Suzanne Holdsworth

Doubt cast on baby death verdict

By John Sweeney

BBC News





Kyle Fisher was due to have an operation on his eye socket


Pathologist's view

Fresh evidence casting doubt on the conviction of a woman for the murder of a boy she was babysitting, has been uncovered by BBC Newsnight.

Suzanne Holdsworth, from Hartlepool, is serving life after a court was told she smashed Kyle Fisher against a banister with as much force as a 60mph crash.

The two-year-old died in hospital with a massively swollen brain but only some bruising on the outside of his head.

A leading neuro-pathologist says it is "unlikely" an impact caused his death.

Holdsworth, 37, who worked at the check-out at Asda supermarket in Hartlepool, has always said she did not commit the crime.

Kyle had bruises, he had no scalp swelling, he had no skull fractures, so I think that is extremely unlikely

Dr Waney Squier

Her partner, Lee Spencer, and their two daughters, Lesley, 19 and Jamie-Leigh, 13, have never believed that she killed the little boy they all doted on.

The jury at Holdsworth's trial at Teesside Crown Court was told that the death took place after Kyle's mother, Clare Fisher, dropped her son off at her neighbour's in Millpool Close in July 2004 when she went clubbing.

'Meaningless'

According to the 60mph impact version of events, Kyle was left brain dead but the banister remained intact and unmarked by hair, tissue and blood.

But one of the country's most eminent neuro-pathologists, Dr Waney Squier, has dismissed the scenario as "meaningless, emotive words that have absolutely no scientific validity".


Suzanne Holdsworth was sentenced in April, 2005

She said: "A 60mph impact of a baby's head on a banister would cause massive damage to the head, massive skull fracturing.

"Kyle had bruises, he had no scalp swelling, he had no skull fractures, so I think that is extremely unlikely.'"

Kyle's father, Jon Taylor, who is separated from his mother, told the BBC: "It just happened to be that Suzanne was babysitting him.

"I could have been babysitting him, so that would mean I'd have probably ended up in jail."

999 call

Kyle's eye is at the heart of a case which may prove to be yet another grave miscarriage of justice.

Surgeons Professor Brian Avery and Sid Marks both saw Kyle in May, 2004, and planned to operate on his face.

The court heard that Kyle suffered an eye injury in 2003 after he fell from a buggy while he was being looked after by his mother.

Dr Squier told the BBC that Kyle's brain had two separate abnormalities, a congenital brain condition that can cause fits and the eye socket injury.

She said: "The brain had started to push down through that fracture into the eye socket and displacing the eye. The brain was scarred.

"So Kyle in fact had two abnormalities in his brain that would predispose him to having seizures. And seizures can kill."

I had potentially useful information and I was surprised that the police did not contact me

Professor Brian Avery

The investigation into Kyle's death was led by Det Supt Tony Hutchinson of Cleveland police, an officer with 50 murder inquiries under his belt.

Det Supt Hutchinson said after the trial that Holdsworth "very calmly applied her mind as to how she would explain the injury to the authorities".

In Holdsworth's 999 call, she told the operator Kyle was "not breathing... his eyes are rolling and everything..."

The operator asked if Kyle had had a fit. Holdsworth said he had.

The operator then asked Holdsworth if Kyle had any pre-existing injury.

She replied: "He's got a hole in his head, a hole in his eye and they're going to have take his skin off to get to it. You know, his face."

The police did not take written statements from either of the two surgeons who saw Kyle in 2004.

Prof Avery, who is a dean of the Royal College of Surgeons, told the BBC: "I had potentially useful information and I was surprised that the police did not contact me."

Newsnight put a number of questions to Det Supt Hutchinson but he declined to comment. Asked how she was going to get through her third Christmas inside, Holdsworth said: "I go on the phone, pretend I'm fine because my babies and my partner are having Christmas. I go back to my room and I cry and I cry and I cry."

Since making that call, Suzanne Holdsworth has been disciplined by the prison authorities for talking to the BBC and her ability to talk to her family restricted.


Suzanne Holdsworth BBC

When the case against Sally Clark was put as unsafe several women were released; mostly those where Professor Sir Roy Meadow directly testified for the prosecution using techniques that made fingerprinting and genetic analysis seem very dubious and uncertain.

Many cases involving Roy directly or indirectly have not been changed or even been looked at. The one that was looked at was by the same people who convicted and who were effectively asked if their ability was that of delinquents. They found themselves not deliquent and definitely not incompetent.

Bear in mind that at the original time of the prosecution of Sally she was portrayed as worse than the lady who buried children on the moors AND the nurse who was on duty at hospital when children died at that hospital.

Out of several hundred cases therefore put up for review only one in fact was reviewed and this resulted in no change in the position of guilt.

We now know that Roy was completely innocent and was in fact doing his very best to protect children from their murderous parents.

He started his protection of murderous parents by force feeding several times more than the lethal amount of toxin into a small boy and then over the next years got this woman life in prison so she was unable to murder any more of her children.

After a cursory examination of 0.1 per cent of his career he was found wanting and expelled from his profession. This did not look at his killing of a child above or his writings in journals of which he had control of who published and who didn't. His publishings have been erased from all sensible scientific discussions but they do remain on the record with no official statement as to whether they are accurate of the ramblings of a fictional character and story teller like Baron Munchausen, renowned for telling the most whopping lies and making them seem true. To protect himself from scurrulous comments about the quality of his published work he cooperated with the police and legal services by destroying his data.

He was finally reinstated into his profession when two judges were completely disgusted at the ridiculous examination of only 0.1 per cent of his work and didn't look at him killing little children. They therefore decided he was fit to practice again.

One judge dissented and decided that, all in all, the decision of the GMC was reasonable in throwing him out and the other two judges could not make him change his mind on this matter.


One case comes to mind that of Michelle Dickinson originally sentenced to life in prison. Her child was brought up on the doorstep of the most polluting nuclear facility ever built and a long way from the chemical warfare establishment where another originally guilty woman lost her children. The pollution from nuclear plants and evaporation of the worlds most toxic radioactive and non radioactive substances was deemed by Roy and others to have no bearing on the death of the children as they were not fully fit adult persons liable to suffer from nerve toxic gases or nuclear blasts. Obviously the death came from malicious parents inflicting death with no obvious sign or in fact any sign of harm.

So today Angela is free and Porton Down still has its 100 per cent record of not harming anyone in the adjoining village where at one time 100 of new born children died.

Michelle is still guilty and the record of harm from Sellafield has been proved illusory by Professor Sir Richard Doll and the 1 500 pounds a day he got from industry obviously did not sway his ability to recognise plutonium although the most toxic of any element is curiously harmless when leaking from Her Majesty's Polluting Establishments. The harm if any coming from thin bits of iron wire leading from the facility.

The chances of obtaining justice are therefore miniscule. The lies that circulate are accepted by the police and government as true. What in fact is causing the deaths and illnesses to babies?

Look to the GMC witch finding currently under way in London where 3 doctors not prepared to accept vaccine harm is not recognised for what it is and what is does to babies are being disciplined in a process again where their judges get paid nearly 1 000 pounds a day in total with cessation of this money if they admit the charges are stupid. The action goes back to a paper peer reviewed nearly ten years ago with many people retracting their names to remain in UK employ. Not one witness appears in person to prosecute and yet their is no summary judgement in favour of the doctors.

Dr Wakefield knows thousands of 1 to 2 year children harmed by vaccines. If life time harm comes from vaccines to a strong baby then what are the long term affects to tiny babies receiving several times as many vaccines some with known brain destroying chemicals deliberately added and refused to be taken out as at April 2008.

In Canada doctors who blame parents and not vaccines are under scrutiny.

France with possibly the worlds best health service we have three people from three different vaccine companies being indited for manslaughter.

In the UK the vaccines are GOD with no public record of adverse effects as is the custom for example in the USA with a quarter of a million recorded cases in less than 20 years. No admittance of careful research by hundreds of vaccine scientists that even harmless proteins injected can set up anaphylactic results which destroys life to protect the species from corruption.

But worst of all are the hundreds of people in prison with no hope of justice.

And to beat it all, new cases come through all the time with conviction on NO EVIDENCE OF HARM.

In 2008 UK RIP all vaccine harmed children.

And in 2008 RIP UK Legal System

Will we get clear and obvious justice by 2020?

I do hope legal and police brains will have perfect vision of how a few money motivated experts have destroyed any credibility in UK justice.

Hats off to our Knighted Professors.

Laughing all the way to the bank?

quicksilver Suzanne's case is not about any of the above, it is impact and lucid interval.

In the case of Michelle Dickinson, we have identified a little known disorder that is quite common. (Michelle would have to be tested) Some people lack an enzyme that metabolises drugs out of the system, allowing for the medication to become toxic. Further to that, I have a concern that the doctor involved in the original diagnosis has been disciplined for over diagnosing epilepsy in cases in which there was a seizure disorder associated with other causes, heart and hypothalamic.

As far as Angela is concerned, both Angela and her surviving child are "borderline" long QT, testing in the UK is inadequate, genetic tests will be undertaken which we expect to confirm the diagnosis - this would explain the sudden deaths of her infant children. Long QT leaves no mark at death, the lignocaine contained in products like Bonjella could well have triggered a fatal arrythmia as lignocaine is contra-indicated with Long QT Syndrome and teething babies have "open wounds" on their gums, which would then ensure entry of the drug into the system.

Surely at the very least there must be an enquiry into the police handling of the case.
And what about Sharon Birch? If anything they should learn something from her gut instincts and admit there were major failures here!!!
Ooh it is so frustrating!!
Anyway will be watching and waiting for justice.

Sharon Hutchinson deserves a medal, an honest and decent police officer, now forced out of her job beause of her concerns. She as much as said, that Cleveland Police were building a case against Suzanne and ignoring other evidence that didn't "fit" the theory.

Well watch this space, because this is not going away.

Suzanne's conviction is not only unsafe, it is illegal.

Babysitter jailed for battering boy to death was the victim of a 'serious miscarriage of justice', hears appeal

By VANESSA ALLEN - Last updated at 22:21pm on 22nd April 2008

A babysitter jailed for battering a two-year-old boy to death was wrongly convicted after he suffered a "catastrophic" epileptic fit, it was claimed yesterday.


Suzanne Holdsworth, 37, was the victim of a serious miscarriage of justice and should be cleared on new medical evidence, her lawyers told the Court of Appeal.


She is serving a life sentence for murder after a jury heard she battered Kyle Fisher's head against a wooden banister with the force of a child being thrown from a car at 60mph.

Scroll down for more ...


Fatal brain swelling: Kyle Fisher, two


But her lawyers claimed that theory was based on "misleading" opinions from medical experts and said Kyle could have died from an epileptic seizure brought on by a previous injury.

Holdsworth was accused of killing Kyle in July 2004 while his 19-year-old single mother Clare Fisher was at a nightclub.

She told her murder trial he had suddenly gone "floppy" and collapsed while they watched TV at her home in Hartlepool.

But the jury accepted the prosecution's explanation that Holdsworth, a mother of two, had lost her temper with the child and repeatedly beat his head against a banister.



She dialled 999 and he was taken to hospital but died two days later from massive swelling to his brain.


It has previously been claimed that the alleged attack left the banister unmarked by hair, tissue or blood, and did not fracture Kyle's skull.

The Appeal Court heard the boy had a "unique" series of medical problems, all of which made him more likely to develop epilepsy.

Medical expert Dr Philip Anslow said he had an unusually large head and a pre-existing brain abnormality, and the court heard that in 2003 he had broken his eye socket in a fall from his buggy while in his mother's care, further damaging his brain.


Dr Anslow said they were all factors linked to epilepsy and said he believed Kyle had died because he stopped breathing during an epileptic fit.

He said: "Children die of epileptic seizures. It is not very common but it does happen."

A second expert, specialist brain pathologist Dr Waney Squier, said claims that Kyle must have been injured shortly before his collapse were "extremely unreliable".

The court was told he had fallen out of bed the night before the alleged attack by Holdsworth and could have been injured then.


Henry Blaxland, QC, said the new medical evidence undermined the prosecution's case from the 2005 trial and asked the three Appeal Court judges to order a retrial.


Holdsworth was in the dock to hear her lawyers present her case.


Her partner Lee Spencer was in the public gallery with their daughter Jamie-Leigh, 13, who blew kisses to her mother and mouthed: "I love you."

The appeal continues.

[img][/img]

Hi Angela,

Through this week, I've remembered Suzanne in my prayers, just as in your time of trouble I remembered you

Hi Hampshirehog - welcome as always. I am pretty sure we are looking at a quashing and retrial in Suzanne's case, which is the best result, we don't like acquittals because the experts always state "got off on a technicality".

Judgement has been reserved, as expected, the result and reasons will be given in writing as soon as the RCJ can - this normally takes two to three weeks.

Penny Mellor wrote:...I am pretty sure we are looking at a quashing and retrial in Suzanne's case, which is the best result, we don't like acquittals because the experts always state "got off on a technicality".

I can't even begin to think of what tortures Suzanne will be going through, in those 'two to three weeks'. At least as far as Angela was concerned, it was all over in three days. The legal part, that is

Waiting and hoping for a positive result.
Hi to you Hampshirehog and welcome.

Audrey Edmunds Appeal upheld Lucid Interval

Wisconsin Supreme Court lets 'shaken baby' ruling stand

By RYAN J. FOLEY – Apr 17, 2008

MADISON, Wis. (AP) — A ruling that freed a woman from prison and cast doubt on prosecutions over "shaken baby syndrome" will stand, the Wisconsin Supreme Court has decided.

The decision is a victory for former day care provider Audrey Edmunds, who has long maintained her innocence against charges that she shook a baby to death in 1995.

"It's a great breakthrough for us, and we're really glad the Supreme Court acted in righteousness and on my behalf," Edmunds said in a telephone interview.

Edmunds spent more than 10 years in prison after a jury convicted her of first-degree reckless homicide in 1996. She was freed in February after an appeals court said new research into the syndrome cast doubt on her guilt.

The appeals court noted that some medical experts now doubt that babies can be killed by shaking alone and believe they can live for hours after suffering traumatic head injuries. Some researchers also argue symptoms similar to those associated with shaking can be caused by other factors.

The Wisconsin Department of Justice appealed to the Supreme Court, saying the ruling would make it virtually impossible for prosecutors to bring charges in shaken baby cases.

The new legal standard will allow those convicted based on scientific evidence to seek new trials "whenever a new study is published," said Kevin St. John, spokesman for Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen.

The high court voted 5-1 on Monday not to take up the case and let the ruling stand. The court did not publicly announce the decision, but a spokesman confirmed the vote Thursday.

Dane County prosecutors now must decide whether to retry Edmunds. District Attorney Brian Blanchard said he was conferring with the victim's family.

Her appellate lawyer, Keith Findley of the Wisconsin Innocence Project, said he hoped prosecutors would drop the charges.

"It's time to let Audrey Edmunds get on with her life," he said.

The appeals court said new research into shaken baby syndrome presents alternate theories on how 7-month-old Natalie Beard might have suffered fatal injuries while at Edmunds' in-home day care. It said a jury should hear competing theories.

Edmunds has testified the baby was dropped off at her home in good health but quickly became fussy. She tried unsuccessfully to console the child and then left her in a bedroom in a car seat with a propped bottle.

She said she called 911 after finding the baby limp with liquid coming out of her nose and mouth. The child was pronounced dead hours later.

Prosecutors argue the baby died as a result of violent shaking by Edmunds or shaking combined with impact that caused a fatal head injury.

Edmunds' lawyers said that it is impossible to know how the baby died but that it could have been the result of a seizure, choking on formula or an infection.

Edmunds is free on bail and living with a friend in Minnesota, near her three teenage daughters. She has said she wants to clear her name.

So another miscarriage of justice and will there be any support for Audrey and her family?
At the very least some sort of compensation although nothing will compensate for this family being ripped apart by the system.

More importantly, LUCID INTERVALS.

However indirectly, I hope that this ruling will help Keran Henderson

As the announcement was made that the judgement was reserved, Suzanne, just as she did when found guilty, let out a wail and collapsed in tears - the entire week she had to run the gauntlet of the Holloway mafia calling her every name under the sun - her partner Lee was there with their daughter Jamie-Leigh, just 13. It broke their hearts, again. What I found so incredibly sad was this, Suzanne would have been supported, despite her distress, prison officers are very good a listening and helping, Lee and his daughter were just left to fend for themselves. I couldn't get down to the C of A, so I had to support via the telephone instead.

During the week Angela and I were also supporting our friends during the inquest into the death of their baby, reliving every painful moment (especially for Angela) and the aftermath of what that accusation did to them, consoling the mother as she sobbed in grief for what has been lost and can never be regained They have two surviving children, one of whom was taken at birth and adopted out, the second child allowed to stay with them after a lengthy legal battle - the inquest is proving to be extremely hard, hard because all of a sudden smothering has gone out of the window, all the experts put natural causes above smothering, the same experts who way back said the opposite - so much has been lost during the last 9 years, it's hard to hear what should have been said back in the beginning, the truth coming too late.

The Foundation is here to support in a way in which others cannot, it's difficult sometimes though and this week has been very draining, so apologies to all of you with whom I have been short with on the phone.

ACF sent Suzanne some flowers, she still hasn't seen them because the dogs haven't checked them out yet! Interflora being reknowned for it's drug running of course!!! NOT!

All right Flower,
We finally have time to to thank each and every one of you on here for your continued support, Suzanne is home, Jamieleigh is happy again i think you all know where i'm coming from when i say this "the smile on our daughters face is worth the world". Suzanne has adapted really well i'm proud of her she is a very strong woman.
The phone calls to Penny and Angela prove to be helpful they both know what thay are talking about right down to the full stops.
Both Suzanne and I would like to thank ACF for the flowers, Thank you.

Re-Trial 1st dec 2008 Teeside Crown Court.

Once again Thank you all for your support and kind words, they really do mean a lot when in these situations to help rise above and not hang your head knowing your not alone.

Come the 1st December, I'll be thinking of you both - as will many others

...and prayers will be with Suzanne and her partner Lee, who are (as I understand) being married today. May they have many long and happy years together