Rioch Edwards Brown.

Vitamin D Deficiency In Utero ·

Vita D Supple Breatfed Infants Pediatrics 2010 slideshare

Vita D Perrine Cg Ea At Adherence To Vit D Recommendations Among Us Infants Pediatrics 2010


Vitamin D Deficiency In Pre Birth Studies





The Expert Witnesses…

The Next Innocence Project Law shaken baby syndrome…

Trial Tactics And Technics…


Reemerging Nutritional Rickets…



Dismissed Case Raises Questions On Shaken Baby Diagnosis

How much force is needed to cause a bleed on the brain?

Bone disorders that cause fractures and mimic non accidental injury



Centres providing multidisciplinary services for children with metabolic bone disease (Clinical leads)

Centres providing multidisciplinary services for children with metabolic bone disease (Clinical leads)

Belfast, Musgrove Park—Catherine Duffy

Birmingham Children’s Hospital—Nick Shaw

Bristol Children’s Hospital—Christine Burren

Cardiff, University Hospital—John Gregory

Glasgow Yorkhill—Faisal Ahmed

Great Ormond Street Hospital—Catherine De Vile (0I only), Caroline Brain

Manchester, St Mary’s Hospital—Zulf Mughal

Royal London Hospital—Jeremy Allgrove

Sheffield Children’s Hospital—Nick Bishop

Dismissed Case Raises Questions On Shaken Baby Diagnosis

Could intracranial bleeding be caused by birth trauma?

Brainwashed Police Prosecute Parents to Protect Vaccines…

Jailed for a crime you didn’t commit: Landmark case could be costly for UK

Europe decides this week if a woman wrongfully imprisoned over the death of her baby should receive compensation.


Europe decides this week if a woman wrongfully imprisoned over the death of her baby should rec

Traumatic Brain Injury in Children and Adolescents









Bone Diseases That Lead To False Allegations Of Non-Accidental Injury

Temporary Brittle Bone Disease and Infant Fractures

Temporary Brittle Bone Disease and Infant Fractures

The Unexonerated: Factually Innocent Defendants Who Plead Guilty

New doubts in ‘shaken baby’ fatalities

Vitamin D Deficiency in Critically Ill Children

Shaken Baby Syndrome, Abusive Head Trauma, and Actual Innocence: Getting It Right



Uncertainty in classification of repeat sudden unexpected infant deaths in Care of the Next Infant programme

A new cause for retinal haemorrhage and disc oedema in child abuse


Shaken baby syndrome: a search for truth…

Shaken-Baby Syndrome Faces New Questions in Court



Dubious ‘experts’ are paid to tear families apart

Dubious ‘experts’ are paid to tear families apart A new report condemns the shoddy standards of psychologists’ reports in our family courts.

Many mothers have been declared unfit on the strength of ‘very poor’ psychologists’ reports Photo: ALAMY  

By Christopher Booker

7:00PM GMT 17 Mar 2012

A long overdue scandal hit the headlines last week when a semi-official report exposed one of the murkiest corners of our child protection system – the way that supposed professional “experts” help social workers to remove children from their parents.

A study by Professor Jane Ireland, a forensic psychologist, for the Family Justice Council examined 126 psychological reports trawled at random from family court documents. It found that two thirds of them were “poor” or “very poor” in quality; that 20 per cent of their authors had no proper qualifications; and that no fewer than 90 per cent of the authors were not practising psychologists but appeared to earn their livings, wholly or partly, from writing reports for social workers. Already one psychologist, whose company has made nearly half a million pounds a year from such reports, is under investigation by the General Medical Council.

The picture Prof Ireland conveys is one with which I am only too familiar. I have seen how families can be torn apart largely on the basis of highly dubious psychological evidence designed, as John Hemming MP puts it, to “suit the demands of local authorities”. One mother lost her children, for instance, on the basis of a 235-page report, costing £14,000, which found that she was “likely to have a borderline personality disorder” – without the author ever having met her.

Another woman was found by a psychologist to be “a competent mother” – so the social workers went to a second witness, who found the same. They then commissioned a third, who at last came up with what they wanted: that the mother had, again, “a borderline personality disorder”. On that basis, her three children were sent for adoption.

A married couple lost their daughter because the father, who had had four “psychological assessments”, saw no reason to submit himself to a fifth. The Court of Appeal found that he seemed to be putting his “emotional needs before those of his child”, and ordered that the child be adopted.

Related Articles

Damning as Prof Ireland’s report is, her remit was only to look at psychological assessments. An equally disturbing picture might emerge from examining other groups of medical “experts” who earn thousands of pounds from evidence which parents may not be allowed to challenge or even read.

One contentious area, for instance, is where parents are accused of having injured infants who are found to have small fractures to their bones. A fashionable theory, pioneered by a Dr Kleinman in the US, holds that such fractures are a sure indicator of “non-accidental injury”, ie the child must have been abused. In one case (which I was able to report last year because the judge, unusually, published his judgment) it was clear that all the four medical witnesses had supported this “Kleinman theory”, unquestioningly accepted by the judge.

But other experts strongly disagree, citing studies which suggest that such fractures may quite often arise naturally from a deficiency of vitamin D (as tests had shown was the case with this particular mother). When I showed the judgment to a doctor expert in this field, he immediately recognised three of the witnesses as doctors who “go round from one court to another to support the Kleinman theory”. Since no one was in court to challenge them, the heartbroken mother – like many before her – lost her son.

Several scandals have hit the headlines in recent years involving doctors struck off after making a reputation as witnesses, pushing some theory about “brittle bones”, “shaken baby syndrome” or “Munchausen syndrome by proxy” which was eventually exposed as fallacious. But these causes célèbres have centred on criminal courts, where evidence can be put more rigorously to the test than is required by the much laxer procedures of family courts. As I have observed before, once a court system is allowed to hide itself away behind a wall of secrecy, the chances are high that it will become corrupted. A perfect example is the role played in our family courts by many of these professional “experts”. The good work Prof Ireland has begun cannot be allowed to stop there.


retinal hemorrhage




Shaken Baby Syndrome, Abusive Head Trauma, and Actual Innocence: Getting It Right

LB of Islington v Al Alas and Wray [2012] EWHC 865 (Fam)-RICKETS CASE CHILD FINALLY RETURNED

LB of Islington v Al Alas and Wray [2012] EWHC 865 (Fam)-RICKETS CASE




Vitamin D deficiency rickets: another shattered family



Non Accidental Head Injury Cases (NAHI, formerly referred to as Shaken Baby Syndrome [SBS]) – Prosecution Approach

Non Accidental Head Injury Cases (NAHI, formerly referred to as Shaken Baby Syndrome [SBS]) – Prosecution Approach

Published: 24 March 2011

Annex A: Case Law

R v Cannings [2004]

R v Harris, Rock, Cherry and Faulder [2005]

R v Kai-Whitewind [2005]

R v Allen [2005]

A Local Authority v S [2009]

R v Reed and Reed and R v Garmson [2009]

R v Henderson, Butler and Oyediran [2010]

R v Cannings [2004] EWCA Crim 01

See information in Background section in guidance.

R v Harris, Rock, Cherry and Faulder [2005] EWCA Crim 1980

A number of NAHI cases were identified by the CPS and the Court of Appeal as being suitable for being heard together to ensure that a comprehensive judgment could be made by the Court of Appeal in order to guide the handling of such cases in the future.

The Court of Appeal concluded that the unified hypothesis could no longer be considered as a credible or alternative cause to the accepted triad hypothesis. In the course of the Harris trial, Dr. Geddes (the creator of the unified hypothesis) agreed that her research was incomplete.

The pathological features themselves are observable facts, although the mechanisms that cause them could be open to interpretation.

The Court felt that the triad of pathological features provided strong evidence towards a finding that the injuries were non-accidental but could not alone be conclusive of the cause of death.

In determining the degree of force required to cause the triad of pathological features, the Court identified four general propositions whilst indicating that there was no scientific method of correlating the amount of force used and the severity of the damage caused:

The more severe the injury the more probable that they were caused by greater force than mere ‘rough handling’;

Cases of serious injuries caused by [apparently] very minor force as may occur in normal or rough handling of an infant, are likely to be extremely rare;

There will be cases where a [apparently] small degree of force or a minor fall will cause very severe injuries; and

It is not possible to conclude that age [of the child] is a factor in deciding whether injuries are caused by strong force or a minimal degree of force or impact.

Cases of alleged NAHI are fact specific and will be determined on their individual characteristics. All the circumstances, and particularly the clinical picture, must be taken into account. The characteristics of the individual components of the triad are particularly vital to its interpretation.

R v Kai-Whitewind [2005] EWCA Crim 1092

This case is important in outlining the scope of the Cannings judgment:

“All this suggests that, for the time being [due to the current state of medical knowledge], where a full investigation into two or more sudden unexplained infants deaths in the same family is followed by a serious disagreement between reputable experts about the cause of death, and a body of such expert evidence concludes that natural causes, whether explained or unexplained, cannot be excluded as a reasonable (and not a fanciful) possibility, the prosecution of a parent or parents for murder should not be started, or continued, unless there is additional cogent evidence extraneous to the expert evidence which tends to support the conclusion that the infant, or where there is more than one death, one of the infants, was deliberately harmed.”

The defence in this case sought to argue that the Cannings judgment extended to other sudden infant death cases where there was a conflict of expert opinion.

In not allowing the appeal, Judge LJ stated that the Cannings case was only intended to apply to cases that depended on inferences based on coincidence, or the unlikelihood of two or more infant deaths in the same family, or one death where another child had suffered unexplained apparent life-threatening events.

The allegation against the appellant in Kai-Whitewind arose from a single death and could be distinguished from Cannings. Moreover, unlike the case of Cannings, Kai-Whitewind’s conviction had not been based entirely on conflicting expert opinion; there was additional cogent evidence.

It was for the jury to evaluate the expert evidence, taking into account the facts found at the post mortem, as well as upon admission to hospital, and bearing in mind that the findings related to an infant whose mother:

had spoken about killing him;

had difficulties bonding with him;

might have delayed reporting his death; and

had elected not to give evidence.

The Court concluded that there was ample evidence before the jury to justify the verdict and the conviction for murder was safe.

R v Allen [2005] EWCA Crim 1344

The appellant was convicted of the murder of his baby son following an incident in which it was alleged the child suffered injuries caused by shaking, impact or a combination of the two. This incident had followed a previous one the week before as a result of which the child was detained in hospital for a number of days.

On appeal, the Court held that the evidence of the previous incident was relevant in order to prove the necessary intent on the day of the fatal act, and that there was sufficient evidence for the jury to convict of murder as opposed to manslaughter. In addition to the triad of injuries, and the previous incident which the Crown said was due to the appellant’s actions, evidence was found of bruising to the back of the child’s head.

The Court also held that the acceptability of the medical evidence was a matter for the jury (Paragraph 69).

The Court concluded that the appellant’s conviction for murder was safe.

A Local Authority v S [2009] EWHC 2115 (Fam)

This case (ALA v S [2009] EWHC 2115 (Fam)) was an application by the local authority for a care order under S.31 of the Children Act 1989 in relation to S, who was born on 17th March 2006 and who had just turned three. (para 1)

The proceedings arose out of the death of a second child of the family, Z, who collapsed at home on 29th October 2007 when he was thirteen weeks old. He died on 1st November 2007. (para 3)

In ALA v S, Mrs Justice King said “This is a case where the allegation is that Z died as a result of a shake or a shaking/impact injury. The classic features of such a non-accidental injury, it is said were present, namely encephalopathy, subdural haemorrhage and retinal haemorrhage. This combination of injuries is known as “the triad” (para 29). She determined the facts of the case against the backdrop of the current law; the judgments handed down by the House of Lords as recently as 11th June 2008 in Re B [2008] (Children) UKHL 35, and adopted the descriptions given by the Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, in its judgment on 21st July 2005 in R v Harris, Rock, Cherry and Faulder [2005] EWCA Crim 1980 paras.63-65 (para 30):

“As already stated, when the three elements of the triad coincide, for some years conventional medical opinion has been that this is diagnostic of NAHI. Typically the brain is found to be encephalopathic; bleeding is found in the subdural space between the dura and the arachnoid subdural haemorrhages; and there are retinal haemorrhages. There may also be other pathological signs such as subarachnoid bleeding and injuries at the cranio-cervical junction. Further, there may be injuries to nerve tissue (axonal injuries) and external signs of broken bones, bruising and other obvious injuries such as extradural oedema (bruising). Determining these findings requires medical experts from a number of different disciplines interpreting often very small signs within the complex structures of an infant’s brain and surrounding tissue.

The mechanism for these injuries is said to be the shaking of the infant, with or without impact on a solid surface, which moves the brain within the skull damaging the brain and shearing the bridging veins between the dura and the arachnoid. The shaking may also cause retinal haemorrhages. In the sense that the explanation for the triad is said to be caused by shaking and/or impact it also is a unified hypothesis, albeit that each element is said to be caused individually by trauma.

The triad of injuries becomes central to a diagnosis of NAHI when there are no other signs or symptoms of trauma such as bruises or fractures.” (ibid.)

In this case (ALA v S) not only were there a considerable number of experts, but Mrs Justice King was asked specifically to make serious adverse findings in relation to two of those experts, Dr. Cohen and Dr. Squier (para 33). In Re LU and LB [2004] EWCA Civ 567, the Court of Appeal provided guidelines for expert witnesses following the earlier case of R v Cannings. At para.23, Butler-Sloss P. gave the following guidelines:

i) The cause of an injury or an episode that cannot be explained scientifically remains equivocal.

ii) Recurrence is not in itself probative.

iii) Particular caution is necessary in any case where the medical experts disagree, one opinion declining to exclude a reasonable possibility of natural cause.

iv) The court must always be on guard against the over-dogmatic expert, the expert whose reputation or amour propre is at stake, or the expert who has developed a scientific prejudice.

v) The judge in care proceedings must never forget that today’s medical certainty may be discarded by the next generation of experts or that scientific research will throw light into corners that are at present dark (ibid).

The approach of the court to expert opinion it was submitted, must include the need to evaluate the witnesses and the soundness of each of their opinions. The mere expression, of a belief by a witness, however eminent, does not suffice. The court’s evaluation of the witnesses, it was submitted should follow Ryder J. in A County Council v X Y and Z [2005] 2 FLR 129:

“… involves an examination of the reasons given for his opinions and … the extent to which they are supported by the evidence.” (para 34)

The judge must also examine:

“… the internal consistency and logic of his evidence; his precision and accuracy of thought… the extent to which a witness has conceived an opinion and is reluctant to re-examine it in light of later evidence … whether or not a witness is biased or lacks independence.” (para 35)

Summary positions:

“Drs. Cary, Al-Sarraj, Bonshek, Peters, Richards, Professor Luthert and Mr. Lloyd all regard non-accidental head injury as the most likely cause of all Z’s injuries and consider it improbable, or highly improbable, that the other suggested causes could have caused the triad and Z’s death. (para 57)

“Dr. Squier and Dr. Cohen regard non-accidental head injury as possible, but unlikely, in the absence of any other bony or soft-tissue injury, or other specific post-mortem evidence of trauma. Dr. Squier agreed that the triad seen in Z was also seen in cases of frank, inflicted trauma and in accidental trauma. Dr. Squier and Dr. Cohen consider the most likely cause of the primary event to be either a choking incident or a heart arrhythmia combined with the effects of prolonged CPR followed by resuscitation. (para 58)

“Drs. Cary, Al-Sarraj, Bonshek, Peters, Richards, Professor Luthert and Mr. Lloyd each hold what might be called the mainstream view of non-accidental head injuries as encapsulated in the judgments of the Court of Appeal in R v Harris. None accept that hypoxia in the absence of trauma is a cause of subdural haemorrhages and retinal haemorrhages of the type seen in Z. Dr. Al-Sarraj summed up the approach which HHJ King found each of this group of experts regarded as the proper approach in considering a case where the triad is present. Dr. Al-Sarraj told the court that: (para 60)

“Dr. Squier and Dr. Cohen have a very different approach in two important areas:


a) Dr. Cohen does not regard trauma as a proper diagnosis where the triad is present, but there are no external injuries such as bruises or fractures and /or a witness to the alleged shaking event.

b) Dr. Squier regards trauma as very important. She is of the opinion that the triad, in the absence of evidence of trauma, is simply “no evidence of shaken baby syndrome”. The triad of injuries may be due to many other factors that are not trauma. She does not accept that the triad is necessarily a strong indicator of shaken baby syndrome. In the opinion of Dr. Squier, shaking alone may cause the triad, but the level of violence required is such that many people would be incapable of it and it would break the child’s neck. She said, in terms, that she would never advise the court that trauma was the probable cause absent external injury, either seen physically with the naked eye or found at post-mortem.

ii) Both Dr. Cohen and Dr. Squier subscribe to the Geddes III hypothesis in one form or another. Put at its simplest, each are of the view that hypoxia in children can lead to subdural haemorrhages and retinal haemorrhages in the absence of trauma.” (para 63, i, ii, iii)

In considering the evidence of Dr. Cohen and Dr. Squier, Mrs Justice King had in mind the guidance of Butler-Sloss P. in Re LU and LB (set out above), and in particular: (para 197)

That the court must be on guard against the over-dogmatic expert … who has developed a scientific prejudice; and

A judge in care proceedings must never forget that today’s medical certainty may be discarded by the next generation of experts.

“The latter is of importance in the present case where it is accepted by all that there is much to learn and much which is not yet understood about so-called shaken baby syndrome and the triad. Dr. Cohen and Dr. Squier each agree with Geddes III. Dr. Cohen and Dr. Squier each believe that in the absence of additional external injuries, such as grip marks or fractures, there is no reliable evidence of shaken baby syndrome. Dr. Squier does not accept the triad to be a strong indicator of shaken baby syndrome. (198)

“These views are, undoubtedly, controversial. They go against the mainstream of current thinking and the analysis of the Court of Appeal in R v. Harris. Dr. Al-Sarraj told the court that his views are in line with mainstream opinion. Mainstream opinion in all the other specialities is the same as his, that is to say that hypoxia cannot cause subdural haemorrhages. Al-Sarraj told the court that there are 40-44 neuropathologists in the country of whom a maximum of 10 or 12 are forensic neuropathologists. To his knowledge, the only neuropathologist in the UK believing that hypoxia can cause subdural haemorrhages is Dr. Waney Squier. In addition, he said there are two or three other people who share her opinion who are working in different, but related, specialities, of whom Dr. Cohen and Dr. Scheimberg (Dr. Cohen’s co-author) are presumably two. (para 199)”

It was observed that “They come in all the defence cases, so you do not realise that they are in such a minority.” Dr. Cohen and Dr. Squier support Geddes III, even though Dr. Geddes herself in Harris withdrew from her own unified hypothesis. (ibid.)

Dr. Cohen and Dr. Squier maintain their position that in the absence of external injuries trauma cannot be established despite the Court of Appeal’s conclusion that:

“The triad of injuries becomes central to a diagnosis of non-accidental injury where there are no other signs or symptoms of trauma, such as bruises or fractures.” (para 201)

In considering the evidence of Dr. Cohen and Dr Squier, Mrs Justice King reminded herself that four years have passed since Dr. Geddes accepted that her unified hypothesis could no longer credibly be put forward. Dr. Cohen and Dr. Squier regard themselves as having built on her work. She also noted that the next generation of experts and scientific research may, as Butler-Sloss P. said:

“Throw light into corners that were then dark and that the hypothesis of Dr. Geddes may yet be proven to be in all, or in part, correct.” (para 202)

The judge went on to consider whether or not these experts have “developed a scientific prejudice” or whether they are in the vanguard of research and learning. (para 203)

In the context of the evidence given by Drs. Cohen and Squier she considered whether their respective beliefs in:

(i) Geddes III

(ii) That trauma may only be regarded as likely causation where there is a triad plus additional external injury (or alternatively a witness) has led to their conviction in respect of SBS overwhelming their forensic analysis of the case. (para 204)

She decided that there were three areas which the court should consider in relation to each of Drs. Cohen and Squier in order to determine that issue namely:

(i) Their use of research material;

(ii) Their willingness to defer to the experts in another field and as part of that their acceptance of the importance of confining their respective opinion to their own expertise and;

(iii) The importance in any forensic examination of factual accuracy (para 205)

“To illustrate: Dr. Cohen accepted in evidence that for the purposes of her study the eyes of the foetuses or neonates were not examined. She said there were research papers confirming that hypoxia leads to retinal haemorrhages. That evidence is without exception at odds with the combined view of all the ophthalmic expertise. (para 225 (6))

“It was put to Dr Cohen that she had employed the head circumference point to bolster her hypothesis. This she denied. She said that it could have been an old birth bleed, or a re-bleed, but she now thought the baby may have had a re-bleed. She said she could not exclude re-bleed as a primary cause, but that she thought it was secondary. Finally, she said, “we do not know the cause of his collapse”. (para 270)

Mrs Justice King felt that “Ultimately, her evidence was confusing and unhelpful.”(ibid.)

Moving on to Dr Squier, the judge observed that “any court dealing with these cases on a regular basis will be aware that Dr. Squier is a strong believer that many cases hitherto regarded as SBS have in fact been precipitated by a choke and that there has thereafter been a cascade of events, including hypoxia, which has been responsible for the subdural haemorrhages and retinal haemorrhages.” (para 245)

She declared that Dr Squier’s view is a legitimate one and an appropriate line of research, (para 246) went on to say that:

“All agree that much remains unknown about SBS and the triad. It is essential, however, that Dr. Squier and others engaged on such research avoid becoming a zealots with the consequence that scientific rigour is lost or sacrificed. (para 246)

“These Courts rely on the professionalism and rigor of the experts who come before them. That means not only drawing the Court’s attention to research that is contrary to their view, but that the experts are rigorous in the use they make of research papers. Dr. Squier’s suggestion that there were “well documented cases of choking, leading to subdural haemorrhages and retinal haemorrhages” by reference to the two articles analysed above is disquieting. It should be borne in mind that Dr. Squier relied upon these so called “well documented cases” in support of her hypothesis as to the cause of Z’s death; the subject of this enquiry. She should have, at the very least, drawn the court’s attention to the fact that the cases in question were cases where the child had been shaken and that in one of them had been regarded as a case of non accidental injury resulting in the child being taken into care as a result of the incident. (para 247)

“Dr. Bonshek referred to Dr. Squier’s use of these articles as being “disingenuous”. I feel driven, with regret, to agree. (para 248)

“I do not doubt the commitment of Dr. Squier and Dr. Cohen to the advancement of the understanding of Shaken Baby Syndrome. As already indicated, I make no criticism and, indeed, it would be wrong to do so, of the fact that neither of them hold mainstream views. There is a significant fundamental difference between academic theories and hypotheses, on the one hand, and the rigorous forensic analysis which is required in care proceedings, on the other. In care proceedings the parents of the children concerned face allegations of the most serious type and they are therefore entitled to expect the experts commissioned to report to the court to be meticulous in both their analysis of the data and in their presentation to the court of their expert forensic opinion.(para 284)

“Dr. Squier and Dr. Cohen, I find with regret, have each fallen into that category of expert identified by Butler-Sloss P. in Re LU & LB, namely the expert who has developed a scientific prejudice. As a consequence, I accept the submission of the Local Authority that Dr. Squier has permitted her convictions to lead her analysis. The very fact that she said that she would, in future, be content to report Z’s case as a “well described case of choking leading to subdural haemorrhage and retinal haemorrhages, subject to the exclusion of cardiac defect” sums up her approach in one concise example. Another, is the fact that each of the significant factual errors made by her served to support her hypothesis of choking and hypoxia. (para 285)

“The error in relation to Z’s head circumference was not the only serious factual error made by Dr. Squier. In her written material, Dr. Squier recorded that the paramedic at the scene had noted “pink frothy sputum running out of Z’s nostrils”. She also noted that at the hospital, “milk was noticed in the throat and nose”. She said in her oral evidence, however, that there was evidence of aspiration as a contributory cause and so choking must be a likely explanation. In support of this proposition she said:

“The child was found with milk and vomit in his airways by the ambulance man.” (para 280)

“This was not only wrong, but misleading.” (para 281)

R v Reed and Reed; R v Garmson [2009] EWCA Crim 2698

The Court of Appeal dismissed two joined appeal cases involving Low Copy Number (LCN) DNA analysis. Whilst confirming that there had been no substantive attack on the science of LCN analysis, the Court set out explicitly how it expects cases involving expert evidence to pay the closest attention to the requirements of Part 33 of The Criminal Procedure Rules and the need to agree evidence or identify issues at an early stage (Part 3).

The Court did not accept the evidence provided by the defence expert witness, Dr Allan Jamieson and went on to question how his evidence was admissible in the Omagh boming case (R v Hoey) as that was the first occasion he had given an opinion regarding LCN DNA analysis. The Court ruled that an appropriately experienced scientist is fully entitled to offer an opinion […], though emphasised that “it is the duty of the Crown and the defence to ensure that the necessary steps are taken to bring the matter back before the judge where a disagreement is identified” (p131 iii), which must occur before the trial.

R v Henderson, Butler and Oyediran [2010] EWCA Crim 1269

The key principle set out in this case was the need to consider each case on its own merits; Henderson & Others was not an authority for removing complex medical evidence from the jury.

The Court of Appeal made it very clear that the complex medical issues arising in cases of alleged NAHI in babies must be dealt with by counsel and judges suitably experienced, who are thus able clearly to set out the points made by each expert in a way that assists the jury to consider the evidence.

Further Points made:

The court in line with the approach taken by the police and prosecution, rejected the ‘unified hypothesis’.

No-one in the appeal suggested that the presence of the triad, even with the characteristics demonstrated in these cases, was conclusive or provided a certain diagnosis.

It will usually be necessary for the court to direct a meeting of experts so that a statement can be prepared on areas of agreement and disagreement. The essential medical issues which the jury have to resolve should be clear by the time the trial starts.

An expert’s evidence, Dr Leestma’s, was rejected as it was more historic and far more limited than that of Dr Al-Sarraj. Dr Leestma had not conducted autopsies or given evidence in cases involved with baby-shaking for many years. In order to establish the appropriate level and relevance of expertise, questions that should be considered by the jury include:

Has the witness gone outside his area of expertise?

Can the witness point to a recognised, peer-reviewed, source for the opinion?

Is the clinical experience of the witness up-to-date and equal to the experience of others whose evidence he seeks to contradict?

The fact that an expert is in clinical practice at the time he makes his report is of significance as they can learn and develop from continuing experience. See also Annex C, The report of a working group convened by The Royal College of Pathologists and The Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health: “Judges should also ensure that experts have recent clinical experience”.

Any conclusion of any court as to the medical evidence depends upon the evidence before that court, as no appellate jurisprudence can provide authority for a medical proposition.

The exact occasions upon which injuries occurred do not need to be established when deliberate injury has been caused. The nature and severity of the injury in Oyediran was a sufficient basis to establish a murderous intent.

The previously accepted proposition that only trauma can cause retinal folds was shown to be incorrect. The evidence of this was from a case in which perimacular folds associated with extensive retinal haemorrhages emerged not due to trauma, but rather to acute myeloid leukaemia suffered by a 14 year-old.

It was suggested that the judge who is to hear a particular case should deal with all pre-trial hearings, except for those in which no issue of substance is to be considered; and the judge should have experience of the complex issues and understanding of the medical learning.

Doctor gagged for doubting shaken baby syndrome

Grandmother In High-Profile Shaken Baby Case Has Sentence Commuted

Increase in Vaccines Causes Cot Death


On May 4th 2011 a new study by Neil Z Miller and Gary S Goldman was published online by SAGE, entitled Infant mortality rates regressed against number of vaccine doses ro… This study, is another in a long line of studies revealing evidence showing the more vaccines a baby receives the more chance they have of dying from Sudden Infant Death Syndrome.

Miller and Goldman look for a possible correlation between vaccines and Infant Mortality Rates.(IMR). Looking at 34 countries, they research the number of infants dying of SIDS per 1000 babies and the number of doses of vaccine that each country is giving to babies under 1yr. Miller and Goldman then look for a correlation between the number of deaths and the number of doses of vaccines given. The hypothesis they were looking to prove was that the greater the number of vaccine doses given to infants before the age of 1yr, the higher the IMR would be. Their hypothesis was proven conclusively as the countries giving fewer doses of vaccines were the countries with the lowest Infant Mortality Rate.

The authors grouped the countries by vaccine dosage. 12–14, 15–17, 18–20, 21–23, and 24–26. When studied, the group in the 12 – 14 dose range, Sweden, Japan, Iceland, Norway, Denmark and Finland were the countries which had the lowest IMR per 1000 live births.

Sweden had a total of 12 vaccine doses given and showed a 2.75 IMR compared with the USA who had a total of 26 vaccine doses given and an IMR of 6.22. The USA came out as having the highest IMR rate as well as the highest number of vaccine doses. Miller and Goldman wrote:

“In 2009, there were approximately 4.5 million live births and 28,000 infant deaths in the United States, resulting in an infant mortality rate of 6.22/1000″.

Vaccine doses do not indicate the number of vaccines given but the total vaccine doses overall, as many vaccines include more than 1 vaccine dose e.g. DPaT is a 3 dose vaccine.

Of course as with all studies variables existed and these were discussed and taken into consideration.

This is not the first study showing similar results. Professionals have been noticing a correlation between vaccines and SIDS for many years. The authors mention many of these in their excellent paper.

A study not mentioned in Miller and Goldman’s paper was the Cotwatch Study written by Dr Viera Scheibner. I feel that this study is one of the most important studies ever produced. The reason for this is because Dr Viera Scheibner was not looking for any correlation between vaccines and SIDS at the time.

In 1985-1986 Dr Scheibner and her late husband Leif Karlsson (a Swedish electronics engineer specializing in patient monitoring systems) developed a pioneering true breathing monitor which they called Cotwatch, A ‘true breathing monitor’ is different from standard breathing monitors because it’s electronics separates the babies heart beat and breathing and only the breathing delays the alarm. This is unlike other monitors which take any movement as breathing. On studying the results Scheibner and Karlsson found that the charts produced by their monitor revealed that whenever the babies had had a vaccination flareups of stress induced breathing patterns occurred. The patterns seemed to appear on specific times and days following the vaccination which they named ‘critical hours and days’.

This proved conclusively that it was the vaccines that were causing the babies to have periods of stress-induced breathing. In some cases this led ultimately to the babies death.

Another study pre-dating this study and also proving that vaccines were causing infants to die was by Baraff LJ et al (1983) Pediatr Infect Dis. 1983 Jan-Feb;2(1):7-11. PMID: 6835859; UI: 83169234 Possible temporal association between diphtheria-tetanus toxoid-per…. He wrote:

“Because diphtheria and tetanus toxoids pertussis (DTP) vaccine is routinely given during the period of highest incidence of sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS), this study was undertaken to determine if there is a temporal association between DTP immunization and SIDS. Parents of 145 SIDS victims who died in Los Angeles County between January 1, 1979, and August 23, 1980, were contacted and interviewed regarding their child’s recent immunization history. Fifty-three had received a DTP immunization. Of these 53, 27 had received a DTP immunization within 28 days of death. Six SI Ddeaths occurred within 24 hours and 17 occurred within 1 week of DTP immunization.”

In recent years SIDS deaths have been called a number of different things including SUID or Sudden Unexplained Infant Deaths and suffocation. Many of the babies dying have been found to have a triad of bleeds in the brain. These bleeds are being put down to the parents or care givers abusing their children often under the guise of

Shaken Baby Syndrome,Shaken Impact Syndrome,Abusive Head Trauma,Pediatric Traumatic Brain Injury,Shaken Brain Trauma,Whiplash Shaken Infant Syndrome,Non Accidental Head Injury.

Many professionals believe that this is in a bid to cover up the true extent of the problem and hide the fact that vaccines are harming our children.

These professionals include

Dr Michael Innis MBBS, DTM&H, FRCPA and FRCPath

Professor Gordon Stewart, M.D Emeritus professor of Public Health

Dr Edward Yazbak M.D. F.A.A.P

Dr Archie Kalokerinos M.D MBBS PhD FAPM

Charles Pragnell Independent social care management consultant, a Child/Family Advocate, and an Expert Defence Witness – Child Protection

Lisa Blakemore-Brown – Psychologist, Autism specialist, Expert Witness and Author

Dr Viera Scheibner (PhD.) Principle Retired Scientist

William C Torch, a retired pediatric neurologist

Dr John Plunkett – Anatomic Pathology & Clinical Pathology, Forensic Pathology

Dr Horace. Gardner – Ophthalmologist,

Dr Harold Buttram – MD, FAACP.

Dr Zachary Bravos – Legal Counsel,

Neil Z Miller Medical research journalist

Dr Kenneth Stoller M.D

The list is endless. If there was not a substantial provable link then why would all these highly qualified professionals and many many more be writing papers claiming that they have evidence proving that vaccines are causing the death of many children?

Neil Millers paper is as conclusive as it can be that vaccines can and do kill very young babies. When is the world going to wake up to this? Vaccines need to be considered as a differential diagnosis to SIDS and SBS and professionals have been saying this for years. On 20th July 2007 Lisa Blakemore-Brown made this comment Times Online

“Professor Sir Roy Meadow also works in the area of vaccine research in which

cot death is one of the adverse reactions.

On 6th July 1988 in Room 1611/12 Market Towers, he sat with others including Professor Elizabeth Miller, epidemiologist for the vaccine programmer and Dr David Salisbury, with a similar remit at the Department of Health in the Joint Sub Committee on Adverse Reactions to vaccines and immunization.

During these meetings held over many years, deaths of babies were

routinely discussed.

Leading medics have written to other medics about three and four children dying in one family within one area where the rate of cot death was much higher than in other parts of the country. At least two families reported how the deaths followed vaccines.

So why is a vaccine reaction, clearly well known to the inner medical circle, NEVER mentioned as part of the differential diagnosis?

Even now Hey and Bacon fail to even mention it.

Its time the public knew about all this Lisa Blakemore-Brown, London, UK”

How right she is, I wrote on VacTruth only a couple of week ago how Prof David Southall who is involved in aid work, sending vaccines to the third world, has known for nearly twenty years that children can die from breathing problems after a vaccine. How can parents ever trust that vaccines are safe, when evidence proves that giving multiple vaccines to young babies can be very dangerous? A full investigation needs to take place immediately investigating all vaccines. Unless governments around the world can disprove what these professionals are saying the take up for vaccines will continue on a downwards spiral..

Clemency Granted for Shirley Smith

Live Court – judgment Louise Woodward



Watchdog report: Shaken-baby science doubts grow……

Editorial: Is ‘shaken baby syndrome’ shaky science?


Medical reporter Janet St James talks about response to her “fractured families” story…

Rare bone disease causes dad to be falsely charged with child abuse

Development and Evaluation of a Shaken Baby Syndrome Prevention Program…

Joint statement on Shaken Baby Syndrome

Parents say they were unfairly accused of abuse at Ste-Justine…

Garrett, D. 2011 Overcoming Defence Expert Testimony In Abusive Head Trauma Cases, National Centre for Prosecution of Child Abuse. Edited by Odom, E. Appelbaum, A. & Pendle, D.

Shaken Baby Syndrome Prevention Training for Child Care Providers

Shaken Baby Syndrome

A decade later, shaken baby convictions appealed


Shaken Baby Syndrome” to “Non-Accidental Head Injury” – The Continuing Research and the Law