Can a sensible explanation for these injuries be a sudden and momentary loss of control?

A woman who battered a nine-week-old baby in an horrific attack has avoided jail after a judge decided she had already suffered enough.


Claire Thompson, 32, who had been entrusted with looking after the infant, was found guilty in March of fracturing its skull, breaking a rib and inflicting up to three leg fractures.


An expert at her trial said the skull fracture was probably caused by the baby's head hitting a hard surface with force, the rib was probably broken by severe squeezing and the the leg bones were likely to have been fractured by forceful pulling or twisting, or by violent shaking.





But yesterday Judge David Goodin spared Thompson from prison, handing her a nine-month suspended prison sentence, ordering her to do 200 hours of community service and telling her to pay £500 costs.


Hearing that she had 'lost everything' following the assault, he heaped praise on her character and told her she had already suffered more than any sentence he could impose on her.





Judge Goodin said: 'All evidence simply confirms you to be an industrious, decent and placid well-liked young woman who was slow to anger and disinclined to confrontation.'





He added: 'The only sensible explanation for these injuries must have been a sudden and momentary loss of control.'Can a sensible explanation for these injuries be a sudden and momentary loss of control?
Does this mean then that if I was to meet this woman and beat the ***** to death in a sudden and momentary loss of control I would get away with it?


It's time judges woke up and stopped giving out such pathetic sentances to people who kill babies.


Seems the younger the victim the shorter the sentance.Can a sensible explanation for these injuries be a sudden and momentary loss of control?
That doesn't sound like the full story. I'm sure there was more evidence than this supporting the fact it wasn't intentional. She may have had a history of seizures, or something like that. The injuries would be consistent with her falling with the baby.
Are you for real or is this a windup??





Sorry for my arrogance but do you happen to have a link to this particular article??





And did anyone suggest that Judge DG should have a compulsary drug test from now on???
This judge gave a paedophile a 2 year sentence so anythings possible.





I hardly think she was placid when she beat the hell out of this child. Clearly she's deranged as is the judge,as is this country's so called justice system
';I am sorry I killed that Pedestrian when I was drunk behind the wheel, but I had a stressful day at work worrying about my sick Budgie and needed 8 pints to get over it. Your Judgeness.';





';Case dismissed!';
The Judge should be struck off following a sentencing review.
Hang the judge!
What ?
he needs sacking
'slow to anger'?? what??
Yes in some cases, but probably not this one, especially as the defendant has no history of any such behaviour, and indeed was the exact opposite. A far more likely explanation is incorrect interpretation of X-ray (or ultrasound) images as fractures, coupled with procedural and statistical errors in hospital, police, CPS and court. Several doctors may have been asked to offer an interpretation before the ';right'; one was found: that is, one which fits in with the police line of inquiry. Several suspects may been tried first. There is also the possibility that the marks on the X-rays, even if they were fractures, were indicative of either neo-natal brittle bones cracking slightly under normal childhood stress as a result of deficiency in collagen (not detectable with X-rays), or of skull bones not yet being fused and being slightly displaced, as is not uncommon in young babies. Also there might be a circularity of argument on a grand scale, as follows. Experts give an opinion on the sample X-ray by comparing it with their collective ';photo album'; of presumed non-accidental serious injury before giving evidence in court. However, if the photos in the ';photo album'; were partitioned into say ';Accidental Injury (AI)/non-AI'; largely on the basis of court hearings involving mainly X-ray images interpreted by experts the risk is that over a period of time the classification becomes self-fulfilling and may have no connection with reality. In the extreme case the experts' joint ';photo album'; might even turn out to contain mainly examples of brittle bone disorder! If the full truth ever comes out in this case we shall be able to look back at how it all happened. Until then, and even afterwards, we shall continue to have ambiguous cases like this.