Now discredited, Meadow's Law was a precept much in use until recently in the field of child protection, specifically by those investigating cases of multiple cot or crib death – SIDS – within a single family.
History
The "law" has it that because such deaths are a rare phenomenon and difficult to explain by natural causes, we might say that "One is a tragedy, two is suspicious and three is murder unless there is proof to the contrary." The name is derived from the controversial British paediatrician, Roy Meadow, who until 2003 was seen by many as "Britain's most eminent paediatrician" and leading expert on child abuse. Meadow's reputation went into decline with a series of legal reverses for his theories, and the damage was confirmed in July 2005 when he was struck off the medical register by the General Medical Council for tendering misleading evidence. Meadow's license was reinstated in February 2006 by a London court. Meadow attributes many unexplained infant deaths to the disorder or condition in mothers called Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy. According to this diagnosis some parents, especially mothers, harm or even kill their children as a means of calling attention to themselves. Its existence has been confirmed by cases where parents have been caught on video surveillance actively harming their children, but its frequency is subject to debate as Meadow claimed to have destroyed the original data which he used to substantiate the law. As a result of the 1993 trial of Beverley Allitt, a paediatric nurse convicted of killing four children under her care and injuring five others, Meadow's ideas gained ascendancy in British child protection circles, and mothers were convicted of murder on the basis of his expert testimony. Thousands of children were removed from their parents and taken into care or fostered out because they were deemed to be 'at risk'. From 2003, however, the tide of opinion turned: a number of high-profile acquittals cast doubt on the validity both of Munchausen's and 'Meadow's Law'. Several convictions were reversed, and many more came under review.
Critics of Meadow's law state that it is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of statistics, particularly relating to probability, likelihood, and statistical independence. At the trial in 1999 of solicitor Sally Clark, accused of murdering her two sons, Meadow testified that the odds against two such deaths happening naturally was 73,000,000:1, a figure which he obtained by squaring the observed ratio of births to cot-deaths in affluent non-smoking families. This caused an uproar amongst professional statisticians, whose criticisms were twofold:
Firstly, Meadow was accused of espousing the so-called prosecutor's fallacy in which the probability of "cause given effect" is confused with that of "effect given cause". In reality, these quantities can only be equated when the likelihood of the alternative hypothesis, in this case murder, is close to certainty. Since murder is itself a rare event, the probability of Clark's innocence was certainly far greater than Meadow's figure suggested.
Statistical independence
The second criticism was that Meadow's calculation had assumed that cot deaths within a single family were statistically independent events, governed by a probability common to the entire affluent non-smoking population. No account had been taken of conditions specific to individual families which might make some more vulnerable than others. The occurrence of one cot-death makes it likely that such conditions exist, and the probability of subsequent deaths is therefore greater than the group average. Combining these corrections with estimates of successive murder probabilities by affluent non-smokers, Mathematics Professor Ray Hill found that the probability of Clark's guilt could be as low as 10%. In any case, a legal verdict is not to be rendered on the basis of statistics; Hill wrote, "guilt must be proved on the basis of forensic and other evidence and not on the basis of these statistics alone. My own personal view that she is innocent is based on my subjective assessment of all the aspects"
