Probe into death of toddler Jonas Stadden, four, who died in foster care

Jonas Stadden, who died aged four.

Jonas Stadden, who died aged four.

First published in News This is The West Country: Photograph of the Author by

THE parents of a four-year-old who died suddenly in care are seeking answers.

Exhaustive post mortem tests are being carried out on Jonas Stadden but the results might not be known until four to six months after his death.

Jonas, who had Down’s Syndrome, was airlifted to hospital from his foster carers’ home after he stopped breathing on November 24.

He was declared dead at Taunton’s Musgrove Park Hospital.

Police concluded there was nothing suspicious about his death, while West Somerset Coroner Michael Rose has opened a formal investigation.

An interim death certificate gives the cause of death as ‘unascertained’ while a paediatric pathologist carries out tests, which can take a number of months to complete.

Jonas’ father, Haydn Stadden, who lives in Taunton, said: “He’d been unwell for a couple of days but we were devastated when we were told he’d died.

“It seems he just collapsed and as parents we are naturally distraught and want to know what caused his death.

“He was a lovely, loving boy who laughed a lot but he couldn’t talk and communicated with us by signs.”

His mother, Sara Russell, said: “It’s heartbreaking and not knowing what caused his death makes it worse.”

Jonas had been in foster care since last April following a court ruling.

A Social Services spokesman said: “This is a very sad story and our sympathies are with the family as they try to come to terms with Jonas’ death.

“We are providing support for them and fully understand their call for all the reasons behind his death to be available and made public.

“The delay is a national issue and is frustrating for us and we fully understand how this must make it even worse for the family.”

Comments (12)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

12:50pm Mon 20 Jan 14

Joe Burns says...

Phil, How can the Police conclude that there was "nothing suspicious" when the Post Mortem has not been completed yet? Have you confirmed this with Police?

I'm also curious as to why the photo of a happy, smiling young boy is displayed when this image was taken while he was in his parents care.

Didn't you have access to this photo? http://familyjustice
-exposed.com/wp-cont
ent/uploads/2013/12/
Jonas-1-unwell-20th-
November-2013.jpg

This is how the unfortunate child looked 4 days before his death.

It seems there is more to this story than the "Official" version of events and perhaps some investigative journalism is in order?
Phil, How can the Police conclude that there was "nothing suspicious" when the Post Mortem has not been completed yet? Have you confirmed this with Police? I'm also curious as to why the photo of a happy, smiling young boy is displayed when this image was taken while he was in his parents care. Didn't you have access to this photo? http://familyjustice -exposed.com/wp-cont ent/uploads/2013/12/ Jonas-1-unwell-20th- November-2013.jpg This is how the unfortunate child looked 4 days before his death. It seems there is more to this story than the "Official" version of events and perhaps some investigative journalism is in order? Joe Burns
  • Score: 10

1:13pm Mon 20 Jan 14

JustinDownes says...

Only a few months ago Ofsted carried out a spot check on Somerset County Council's Childrens and Families Department. The results of that report were so bad that Ofsted said it was one of the worst of any council they had inspected! I don't seek to correlate that report with the tragedy of little Jonas, but I do wonder why the Cabinet Member responsible, Cllr Frances Nicholson did not resign in the face of such a devastating condemnation. The fact she is meant to be managing an overhaul of the Department is even more bizarre. The leader of SCC, Cllr Osman should relieve her of her responsibilities now. The fact she does not even live in Somerset is even stranger!
Only a few months ago Ofsted carried out a spot check on Somerset County Council's Childrens and Families Department. The results of that report were so bad that Ofsted said it was one of the worst of any council they had inspected! I don't seek to correlate that report with the tragedy of little Jonas, but I do wonder why the Cabinet Member responsible, Cllr Frances Nicholson did not resign in the face of such a devastating condemnation. The fact she is meant to be managing an overhaul of the Department is even more bizarre. The leader of SCC, Cllr Osman should relieve her of her responsibilities now. The fact she does not even live in Somerset is even stranger! JustinDownes
  • Score: 9

4:54pm Mon 20 Jan 14

JustinDownes says...

oh and of course, it doesn't help when your Chief Executive is away on full pay for a couple of months!
oh and of course, it doesn't help when your Chief Executive is away on full pay for a couple of months! JustinDownes
  • Score: 4

1:11pm Tue 21 Jan 14

JustinDownes says...

I now hear that not only is the Chief Executive is on paid leave at the rate of £14,000 a month and the leader, Cllr Osman's workplace is in Devizes.
I now hear that not only is the Chief Executive is on paid leave at the rate of £14,000 a month and the leader, Cllr Osman's workplace is in Devizes. JustinDownes
  • Score: 0

4:07pm Fri 24 Jan 14

missjay says...

Is that correct Cllr Osmans work place is in Devizes? Am I missing something?
Is that correct Cllr Osmans work place is in Devizes? Am I missing something? missjay
  • Score: 3

5:50pm Fri 24 Jan 14

Mi_Coc says...

I would reserve judgement since there is a legal obstruction to why he needed to removed from his family. They themselves wont say so they may well not be fit to be parents!
I would reserve judgement since there is a legal obstruction to why he needed to removed from his family. They themselves wont say so they may well not be fit to be parents! Mi_Coc
  • Score: -4

12:32pm Sun 26 Jan 14

missjay says...

Mi_Coc wrote:
I would reserve judgement since there is a legal obstruction to why he needed to removed from his family. They themselves wont say so they may well not be fit to be parents!
You are missing the point entirely, firstly you know nothing about these parents, and your comment suggests that if his parents are unfit, then it doesn't matter that he died in suspicious circumstances anyway.

Shame on you, that child was for whatever reason in the "care" of Social Services, and the truth should be known.
[quote][p][bold]Mi_Coc[/bold] wrote: I would reserve judgement since there is a legal obstruction to why he needed to removed from his family. They themselves wont say so they may well not be fit to be parents![/p][/quote]You are missing the point entirely, firstly you know nothing about these parents, and your comment suggests that if his parents are unfit, then it doesn't matter that he died in suspicious circumstances anyway. Shame on you, that child was for whatever reason in the "care" of Social Services, and the truth should be known. missjay
  • Score: 6

3:03pm Sun 26 Jan 14

Mi_Coc says...

missjay wrote:
Mi_Coc wrote:
I would reserve judgement since there is a legal obstruction to why he needed to removed from his family. They themselves wont say so they may well not be fit to be parents!
You are missing the point entirely, firstly you know nothing about these parents, and your comment suggests that if his parents are unfit, then it doesn't matter that he died in suspicious circumstances anyway.

Shame on you, that child was for whatever reason in the "care" of Social Services, and the truth should be known.
Down Sindrone children can die young its not uncommon there is no evidence to suggest the social let the child down as yet despite the witch hunt some seem to want.

I am suspicious of the parents because the have blocked the reporting of why he was removed in the first place suggesting they have something to hide. Do you think hi was removed from there care because the social thought it would be good fun?

Since the facts aren't clear lets no prejudge either side of the story.
[quote][p][bold]missjay[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mi_Coc[/bold] wrote: I would reserve judgement since there is a legal obstruction to why he needed to removed from his family. They themselves wont say so they may well not be fit to be parents![/p][/quote]You are missing the point entirely, firstly you know nothing about these parents, and your comment suggests that if his parents are unfit, then it doesn't matter that he died in suspicious circumstances anyway. Shame on you, that child was for whatever reason in the "care" of Social Services, and the truth should be known.[/p][/quote]Down Sindrone children can die young its not uncommon there is no evidence to suggest the social let the child down as yet despite the witch hunt some seem to want. I am suspicious of the parents because the have blocked the reporting of why he was removed in the first place suggesting they have something to hide. Do you think hi was removed from there care because the social thought it would be good fun? Since the facts aren't clear lets no prejudge either side of the story. Mi_Coc
  • Score: -5

4:46pm Sun 26 Jan 14

Joe Burns says...

Mi_Coc wrote:
missjay wrote:
Mi_Coc wrote:
I would reserve judgement since there is a legal obstruction to why he needed to removed from his family. They themselves wont say so they may well not be fit to be parents!
You are missing the point entirely, firstly you know nothing about these parents, and your comment suggests that if his parents are unfit, then it doesn't matter that he died in suspicious circumstances anyway.

Shame on you, that child was for whatever reason in the "care" of Social Services, and the truth should be known.
Down Sindrone children can die young its not uncommon there is no evidence to suggest the social let the child down as yet despite the witch hunt some seem to want.

I am suspicious of the parents because the have blocked the reporting of why he was removed in the first place suggesting they have something to hide. Do you think hi was removed from there care because the social thought it would be good fun?

Since the facts aren't clear lets no prejudge either side of the story.
"Down Sindrone (SIC) children can die young its not uncommon "

It is extremely uncommon according the Down's Syndrome Association of the UK.and even the Coroners Post Mortem.

http://www.downs-syn
drome.org.uk/news-an
d-media/dsa-news/147
6-statement-in-respo
nse-to-recent-media-
coverage-about-the-d
eath-of-jonas-stadde
n.html

"They themselves wont say so they may well not be fit to be parents!"

AND

"I am suspicious of the parents because the have blocked the reporting of why he was removed in the first place suggesting they have something to hide."

This is a slanderous remark. They are not allowed by law to say why. They have not been accused of abuse, if they had they would have been jailed by now.

It was not the parents who blocked reporting but the judge. The parents were threatened by the council with jail if they spoke about his death and were ordered to remove their posts. This is illegal and when the parents defied their request, the story was widely published. A press release will also be issued soon.

"there is no evidence to suggest the social let the child down as yet despite the witch hunt some seem to want."

There is considerable evidence but this is now a matter for the Police and the Professional Bodies concerned. They want Justice and answers.

"Do you think hi (SIC) was removed from there (SIC) care because the social thought it would be good fun?"

We will be putting an FOI request to see how much money the Council have spent on this case since it's inception and publishing it widely. The Foster "Carer" was getting paid 900 a week plus a monthly fee, much of it tax free, paid with your taxes.

We will also be requesting your identity from the Gazette, to see if you have any connection with the case. A number of people have set up false email and FaceBook accounts and have attempted to post vile misinformation. We have tracked these people down to their IP Addresses and the evidence will be presented to Police.

Do you have any further comments?
[quote][p][bold]Mi_Coc[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]missjay[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mi_Coc[/bold] wrote: I would reserve judgement since there is a legal obstruction to why he needed to removed from his family. They themselves wont say so they may well not be fit to be parents![/p][/quote]You are missing the point entirely, firstly you know nothing about these parents, and your comment suggests that if his parents are unfit, then it doesn't matter that he died in suspicious circumstances anyway. Shame on you, that child was for whatever reason in the "care" of Social Services, and the truth should be known.[/p][/quote]Down Sindrone children can die young its not uncommon there is no evidence to suggest the social let the child down as yet despite the witch hunt some seem to want. I am suspicious of the parents because the have blocked the reporting of why he was removed in the first place suggesting they have something to hide. Do you think hi was removed from there care because the social thought it would be good fun? Since the facts aren't clear lets no prejudge either side of the story.[/p][/quote]"Down Sindrone (SIC) children can die young its not uncommon " It is extremely uncommon according the Down's Syndrome Association of the UK.and even the Coroners Post Mortem. http://www.downs-syn drome.org.uk/news-an d-media/dsa-news/147 6-statement-in-respo nse-to-recent-media- coverage-about-the-d eath-of-jonas-stadde n.html "They themselves wont say so they may well not be fit to be parents!" AND "I am suspicious of the parents because the have blocked the reporting of why he was removed in the first place suggesting they have something to hide." This is a slanderous remark. They are not allowed by law to say why. They have not been accused of abuse, if they had they would have been jailed by now. It was not the parents who blocked reporting but the judge. The parents were threatened by the council with jail if they spoke about his death and were ordered to remove their posts. This is illegal and when the parents defied their request, the story was widely published. A press release will also be issued soon. "there is no evidence to suggest the social let the child down as yet despite the witch hunt some seem to want." There is considerable evidence but this is now a matter for the Police and the Professional Bodies concerned. They want Justice and answers. "Do you think hi (SIC) was removed from there (SIC) care because the social thought it would be good fun?" We will be putting an FOI request to see how much money the Council have spent on this case since it's inception and publishing it widely. The Foster "Carer" was getting paid 900 a week plus a monthly fee, much of it tax free, paid with your taxes. We will also be requesting your identity from the Gazette, to see if you have any connection with the case. A number of people have set up false email and FaceBook accounts and have attempted to post vile misinformation. We have tracked these people down to their IP Addresses and the evidence will be presented to Police. Do you have any further comments? Joe Burns
  • Score: 6

5:54pm Sun 26 Jan 14

Knowingman says...

As the local media are too frightened to challenge the council it has to be left to the national press to champion the family of poor little Jonas.
Somerset journalist, Chris Booker, writing in the Daily Telegraph questions the independence of the coroner.


I must update two recent horror stories about our “child protection” system. Last week I reported on the fate of Jonas Stadden, the four-year-old Down’s syndrome boy, who died while in foster care after being removed by Somerset social workers from his devoted parents (for reasons unconnected with him or them, and which I cannot disclose for legal reasons). I passed to the coroner a remarkable diary in which his mother recorded how she and his father had watched their son’s health steadily deterioriate during the months he was living with his foster carers, who had no experience of the syndrome.
A particularly disturbing feature of this story was that, four days before the boy’s death, his father saw he was so seriously ill (I have seen photographs to confirm this) that he pleaded for the foster carers to take his son to his GP for urgent medical treatment. This never happened. He continued merely to be dosed with paracetamol.
The authorities last week went into full defensive mode. First, the parents were astonished to see Somerset council claiming in the local media that, after the boy’s death, they had given the family “full support”. Then, on Tuesday, the coroner himself circulated every media outlet in the area with his finding that, since a post-mortem examination had shown the causes of Jonas’s death to be “broncho-pneumonia and Down’s syndrome”, no advice from doctors could have saved him. There was no need for an inquest, he said.
This finding so appalled the parents, who have been taking expert medical advice themselves, that they have drafted their own press statement, pointing out what they see as glaring holes in the coroner’s account.
Broncho-pneumonia, as I have been assured by a well-known medical expert, is “eminently treatable” with antibiotics, as the parents saw when they took Jonas to hospital with a previous attack of pneumonia, seeing him on the way back to health within hours.

I must update two recent horror stories about our “child protection” system. Last week I reported on the fate of Jonas Stadden, the four-year-old Down’s syndrome boy, who died while in foster care after being removed by Somerset social workers from his devoted parents (for reasons unconnected with him or them, and which I cannot disclose for legal reasons). I passed to the coroner a remarkable diary in which his mother recorded how she and his father had watched their son’s health steadily deterioriate during the months he was living with his foster carers, who had no experience of the syndrome.
A particularly disturbing feature of this story was that, four days before the boy’s death, his father saw he was so seriously ill (I have seen photographs to confirm this) that he pleaded for the foster carers to take his son to his GP for urgent medical treatment. This never happened. He continued merely to be dosed with paracetamol.
The authorities last week went into full defensive mode. First, the parents were astonished to see Somerset council claiming in the local media that, after the boy’s death, they had given the family “full support”. Then, on Tuesday, the coroner himself circulated every media outlet in the area with his finding that, since a post-mortem examination had shown the causes of Jonas’s death to be “broncho-pneumonia and Down’s syndrome”, no advice from doctors could have saved him. There was no need for an inquest, he said.
This finding so appalled the parents, who have been taking expert medical advice themselves, that they have drafted their own press statement, pointing out what they see as glaring holes in the coroner’s account.
Broncho-pneumonia, as I have been assured by a well-known medical expert, is “eminently treatable” with antibiotics, as the parents saw when they took Jonas to hospital with a previous attack of pneumonia, seeing him on the way back to health within hours.
Down’s syndrome experts insist that it only “very rarely” causes the death of young children, unless another condition intervenes.
One of the doctors, cited by the coroner as advising that nothing could have been done to save the boy, has been working closely with the social workers ever since they intervened in the case last March. On the day of Jonas’s death, according to a report, she went to “comfort” the foster carers, while the social workers merely left it to the police to tell the parents that their son was dead.
Most glaring of all to the parents is the coroner’s failure to make any mention of the father’s insistence before Jonas’s death that he needed urgent medical attention. Not surprisingly, the parents record in their statement that they are not only “numb with grief” at the death of a son they had expertly cared for all his life; they are now shocked by how perfunctorily the coroner, in their view, has absolved the “care” system of any blame for what befell their child.
condition intervenes.
One of the doctors, cited by the coroner as advising that nothing could have been done to save the boy, has been working closely with the social workers ever since they intervened in the case last March. On the day of Jonas’s death, according to a report, she went to “comfort” the foster carers, while the social workers merely left it to the police to tell the parents that their son was dead.
Most glaring of all to the parents is the coroner’s failure to make any mention of the father’s insistence before Jonas’s death that he needed urgent medical attention. Not surprisingly, the parents record in their statement that they are not only “numb with grief” at the death of a son they had expertly cared for all his life; they are now shocked by how perfunctorily the coroner, in their view, has absolved the “care” system of any blame for what befell their child.
As the local media are too frightened to challenge the council it has to be left to the national press to champion the family of poor little Jonas. Somerset journalist, Chris Booker, writing in the Daily Telegraph questions the independence of the coroner. I must update two recent horror stories about our “child protection” system. Last week I reported on the fate of Jonas Stadden, the four-year-old Down’s syndrome boy, who died while in foster care after being removed by Somerset social workers from his devoted parents (for reasons unconnected with him or them, and which I cannot disclose for legal reasons). I passed to the coroner a remarkable diary in which his mother recorded how she and his father had watched their son’s health steadily deterioriate during the months he was living with his foster carers, who had no experience of the syndrome. A particularly disturbing feature of this story was that, four days before the boy’s death, his father saw he was so seriously ill (I have seen photographs to confirm this) that he pleaded for the foster carers to take his son to his GP for urgent medical treatment. This never happened. He continued merely to be dosed with paracetamol. The authorities last week went into full defensive mode. First, the parents were astonished to see Somerset council claiming in the local media that, after the boy’s death, they had given the family “full support”. Then, on Tuesday, the coroner himself circulated every media outlet in the area with his finding that, since a post-mortem examination had shown the causes of Jonas’s death to be “broncho-pneumonia and Down’s syndrome”, no advice from doctors could have saved him. There was no need for an inquest, he said. This finding so appalled the parents, who have been taking expert medical advice themselves, that they have drafted their own press statement, pointing out what they see as glaring holes in the coroner’s account. Broncho-pneumonia, as I have been assured by a well-known medical expert, is “eminently treatable” with antibiotics, as the parents saw when they took Jonas to hospital with a previous attack of pneumonia, seeing him on the way back to health within hours. I must update two recent horror stories about our “child protection” system. Last week I reported on the fate of Jonas Stadden, the four-year-old Down’s syndrome boy, who died while in foster care after being removed by Somerset social workers from his devoted parents (for reasons unconnected with him or them, and which I cannot disclose for legal reasons). I passed to the coroner a remarkable diary in which his mother recorded how she and his father had watched their son’s health steadily deterioriate during the months he was living with his foster carers, who had no experience of the syndrome. A particularly disturbing feature of this story was that, four days before the boy’s death, his father saw he was so seriously ill (I have seen photographs to confirm this) that he pleaded for the foster carers to take his son to his GP for urgent medical treatment. This never happened. He continued merely to be dosed with paracetamol. The authorities last week went into full defensive mode. First, the parents were astonished to see Somerset council claiming in the local media that, after the boy’s death, they had given the family “full support”. Then, on Tuesday, the coroner himself circulated every media outlet in the area with his finding that, since a post-mortem examination had shown the causes of Jonas’s death to be “broncho-pneumonia and Down’s syndrome”, no advice from doctors could have saved him. There was no need for an inquest, he said. This finding so appalled the parents, who have been taking expert medical advice themselves, that they have drafted their own press statement, pointing out what they see as glaring holes in the coroner’s account. Broncho-pneumonia, as I have been assured by a well-known medical expert, is “eminently treatable” with antibiotics, as the parents saw when they took Jonas to hospital with a previous attack of pneumonia, seeing him on the way back to health within hours. Down’s syndrome experts insist that it only “very rarely” causes the death of young children, unless another condition intervenes. One of the doctors, cited by the coroner as advising that nothing could have been done to save the boy, has been working closely with the social workers ever since they intervened in the case last March. On the day of Jonas’s death, according to a report, she went to “comfort” the foster carers, while the social workers merely left it to the police to tell the parents that their son was dead. Most glaring of all to the parents is the coroner’s failure to make any mention of the father’s insistence before Jonas’s death that he needed urgent medical attention. Not surprisingly, the parents record in their statement that they are not only “numb with grief” at the death of a son they had expertly cared for all his life; they are now shocked by how perfunctorily the coroner, in their view, has absolved the “care” system of any blame for what befell their child. condition intervenes. One of the doctors, cited by the coroner as advising that nothing could have been done to save the boy, has been working closely with the social workers ever since they intervened in the case last March. On the day of Jonas’s death, according to a report, she went to “comfort” the foster carers, while the social workers merely left it to the police to tell the parents that their son was dead. Most glaring of all to the parents is the coroner’s failure to make any mention of the father’s insistence before Jonas’s death that he needed urgent medical attention. Not surprisingly, the parents record in their statement that they are not only “numb with grief” at the death of a son they had expertly cared for all his life; they are now shocked by how perfunctorily the coroner, in their view, has absolved the “care” system of any blame for what befell their child. Knowingman
  • Score: 4

9:13pm Sun 26 Jan 14

Knowingman says...

This comment from the Booker article is interesting in that the reader slates local media "it sounds as though, unlike the ‘Telegraph’, the local Somerset media lack the skill or inclination to investigate the story. That is sadly all too common, so people affected have too often to depend on national newspaper journalists to take up their case. But perhaps now they will do."
marksl • 9 minutes ago
The principal report on the case of the death of 4-year-old Jonas Stadden was in the ‘Telegraph’ of 19 January. See
http://www.telegraph
.co.uk/new...
Christopher Booker’s article about the case was published in the Sunday 26 January edition, at http://www.telegraph
.co.uk/com...

Comments by readers on that article are barred, so Reader Newburyexile has posted the following earlier today, Sunday 26 January, below Christopher Booker’s article above here about theSomerset Levels flooding:

"Dear Christopher
If you feel that the dossier which you sent to the Coroner in the Jonas Stadden case was wrongly discounted, why don't you help his parents find a lawyer who will
take the Coroner to Judicial Review on a pro bono basis? Moreover, why don't you send the dossier to the Chief Coroner and ask him to investigate? That is what the Chief Coroner is for."

If the details in the case are anything like those described, an inquest into the death is essential. Cases where local coroners ‘let off’ local officials and fail to conduct proper investigations do happen, and the Chief Coroner post was created in part to deal with the problem of mistakes and poor performance at District level. And there are cases where the original coroner’s decision not to hold an inquest have been quashed and one has been ordered by a Judge. Also, in some cases inquest verdicts have been quashed or reversed (best-known are probably the original inquests into the Hillsborough disaster and the Bowbelle marine disaster on the Thames).

So Newburyexile is quite right to challenge Christopher Booker to pursue the matter to the extent of finding the parents lawyers specialising in this field. If the facts are as stated, and lawyers began the process of seeking a judicial review of the Somerset Coroner’s decision, the Chief Coroner might react by intervening and ordering a different coroner to hold an inquest, before the judicial review came to a court hearing.

I
1 •Reply•Share ›
This comment from the Booker article is interesting in that the reader slates local media "it sounds as though, unlike the ‘Telegraph’, the local Somerset media lack the skill or inclination to investigate the story. That is sadly all too common, so people affected have too often to depend on national newspaper journalists to take up their case. But perhaps now they will do." marksl • 9 minutes ago The principal report on the case of the death of 4-year-old Jonas Stadden was in the ‘Telegraph’ of 19 January. See http://www.telegraph .co.uk/new... Christopher Booker’s article about the case was published in the Sunday 26 January edition, at http://www.telegraph .co.uk/com... Comments by readers on that article are barred, so Reader Newburyexile has posted the following earlier today, Sunday 26 January, below Christopher Booker’s article above here about theSomerset Levels flooding: "Dear Christopher If you feel that the dossier which you sent to the Coroner in the Jonas Stadden case was wrongly discounted, why don't you help his parents find a lawyer who will take the Coroner to Judicial Review on a pro bono basis? Moreover, why don't you send the dossier to the Chief Coroner and ask him to investigate? That is what the Chief Coroner is for." If the details in the case are anything like those described, an inquest into the death is essential. Cases where local coroners ‘let off’ local officials and fail to conduct proper investigations do happen, and the Chief Coroner post was created in part to deal with the problem of mistakes and poor performance at District level. And there are cases where the original coroner’s decision not to hold an inquest have been quashed and one has been ordered by a Judge. Also, in some cases inquest verdicts have been quashed or reversed (best-known are probably the original inquests into the Hillsborough disaster and the Bowbelle marine disaster on the Thames). So Newburyexile is quite right to challenge Christopher Booker to pursue the matter to the extent of finding the parents lawyers specialising in this field. If the facts are as stated, and lawyers began the process of seeking a judicial review of the Somerset Coroner’s decision, the Chief Coroner might react by intervening and ordering a different coroner to hold an inquest, before the judicial review came to a court hearing. I 1 •Reply•Share › Knowingman
  • Score: 3

12:04am Tue 28 Jan 14

Joe Burns says...

Attention is now focusing on the Interim Director Peter Lewis. Seems a lot of children die under his watch. He has been busy trying to turn the foster carers into being the victims instead of Jonas on BBC radio yesterday.

http://www.dailymail
.co.uk/news/article-
1099706/New-Baby-P-c
ouncil-chief-faced-c
riticism-previous-jo
b-deaths-children.ht
ml

http://www.telegraph
.co.uk/news/uknews/l
aw-and-order/9977557
/Haringey-council-tr
ied-to-crush-our-fam
ily.html

http://www.dailymail
.co.uk/news/article-
1099706/New-Baby-P-c
ouncil-chief-faced-c
riticism-previous-jo
b-deaths-children.ht
ml

Yesterday Mr Lewis tried to paint Jonas' parents in a bad light on an interview on BBC Somerset radio. Now he is trying to convince people that the foster carers of Jonas are actually the victims in this case. http://www.bbc.co.uk
/programmes/p01pbtgk


He failed to convince people that Jonas had died of Down's Syndrome when the Down's Syndrome Association responded to his claim that children "do die of Down's". http://www.downs-syn
drome.org.uk/news-an
d-media/dsa-news/147
6-statement-in-respo
nse-to-recent-media-
coverage-about-the-d
eath-of-jonas-stadde
n.html
Attention is now focusing on the Interim Director Peter Lewis. Seems a lot of children die under his watch. He has been busy trying to turn the foster carers into being the victims instead of Jonas on BBC radio yesterday. http://www.dailymail .co.uk/news/article- 1099706/New-Baby-P-c ouncil-chief-faced-c riticism-previous-jo b-deaths-children.ht ml http://www.telegraph .co.uk/news/uknews/l aw-and-order/9977557 /Haringey-council-tr ied-to-crush-our-fam ily.html http://www.dailymail .co.uk/news/article- 1099706/New-Baby-P-c ouncil-chief-faced-c riticism-previous-jo b-deaths-children.ht ml Yesterday Mr Lewis tried to paint Jonas' parents in a bad light on an interview on BBC Somerset radio. Now he is trying to convince people that the foster carers of Jonas are actually the victims in this case. http://www.bbc.co.uk /programmes/p01pbtgk He failed to convince people that Jonas had died of Down's Syndrome when the Down's Syndrome Association responded to his claim that children "do die of Down's". http://www.downs-syn drome.org.uk/news-an d-media/dsa-news/147 6-statement-in-respo nse-to-recent-media- coverage-about-the-d eath-of-jonas-stadde n.html Joe Burns
  • Score: 1

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree