Free man

Yesterday her father walked free from court after his trial for the murder of the ten-week-old was thrown out.

Businessman Mark Latta looked emotional in the dock as he listened to The Honourable Mr Justice Grigson order jurors to return a not guilty verdict.

Judge Grigson told them although he was sure beyond doubt that Charlotte had been abused in her short lifetime, there was not enough evidence to convict her father of her murder or lesser charge of manslaughter.

Mr Latta's ordeal began on December 2, 2001 as he fed his baby daughter in an upstairs room at the family home in Bishop's Waltham.

The rest of the family, including Charlotte's mother and Mr Latta's partner Sharon,

were enjoying a roast dinner together downstairs.

A cry for help sounded through the house as Charlotte, described at Winchester Crown Court as an awkward feeder, stopped breathing.

She was rushed to the Royal Hampshire County Hospital where doctors managed to stabilise her before she was transferred to the Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children in London.

Tragically, Charlotte had suffered such extensive brain damage that she died two days later. She was being cradled in her parent's arms as her life support machine was turned off.

Minutes later came the bombshell news from doctors who had examined Charlotte that 32 fractures had been found to her legs, arms and ribs.

She had also suffered retinal bleeding - a sign that she could have been shaken violently.

A post-mortem carried out on the infant confirmed the fractures, the police were called and former Portsmouth Polytechnic student Mr Latta was charged with her murder.

Father-of-four Mr Latta's trial finally got under way six weeks ago, at the start of March.

Yesterday it came to an abrupt end when jurors returned an early verdict of not guilty, under the orders of the judge.

Directing them to return the verdict, Judge Grigson said: "I will tell you now that I have concluded that there is not sufficient evidence to convict Mr Latta on either a murder or manslaughter charge."

He said that the medical evidence offered was inconsistent, adding: "It isn't simply that there is a clash of opinions, it is that there is a dispute, and a valid one, on almost every aspect of the medical evidence."

He added: "That someone had abused Charlotte is beyond doubt.

"While Mr Latta is one of those who could have inflicted the injuries, there is absolutely no evidence that he did so, and all the evidence is that he was a caring and loving father."

The collapse of the trial came just two weeks after Judge Grigson had also ordered that two further charges of grievous bodily harm

against the 41-year-old, relating to Charlotte's fractures, be dropped because of insufficient evidence.

Throughout the trial, which lasted 24 days, Mr Latta had always protested his innocence.

The wealthy businessman, who owns Portchester-based IT company The Power-Works, described hearing the news of Char-lotte's injuries with disbelief, saying he

couldn't understand how anyone could hurt his daughter.

Prosecutors had alleged that Mr Latta, of Byron Close, Bishop's Waltham, had lost his temper with his daughter while feeding her and struck her head against a hard object, causing the brain damage that led to her death.

The defence had argued that Charlotte had suffered a spasm in her laryngeal muscles which could have sealed off her throat and stopped her breathing - something Judge Grigson said the prosecution team had failed to disprove.

Speaking after the verdict with his wife by his side, Mr Latta said: "There are no celebrations here today.

"Charlotte's untimely death was a tragedy, and the second tragedy was being wrongfully accused of her murder.

"Today a third tragedy has been avoided, namely the possibility of a wrongful conviction.

"I have always maintained my innocence and I could never have hurt or harmed my daughter. The judge has confirmed that the jury would have reached the same decision."

A spokesman for Hampshire Constabulary, said: "When a child comes to harm in susp-icious circumstances, the police have a duty to carry out a full and thorough investigation to determine the truth of how that child came by their injuries.

"In this case the Crown Prosecution Service felt there was evidence which a jury should have an opportunity to reach a verdict on. However, the court has today decided there is no case to answer.

"It is clear that Charlotte received inflicted injuries over a period of time prior to her death. Exhaustive enquiries were completed after Charlotte's death to try and establish who was responsible. The police do not intend to re-open this investigation."