Leicestershire baby shake death mother Jodie Pick cleared

Jodie Pick said the case had meant she could not lay her daughter to rest

Continue reading the main story

Related Stories

• Mother weeps over baby evidence
• Mother admitted to shaking baby
• Baby died from ’shaking injury’

A Leicestershire mother has been cleared of the manslaughter of her seven-week-old daughter.

Jodie Pick, 24, from Broughton Astley, denied the charge but had admitted she caused Courtney’s death by shaking her.

She had repeatedly told Leicester Crown Court she had been trying to revive Courtney after finding her unconscious in May 2009.

The jury took six hours to return its verdict, at which Ms Pick put her head in her hands and sobbed.

Ms Pick said she found her daughter tangled in her bib and had only shaken her after other attempts to wake her did not work.

Medical tests found the baby sustained head, brain and spinal cord injuries in the incident.

The jury rejected prosecution claims that Ms Pick had lost her temper with Courtney and that medical evidence did not support her story.

Speaking after the verdict, Ms Pick’s solicitor Simon Clarke said: “The last 26 months since Courtney’s death has been the worst period of her life.

“Not only has she had to face criminal proceedings but during that period and for many, many months, she could not lay Courtney to rest.”

More on This Story

Related Stories

• Mother weeps over baby evidence 11 JULY 2011, LEICESTER
• Mother admitted to shaking baby 08 JULY 2011, LEICESTER
• Baby died from ’shaking injury’ 28 JUNE 2011, LEICESTER

Annex C: Royal College of Pathologists, Meeting 10 December 2009

Conclusion - Areas of agreement and disagreement

The following list has been agreed by the participants at the meeting

It was agreed that when the following features are all present at a paediatric post mortem:

• widespread bilateral retinal haemorrhages and large macular folds
• thin-film subdural haemorrhage
• encephalopathy

(i.e. ‘the triad’ in characteristic form)

then, considering the case in the absence of other evidence, there should be a prima facie suspicion that the injuries are due to mechanical trauma, potentially including vigorous shaking.

It was agreed that all the individual elements of ‘the triad’ have a differential diagnosis, and that a thorough post-mortem examination is invariably needed to exclude, as far as possible, non-traumatic explanations of such changes.

It was agreed that in the current state of knowledge the presence of ‘the triad’, even in its ‘characteristic’ form, should not be regarded as absolute proof of traumatic head injury in the absence of any other corroborative evidence. 

It was agreed that the following post-mortem findings would lend support to a suggestion of mechanical trauma to the head:

• Bilateral optic nerve haemorrhage at the point where the optic nerve enters the globe
• Histological changes in the brain indicating mechanical damage rather than ischaemic damage (though there was not agreement on how easy or reliable such histological assessment may be)
• Other post-mortem evidence of cranial trauma or extra-cranial trauma

It was agreed that the following post-mortem findings would indicate a need for greater caution in suggesting that there had been significant mechanical trauma to the head:

• One or more elements of ‘the triad’ being absent
• One or more elements of ‘the triad’ being present in a limited or atypical form (e.g. intradural haemorrhage without subdural haemorrhage; large, space-occupying or organising subdural haemorrhage; unilateral ocular changes)
• Young age at death (interpreted as under 3 months, with particular caution being needed in cases young enough for birth trauma or hypoxia to be a possible explanation for the post-mortem findings)

It was agreed that in some cases where death is undoubtedly due to head injury, some or all of the components of ‘the triad’ may be absent.

It was not agreed how the post-mortem findings should be integrated to suggest a level of probability of mechanical head injury for the benefit of a court, when considering an individual case. It is therefore anticipated that even where there is agreement on the description of the findings at post-mortem, pathologists could not be expected to agree on the precise probability of trauma being the underlying cause.

The meeting did not discuss mechanisms by which the changes of ‘the triad’ might develop, so areas of agreement and disagreement concerning mechanisms cannot be stated.

 Footnote -

So yet again the pay to say crew try to con a Jury into believing ‘ALL’ believe in their theory and thats not quite true is it boys?!

But the legal system still allows you to get away with it….

Remember the oath you Promise to tell the truth, the whole truth and NOTHING but the truth.

Stop making out you have ‘never seen anything as bad as this ever in your career’ etc etc.

By sending inncoents to prison YOU will be responsible ultimately for the guilty ones going free in the future you bloody fools. I would never want a guilty one free, and you are making sure with every trial you do that it will happen eventually.

Silly silly silly - your white hat (white knight) is very dirty, because your in sooo deep, its a bit hard to back track…but the sooner you do it the better.

Doctor dismisses Scholey defence

By Mike Pyle
July 08, 2011

A doctor specialising in the treatment of newborns said a baby’s fatal injuries could not have been caused by the weight of another child falling on him – as a defendant claimed.

Dr Gregory Boden was giving evidence at the trial of Colin Scholey who is accused of the manslaughter of four-month-old Thomas Preece who died while he was being looked after by the former Marine.

Scholey, 26, denies shaking and flinging the baby on to a bed and claims Thomas’s death was after a tragic accident in which a 15-month-old girl in Scholey’s care accidentally fell on him.

Reading Crown Court previously heard the incident happened at the house he lives in with his partner Laura Freeman, Thomas’ aunt, in Sedgewell Road, Sonning Common, on June 30, 2009.

Thomas was taken to Royal Berkshire Hospital (RBH), unconscious and with severe head injuries shortly before 4pm, having been left alone with Scholey by the baby’s mum Hannah Preece earlier that afternoon.

He died, having been referred to the John Radcliffe Hospital in Oxford, around 13 hours later.

Dr Boden treated Thomas from when he arrived at the RBH until he was transferred to specialists in Oxford at 10.40pm.

Appearing in court on Wednesday, Dr Boden said Thomas was showing signs of severe head injuries and had injuries in his groin and bleeding on his retinas but few other external signs of trauma.

He also did a CT scan on Thomas which showed up signs of bleeding on his brain.

Dr Boden said: “I was able to speak to the mother. The history I received is that she had dropped him off with Colin Scholey at 1pm and that between 1.40pm and 2pm her sister came back to the house and Thomas was unsettled.

“Some time after 2pm Colin Scholey called the mum to say [Thomas] was unwell and he had a seizure.

“Colin Scholey had given him mouth-to-mouth and chest compressions.

“She said the little girl had been trying to climb the sofa and fell into Thomas. It didn’t explain the injury that he presented.

“A 15-month-old falling on him would not cause the injuries described in the CT scan.

“There was concern about this injury from the beginning and this justified those concerns.

“There was no evidence of any trauma to his head when I arrived and if something had fallen on to the patient’s head to cause that amount of internal injury I would expect to see some sign externally.” 

The court also heard from Dr Nathaniel Cary, the forensic pathologist who carried out the post mortem examination on Thomas.

Dr Cary explained he had died from “a triad” comprising a subdural haemorrhage, retinal haemorrhage and encephalopathy, that is, a brain disorder.

He agreed with the “mainstream opinion” of The Royal College of Pathologists that the combination of the three conditions could lead to a trauma caused by vigorous shaking.

Scholey is on conditional bail. The trial continues.

I thought this was something to do with Horses and Cross Country?

Well you live and learn

Question is…were we hacked? Probably…

Maeve’s parents…same applies

The Juror’s … potentially…

The Coppers … apart from them doing surveillance…why not

The CPS…see above

The Experts…oooh I hope so…

There was never much on us in the Sun or News of the World…so it does make me wonder what they heard, although maybe a miscarriage of justice doesn’t rate as highly as Sienna’s exploits or not, David Beckhams new hair cut etc etc.

The Celebs should have some privacy they should get apologies, but most do okay for cash, so their payouts should go to those poor families who never look for stardom to go to some good use, charity or whatever.

It so shocking who was targeted, and I wonder how many trials may have been changed…what if they had  heard someone admitting to doing something or not, or knowing their theories were a crock…and did it matter if someone innocent went to jail…

Now that counts for a damn lot more than who is seeing who in the world of celeb…

But if the Police are scared of Murdoch then what hope do we have? Justice or self preservation…