This morning I got an e-mail from Frank Lockyer， the retired police superintendent and father of Sally Clark. His daughter spent three years in jail for murdering two of her sons， during which time she suffered untold torments. She was exonerated later and released， but she never recovered from her treatment at the hands of the British justice system - a system she had once served as a solicitor. She died in 2007. （第一段凡是举例的，应试类读者最大的任务是大概划定“issue”，话题，比如这里大概与British justice system英国司法体系有关。功底过关了，可以试着体会作者的tone，比如…never recovered from …the hands of the British justice system，似乎对英国司法体系比较critical，至少谈不上supportive. 也难怪，对现有institutions的监督批评，包括对政府机构与现有法律法规，本来就是外刊文章中所常见的。其中的exonerate，赦免，其实不需要知道，即便考察该词意思，后面的动词released也足以辅助猜测大意，而考生往往见到exonerate就已经晕了。）
Mr Lockyer was writing about a recent decision of the Press Complaints Commission to clear me of a complaint made under clause 1 of the Code of Practice （accuracy） by the pediatrician Professor Sir Roy Meadow. He was vilified by the media for evidence he gave at Sally Clark's trial and that of Angela Canings， another mother who was jailed and subsequently released. Professor Meadow had objected to a comment I had made suggesting that he had gone beyond his remit and given evidence that “led to the jailing of innocent people” - partly by presenting statistical evidence of the likelihood of cot death when he was not a statistician. （大概看明白，有专家，也叫Roy，对作者的批评提出辩护反驳：作者评论认为专家提交的证据导致了无辜者锒铛入狱，而该专家显然无法接受。这里的issue越来越清楚，与司法体系有关，与专家、证据有关，而stake-holders也渐渐出现，这篇作者是直接参与debate，是“贴身肉搏”，而不是“隔岸观火”。对于cot death“摇篮死”“婴儿猝死”等术语不必纠缠。）
He felt that this was misleading， for three main reasons. First， he was only one of several witnesses in these cases； second， appeal judges had played down the importance of his statistical evidence in the Clark ruling， and third， we cannot know how much weight the juries actually gave his evidence. （这段再清楚不过了。Issue继续，重要的stake-holder开始列举自己的辩词。但脑海中不妨记得，作者对这样的辩驳，大概是不会认同的。有很多原因：作者写这篇文章的目的，很少是为了向批评者让步道歉；这段在本文出现的位置太考前，看着更像“待批驳的炮灰”而不是“最后幸存的观点”…）
The PCC decided not to uphold the complaint. It took into account that my views were set out in what it felt was an opinion piece and not presented as indisputable fact - and that Professor Meadow had rejected The Times's offer to print a letter from him， setting out his position. It is not an episode I am proud of - it is sobering for any journalist to be accused of inaccuracy. But that he was supported by other pediatricians in bringing the complaint reflects a continuing gulf between the medical professions and the press over what we should expect of expert witnesses. （末句终于把issue交待干净了。医疗界的专家与媒体在“专家作证”这件事情上存在着巨大的分歧。其中的It is not an episode I am proud of - it is sobering for any journalist to be accused of inaccuracy一句可以基本忽略，那只是作者“谦虚一下，就一下”，而下一句的but引导的才是真章。）
