anyway. In reality, a conclusion is reached by the view from all specialities. This is called a Panoramic view. Taking her view out of context is simply taking one jigsaw out of a entire picture and coming to a conclusion.

The Daily Mail said of the other experts

"One of them, respected consultant neuroradiologist Dr Neil Stoodley, insisted that scans taken at the hospital showed bleeding in the brain of baby Maeve which was a "marker of a shaking injury. Others said that the little girl had haemorrhages behind both eyes and that her brain had swollen which proved an attack"

In conclusion, it seems the majority view supports the prosecution case. What we are given by the media is a Minority View. In truth, the jury were already aware of Waney Squier's view and summarily rejected it. What we have is a cleverly constructed media spin meister overinflating the importance of the minority opinions.

What is even more interesting is this "A website has been set up and a campaign fund started, which, on the first day was sent £3,000 by anonymous donors". Not bad money for overinflating a minority view and essentially blinding the public. I assume that money has been given to Maeve's parents. At least that is the right thing to do. Either that or Bill Bache has informed the legal aid people of their new found fortune.

Until next time.....

Panoramic Juror Theory

There are all sorts of advantages to Scientology. The main ethos of Scientology is all about gaining power and influence. Jury tampering isn't new in the world of Scientology. It is though interesting. No doubt in response to this statement, there will be frantic tapping on keyboards in an attempt to discredit me. That's fine, that's what Scientologists do.

In life there are a few types of coincidences and the rest happens due to the laws of physics. The key is to look at the facts of the case and derive some conclusions. We shall of course look at the juror phenomena.

On the 17th December 2007 the Jurors went public.in the Henderson case. On the same day Mon Dec 17, 2007 7:09 pm, a Scientologist award winner writes the following on the http://www.msbp.com/ "Always been my point with these types of cases, other jurors whom I am in contact from other high profile trials say the same thing". Now our question is this, why would the Scientologist award winner wish to know so many jurors. And exactly how many jurors have been influenced? Immediately, the Scientologist Award winner's associate a Mr John Hemming writes a comment on the West Midlands Liberal Democrat website. It is almost as if they were all waiting on the wings for the story to break then immediately [ as we know this is impossible for any MP] had a comment all ready and waiting. I just love the timing of the juror as featured in the media. And shock horror, even the Expert Witness [ one of 12] dresses up for the media. This was just a few days later.

I note that no juror or expert spoke out until the involvement of the John Hemming MP/Bill Bache Team. Isn't that interesting. On the 23rd of December 2007 a few days after the jurors did their soundbites, then came the Times article. The Times article stated " An appeal is being mounted with the help of Bill Bache, the solicitor who organised Angela Cannings’s appeal". We calculate that he must have had the papers for a while. Was Keran Henderson cherry picked for her command of being a "high profile case"? Indeed, why don't we see any other lawyers running the media bandwagon prior to an appeal.

Of course, it would be Bill Bache the man who told everyone that " A certain person did for them what he could never do". You mean like " talk to the newspapers and give them soundbites" that Bill Bache cannot do directly? So if anyone asks Bill, he can truthfully say he was never involved in doing what Alasdair Campbell used to do. Is that what he means? Who does he hand the spinmeister reigns to then? Well, we can think of one person who has always done it.

I always compare the fancy footwork of Bill Bache to a good Tango. He may look like a baffoon and carry a silk handkerchief in his top pocket but we know all about Bill. It isn't just circumstance that the media articles have come in tandem much like a well rehearsed pattern. The media are of course dumb enough to play ball with them all. Its all about selling papers and everyone loves a good sob story.

As I said before, Bill Bache spends his life defending clients. Lawyers say black is white and white is black because it is their profession. Anyway, this is just the start of a interesting tale of intrigue.

This kind of tango can be seen many times over, much like a broken record in each case that revolves around child protection issues. The same team, the same media drive, the attacks on anyone who attempts an opposing argument etc. The overall net result is to damage child protection. Opposing arguments means that person has to be broken down, discredited, taken out of the equation.

This isn't about the truth, it is about bending the truth and it is also about money. Money afterall makes the world go round. Any desperate victim would be happy to take any alms that is offered to them. It is a bit like the film The Picture of Dorian Grey. He sold his soul for his youth. What would any of us do to get out of prison?

Anyway, I shall keep eating my popcorn and watch this case with intrigue. It is all about panoramic views afterall.

Jurors Official Story - The Times

Is it right for two jurors to speak out in a case pending appeal? 2 Jurors spoke out but the others' didn't. The case contained a majority verdict.

"In an unprecedented move, two jurors recently spoke out to condemn the conviction of Keran Henderson, a childminder, for the manslaughter of 11-month-old Maeve Sheppard while in her care. Their comments, revealed by The Times, were made anonymously. Now, in an exclusive article, the foreman, a lecturer living in Berkshire, questions the practical workings of the jury system"

Read the story here.

An interesting debate on the impartiality of the jury system is raised in the Times article here.

The Keran Henderson campaign trail were obviously happy that the minority of the jurors gave them some hope. We could twist this round and state that the line of hope is the publicity which may even influence the appeal judges. Afterall, all judges read the Times don't they? In the BBC article the juror stated "I will never know as long as I live whether the verdict was right or not because I haven't, we haven't, got all this medical expertise".

Does this mean that the Lord Chancellor should review every jury that has sat on every criminal trial containing medical evidence? Lets face it, every criminal trial has some form of medical evidence. Of course, there are juries who actually go away and read up and there are those who simply sit there and plead naivety. If that is so, this juror should write to the Lord Chancellor and tell him to retry all criminal cases based on the fact that no one understands anything about medicine and they are all incapable of using the Internet or lifting a textbook after the trial. So instead of making these admissions during the trial and asking for more information from the judge/counsels they make their admission of intellectual inferiority after the fact. They could have sought clarification at the hearing itself. They opted not to do so. Nothing is a coincidence of course. I suspect simply telling the CPS by letter or verbally was out of the question was it? No, what they felt compelled to do was advertise it to the entire media.

The Henderson campaign trail has not to date denied a connection with the jurors. There may be no merit in this speculation but nevertheless it has never been excluded.

This has the net effect of influencing the appeal in the Henderson case. I suppose when you have nothing by way of factual evidence then you have to rely on other alternatives such as blinding the public.

Mrs Ruth Sheppard Speaking to the BBC

A childminder has been jailed for shaking an 11-month-old baby to death. Keran Henderson had been trusted to look after little Maeve Sheppard but killed her instead, Reading Crown Court heard. Maeve Sheppard was initially looked after by her mother. Like many new mothers Ruth Sheppard was torn between her desire to look after her baby girl and the financial pressure to return to work. Mrs Sheppard told the court how she spent every waking moment with her daughter while on maternity leave. She wiped away tears as she remembered a happy, trouble-free baby. She and her husband Mark, who were childhood sweethearts before being reunited in adulthood, had struggled to make ends meet with the wages from Mr Sheppard's job as a toolmaker. Continued here

Minder Killed Baby By Shaking Her Court Told

Source - The Telegraph

A childminder killed a baby girl in her care by shaking her violently, a court heard yesterday.
Keran Henderson, 42, is said to have shaken Maeve Sheppard so violently that she was blinded and suffered terminal brain damage. She died in hospital two days later. Henderson, who was looking after the 11-month-old and other children at her home in Iver Heath, Bucks, told ambulance staff that Maeve had suffered a sudden fit as she changed her nappy advertisement

But the jury at Reading Crown Court was told that there was no medical evidence to support this claim. Henderson, a registered childminder, was employed by Ruth Sheppard, 36, and her toolmaker husband Mark, 38, to mind their only child, following a recommendation from a local playgroup. She was described as "very good with children" and was used by a number of parents.

On the morning of March 2, 2005, Henderson dialled 999, telling the operator that Maeve had suffered a seizure, was limp and had sunken eyes. A hospital examination found that the child was suffering from bilateral retinal haemorrhaging — bleeding behind both eyes. It was concluded that this was caused by either shaking or a shaking impact.

There was no evidence of external injury to cause the condition, said Joanna Glynn, for the prosecution. Maeve's parents were told there was no hope of a recovery and they had her christened in hospital hours before they agreed to her life support machine being switched off.

"The cause of death was given as head and neck injuries and it is the prosecution's case that these injuries were non-accidental," said Miss Glynn.

"It is our case that Mrs Henderson violently shook Maeve and the medical evidence is that that act caused Maeve's death."

Maeve had been unwell in the weeks before her death, but this did not explain the injury to her brain. She was said to have been "whizzing around" in her walker only hours before she was taken to hospital. Continued here.

Yahoo Chat Outcome

"12 EXPERTS told how she was shook violently causing her neck to 'overextend' but Keran still proclaims she is innocent and needs to be freed, she compares herself to the miscarraige of justice that has applied to four mothers who lost their child to COT deaths, yes this was a tragedy but how can a child who had so many traumatic injuries have died if she had not shaken her. Is three years really a long enough sentence for this little girls life???

Continue the discussion here

Justice4Maeve

"how did an 11 month old have a brain injury, snapped her neck, have retinal damage and brain swelling in the space of 5 hours in someones care if nothing but a fit happened" As quoted from http://justice4maeve.blogspot.com/

Childminder Keran Henderson jailed for shaking baby to death in a fit of temper

"Medical experts told the court that the child’s fatal brain injuries could only have been caused by a shaking so violent that it caused her neck to snap back and forth"

Source - The Times

"A childminder was jailed for three years yesterday for shaking an 11-month-old baby to death. Keran Henderson, 42, collapsed in the dock as a jury at Reading Crown Court convicted her of killing Maeve Sheppard in a fit of temper. The infant was taken to hospital critically ill in March 2005, but her life-support machine was switched off two days later, after a bedside christening" Continued here