Interrogations-and-Confessions-Handbook

Psychological Vulnerability 469
having drowned her baby. This interview was not contemporaneously recorded,
as required by law. The brief note of the interview read
At Fletcher’s request Mr Richardson (Sol.) and DI left the room. At this time Jackie
Fletcher stated she had put the baby’s head under the bath water until it died.
She then dried the baby, clothed it in clean clothes and laid him in his cot. Shortly
afterwards the postman arrived. The baby had been crying for most of the night.
She was afraid of getting found out.
Fletcher then reiterated the confession in front of the legal representative and
the Detective Inspector.
Slides of the baby’s various organs had been sent to another pathologist,
Dr Andrews, who concluded that the cause of death might have been drowning.
Dr Andrews testified at trial and stated that he disagreed with the diagnosis
of SIDS and suggested instead that the lungs might have been ‘waterlogged’,
which supported the prosecution and the confession. Dr Andrews conclusions
were not challenged at trial by other experts. In a letter dated 23 October 1991,
four years after Fletcher’s conviction, Dr Andrews stated that his use of the word
‘waterlogged’ had been unfortunate, because he had no evidence that the fluid
in the infant’s lungs was water. Another expert had carried out an experiment,
using a similar bath to that allegedly used by Fletcher to drown the infant, and
found it would have been extremely difficult to drown the baby in the way she
had said in her confession.
I was commissioned by Justice in 1991 to assess Fletcher’s intellectual abilities
and suggestibility. Her Full Scale IQ fell in the second percentile rank, her
verbal memory was significantly impaired and her total suggestibility scores
on the GSS 1 and GSS 2 were in the average range for the general population.
Fletcher denied having made the incriminating admissions to her lodger; she
claimed to have made a false confession to the woman police officer in private,
because she could not cope with the continued interrogation, felt pressured
to speak, had been told that there was forensic evidence as to drowning and
had allegedly been promised by her that she would not be locked up or go to
prison if she confessed. Fletcher also stated that she had felt very guilty about
the death of her son, because she thought she might have accidentally suffocated
him whilst leaning on him on the settee. After my assessment, Fletcher
was tested again intellectually by a Crown expert, Mr Paul Britton; his findings
agreed with my findings. This was important, because a consultant forensic
psychiatrist, Professor Robert Bluglass, appointed by the Crown, had categorically
stated in his report that he did not accept the IQ scores from my
assessment. He thought Fletcher was a great deal brighter than indicated by
the borderline IQ score. He had been impressed by Fletcher’s use of such words
as ‘traumatic’ and ‘custodial’, and her satisfactory understanding of the term
‘post natal depression’.
Leave to appeal was allowed in view of the psychological findings relating
to Fletcher’s borderline IQ score of 70. Her appeal was heard in February
1992 before Lord Chief Justice Lane and Justices Rose and Potts. I did
not give evidence, but I was present during the appeal. With regard to the