An adoptive couple were mistakenly imprisoned after one of their three adopted children died mysteriously. Details of the case provide a disturbing insight into how three eminent professions can fail to identify an alternative explanation which would have exonerated the innocent parents.
The UK couple applied to adopt when the mother found that she could not conceive. Social services carried out the usual checks over a period of eight months and three children from one family were then placed with the couple for a 13-week trial period. Half way through this period one of the children, a three-year-old boy, died four days after becoming comatose. Tests showed an abnormally high level of sodium in the child’s blood.
Deliberate poisoning alleged The parents were prosecuted for murder, the allegation of a medical expert being that they had deliberately poisoned the child by dosing him with 4½ teaspoons of salt. The prosecution also claimed that a number of bruises on the head indicated child manhandling. The couple said the child had been misbehaving, had thrown his lunch on the floor and soon after had become comatose, at which point the child was taken to hospital, where he died four days later.
The parents were found guilty and sentenced to prison. As a result of evidence submitted subsequently about the possibility of the child suffering from ‘reset osmosis’ - a condition under which a biological balancing mechanism goes out of order and the body does not excrete excess sodium in the normal way - the couple were released after having spent a year in prison, and a new trial was ordered. The condition referred to above allows salt to accumulate to the point where an affected person can die from excessive sodium. At the second trial the jury found the couple not guilty.
Similar claims made in earlier cases A number of questions arise from such a case. There have been previous cases where allegations have been made (and disproved) about parents dosing a child with salt in order to kill it. Eight months of social service vetting in this case would surely have indicated sufficient stability in a couple for the adoptive children to be reasonably safe. Would the normal social worker visits to the family during the adoption trial period not have revealed cause for concern had there been a serious problem with the behaviour or care of the child who died? If the bruising to the head had been sufficiently serious, would that not in itself have provided grounds for prosecution? If this was not done, does it suggest that the bruising was only mild and could have occurred when the child was falling comatose and attempts were made to revive it? If the child was really unmanageable, social services could have been asked to take that child back.
Evidence that high salt leads to vomiting In a situation such as the one described here, it is hard to understand why matters reached the point of prosecution. Once the high sodium content in the blood had been identified as the cause of death, experts in this field could have been asked whether it is possible to poison a child by giving large doses of salt. The evidence is that excess salt in the stomach leads to immediate vomiting to get rid of the salt. A BBC reporter, John Sweeney, showed on film how taking the alleged dose of 4½ teaspoons of salt caused him to vomit. To get the complete film he repeated this five times, each time followed by vomiting. As the body naturally excretes excess sodium. alternative explanations of biological malfunction could have been sought in the case of the dead child.
There are other factors that could also have been looked at. The couple were well known and highly respected in their community. A couple who cannot have their own children and who were happy to have three children simultaneously placed with them for adoption, would surely be the last ones to adopt the extreme remedy of killing a misbehaving three-year-old. Do we always have to assume the worst of parents in complex situations such as this one?
Ref. empowerment 002, ECDC. Sources: Dr James LeFanu,Telegraph (6.3.07), and other newspaper and media accounts. 06.07.
Copyright: ECDC/PCEO Bristol UK 2008
Return to ArchiveTo print article Hold Ctrl Click P