▁to ▁avoid ▁detection ▁of ▁ab use , ▁rather ▁than ▁to ▁draw ▁attention ▁and ▁sympathy . ▁ ▁The ▁distinction ▁is ▁often ▁cru cial ▁in ▁criminal ▁proceed ings , ▁in ▁which ▁the ▁pro sec utor ▁must ▁prove ▁both ▁the ▁act ▁and ▁the ▁mental ▁element ▁const itut ing ▁a ▁crime ▁to ▁establish ▁gu ilt . ▁In ▁most ▁legal ▁juris dict ions , ▁a ▁doctor ▁can ▁give ▁expert ▁witness ▁testim ony ▁as ▁to ▁whether ▁a ▁child ▁was ▁being ▁har med ▁but ▁cannot ▁spec ulate ▁regarding ▁the ▁mot ive ▁of ▁the ▁care g iver . ▁F II ▁merely ▁refers ▁to ▁the ▁fact ▁that ▁ill ness ▁is ▁induced ▁or ▁fabric ated ▁and ▁does ▁not ▁specifically ▁limit ▁the ▁mot ives ▁of ▁such ▁acts ▁to ▁a ▁care g iver ' s ▁need ▁for ▁attention ▁and / or ▁sympathy . ▁ ▁In ▁all , ▁around ▁ 2 5 0 ▁cases ▁resulting ▁in ▁conv iction ▁in ▁which ▁M ead ow ▁was ▁an ▁expert ▁witness ▁were ▁review ed , ▁with ▁few ▁changes , ▁but ▁all ▁where ▁the ▁only ▁evidence ▁was ▁M ead ows ' ▁expert ▁testim ony ▁were ▁over turn ed . ▁M ead ow ▁was ▁investig ated ▁by ▁the ▁British ▁General ▁Medical ▁Council ▁( G MC ) ▁over ▁evidence ▁he ▁gave ▁in ▁the ▁S ally ▁Clark ▁trial . ▁In ▁July ▁ 2 0 0 5 , ▁the ▁G MC ▁declared ▁M ead ow ▁guilty ▁of ▁" ser ious ▁professional ▁mis con duct ", ▁and ▁he ▁was ▁struck ▁off ▁the ▁medical ▁register ▁for ▁giving ▁" err one ous " ▁and ▁" mis leading "