Shaken Baby Syndrome

The name of this condition is clear & descriptive. It may be something that happens to families at the very bottom of the social scale. This makes blaming the "carers" who might even be the parents that much easier. The inventor of this condition, one A. Norman Guthkelch has changed his mind after 40 years of consideration. The Crown Prosecution Service has decided that it is going to call it something different; not an indicator of settled science and definite diagnoses.

Having Waney Squier struck off stopped her testifying for the defence. It made the other two defence medics, Dr Irene Scheimberg, from Bart's Hospital, and Dr Marta Cohen bottle out. That is a great way of getting the conviction rate up much nearer to 100%. What it does for justice is another matter. See e.g. Met Accused Of Campaign Against Shaken Baby Witnesses, which is to say to Pervert The Course Of Justice..

Private Eye had a go at the subject [ 1429/37 ]. So has The Telegraph [ Doubt over shaken baby theory that has sent dozens of parents to prison ex Telegraph ] back in 2009. The Guardian had a go too - General Medical Council behaving like a modern inquisition. Then there is Marietta Higgs, a dangerous weirdo operating in Gillingham.

Remember that Munchausen Syndrome By Proxy was invented by an arrogant fool; it caused a lot of trouble before he was seen off.

 

Shaken Baby Syndrome ex Wiki
Abusive head trauma (< (AHT), also known as shaken baby syndrome (SBS), is a constellation of medical findings (often referred to as a "triad"): subdural hematoma, retinal bleeding, and brain swelling which some physicians have used to infer child abuse caused by violent shaking. In a majority of cases there is no visible sign of external injury. It is a subset of the broader form of child abuse.[1] The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention identifies SBS as "an injury to the skull or intracranial contents of an infant or young child (< 5 years of age) due to inflicted blunt impact and/or violent shaking".

The Crown Prosecution Service for England and Wales recommended in 2011 that the term shaken baby syndrome be avoided and the term non accidental head injury (< (NAHI) be used instead.[3] In 2009, the American Academy of Pediatrics recommended the use of the term abusive head trauma to replace SBS.[4]

SBS is often fatal and can cause severe brain damage, resulting in lifelong disability. Estimated death rates (mortality) among infants with SBS range from 15% to 38%; the median is 20%–25%. Up to half of deaths related to child abuse are reportedly due to shaken baby syndrome.[5] Nonfatal consequences of SBS include varying degrees of visual impairment (including blindness), motor impairment (e.g. cerebral palsy) and cognitive impairments.[6].........................

Legal issues
The President's Council of Advisers on Science and Technology (PCAST) noted in its September 2016 report that there are concerns regarding the scientific validity of forensic evidence of abusive head trauma that "require urgent attention." [52]

In July 2005, the Court of Appeals in the United Kingdom heard four appeals of SBS convictions: one case was dropped, the sentence was reduced for one, and two convictions were upheld.[53] The court found that the classic triad of retinal bleeding, subdural hematoma, and acute encephalopathy are not 100% diagnostic of SBS and that clinical history is also important. In the Court's ruling, they upheld the clinical concept of SBS but dismissed one case and reduced another from murder to manslaughter.[53] In their words: "Whilst a strong pointer to NAHI [non-accidental head injury] on its own we do not think it possible to find that it must automatically and necessarily lead to a diagnosis of NAHI. All the circumstances, including the clinical picture, must be taken into account."[54]

The court invalidated the "unified hypothesis", proposed by British physician J. F. Geddes and colleagues, as an alternative mechanism for the subdural and retinal bleeding found in suspected cases of SBS.[53] The unified hypothesis proposed that the bleeding was not caused by shearing of subdural and retinal veins but rather by cerebral hypoxia, increased intracranial pressure, and increased pressure in the brain's blood vessels.[53] The court reported that "the unified hypothesis [could] no longer be regarded as a credible or alternative cause of the triad of injuries": subdural haemorrhage, retinal bleeding and encephalopathy due to hypoxemia (low blood oxygen) found in suspected SBS.

On January 31, 2008, the Wisconsin Court of Appeals granted Audrey A. Edmunds a new trial based on "competing credible medical opinions in determining whether there is a reasonable doubt as to Edmunds's guilt." Specifically, the appeals court found that "Edmunds presented evidence that was not discovered until after her conviction, in the form of expert medical testimony, that a significant and legitimate debate in the medical community has developed in the past ten years over whether infants can be fatally injured through shaking alone, whether an infant may suffer head trauma and yet experience a significant lucid interval prior to death, and whether other causes may mimic the symptoms traditionally viewed as indicating shaken baby or shaken impact syndrome."[55][56]

In In 2012, A. Norman Guthkelch, the neurosurgeon often credited with "discovering" the diagnosis of SBS,[57] published an article "after 40 years of consideration," which is harshly critical of shaken baby prosecutions based solely on the triad of injuries.[27] Again, in 2012, Dr. Guthkelch stated in an interview, "I think we need to go back to the drawing board and make a more thorough assessment of these fatal cases, and I am going to bet . . . that we are going to find in every - or at least the large majority of cases, the child had another severe illness of some sort which was missed until too late."[58] Furthermore, in 2015, Dr. Guthkelch went so far as to say, "I was against defining this thing as a syndrome in the first instance. To go on and say every time you see it, it's a crime...It became an easy way to go into jail."

On the other hand, Teri Covington, who runs the National Center for Child Death Review Policy and Practice, worries that such caution has led to a growing number of cases of child abuse in which the abuser is not punished.[57]

In In 2016, the medical license of Waney Squier, a leading expert who had provided defense testimony in many shaken baby trials, was revoked.[60] The Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service (MPTS) found Dr. Squier's testimony regarding alternative explanations for the findings to be "deliberately misleading...irresponsible...and dishonest." The discrediting of Dr. Squier "could have far-reaching consequences for past and future cases of people accused of inflicting serious and fatal injuries on babies."[61] Shortly after her conviction, Dr. Squier was given the "champion of justice" award by the International Innocence Network for her efforts to free those wrongfully convicted of shaken baby syndrome.[62] Dr. Squier denies the allegations and is appealing the conviction. [63] As her case is appealed, an open letter to the British Medical Journal questioning the decision to strike off Dr. Squier, was signed by 350 doctors, scientists, and attorneys.[64]

 

General Medical Council behaving like a modern inquisition [ 21 March 2016 ]
QUOTE
We are concerned that Dr Waney Squier, perhaps Britain’s foremost scientist in the field of paediatric neuropathology, who has been a consultant at the John Radcliffe hospital for 32 years, was struck off the medical register by a General Medical Council panel on Monday, based on her testimony in so-called shaken baby syndrome (SBS) cases (Report, theguardian.com, 21 March). She was accused of various things, including showing too little respect for the views of her peers.

Every generation has its quasi-religious orthodoxies, and if there is one certainty in history it is that many beliefs that were firmly held yesterday will become the object of knowing ridicule tomorrow. Whether this will be the fate of SBS, time will tell. However, the case of Dr Squier follows another troubling pattern where the authorities inflict harsh punishment on those who fail to toe the establishment line.

It is a sad day for science when a 21st-century inquisition denies one doctor the freedom to question “mainstream” beliefs. It is a particularly sad day for the parent or carer who ends up on the wrong end of another doctor’s “diagnosis” that an infant was shaken, when the child may have died from entirely different, natural causes.
Michael Mansfield QC, London
Clive Stafford Smith Human rights lawyer, London
Dr Thomas L Bohan President, Forensic Specialties Accreditation Board; President, American Academy of Forensic Sciences, 2009-10
Dr Harry J. Bonnell Forensic pathologist, California
Dr Lina Davidsson Stockholm
Keith A Findley Co-director, Wisconsin Innocence Project
Dr Steven C. Gabaeff Diplomat Emeritus, American Board of Emergency Medicine (1983-2014)
Dr Jennian Geddes Retired reader in clinical neuropathology, Queen Mary, University of London
David B Hirsch Lawyer, New Hampshire
Dr Zhongxue Hua Forensic pathologist and neuropathologist, New York
Charles J Hyman Retired clinical professor of pediatrics, California
Katherine Judson Shaken baby syndrome litigation coordinator, Wisconsin Innocence Project
Dr Patrick E Lantz Winston Salem, North Carolina
David J. Lansner Lawyer, New York
Anya Lewis Barrister, London
Dr Marvin Miller Professor of pediatrics, ob/gyn; affiliated professor of biomedical engineering, Dayton, Ohio
Dr John Plunkett Diplomate, American Board of Pathology
Dr Miguel Reyes-Múgica Marjory K Harmer Endowed Chair in Pediatric Pathology, Pennsylvania
Dr Irene Scheimberg Consultant paediatric pathologist, London
Dr Joseph Scheller Child neurologist, Maryland
Carrie Sperling Co-Director, Wisconsin Innocence Project
Peter Wilcox QC, London
Dr Edward N Willey Florida
Jenny Wiltshire Managing Partner, Hickman & Rose, London
Dr RK Wright Forensic pathologist, Florida
UNQUOTE
She looks nice. Mansfield is a dickhead.

 

Doubt over 'shaken baby' theory that has sent dozens of parents to prison ex Telegraph [ 15 February 2009 ]
QUOTE
Doubt over 'shaken baby' theory that has sent dozens of parents to prison

A medical theory that has led to dozens of women being jailed for shaking their babies has been called into question by new scientific research. The authors looked at 25 babies who had died shortly before delivery and 30 newborns who had haemorrhages and found similar damage to the brains of all the babies. Two British pathologists have found that a combination of injuries used to diagnose abuse, known as the "triad", can happen naturally.

Dr Irene Scheimberg, from London's Bart's Hospital, and Dr Marta Cohen [ Dr Marta Cohen Consultant Histopathologist ], from Sheffield Children's Hospital, warn that bleeding on the brain and retinas, swelling of the brain and oxygen deficiency do not only occur through vigorous shaking.

Their discoveries could have a dramatic effect on future child abuse trials and child protection hearings.

Dr Scheimberg said: "When there is no evidence of physical abuse, apart from the haemorrhaging, we may be sending to jail parents who lost their children through no fault of their own.

"As scientists it is our duty to be cautious when we see the triad and to take each case on its merits. We owe it to children and their families."

The study, published in the journal of Paediatric Developmental Pathology, found that the symptoms of shaken baby syndrome can happen in babies before they are taken home from hospital.

The authors looked at 25 babies who had died shortly before delivery and 30 newborns who had haemorrhages and found similar damage to the brains of all the babies.

The study concluded that the symptoms are common in young babies and could be caused by a traumatic birth or other conditions.

Dr Scheimberg and Dr Cohen believe that what they have found means police and lawyers will need more evidence than bleeding in the brain to prove that a baby has suffered child abuse.

Dr Scheimberg said: "We now know that mothers who have babies through normal vaginal delivery can have a child with a subdural haemorrhage and also retinal bleeding.

"We also know that many of these bleeds resolve themselves – with no outward sign of damage in the first few weeks of life and these children grow up to live a normal life.

&"The other group are those children who present with signs of shaken baby syndrome whose bleeding has continued and got worse. These are the children who the courts suspect have been harmed by their parents."

The evidence could now be used in a string of appeals, including the case of child-minder Keran Henderson, who is serving three years for the manslaughter of 11-month-old Maeve Sheppard.

Medical experts argued that Maeve's injuries indicated that she had been violently shaken. /p>

BBut Henderson, of Iver Heath, Buckinghamshire, said the baby had a fit while she was changing her nappy.

Her lawyer, leading child abuse expert Bill Bache, said he was "absolutely sure" the research will be used in appeal cases.

"It is very likely we will use it in Keran Henderson's appeal," he added.

Mr Bache said the evidence may also be used in at least four further cases. /p>

TThe "triad" of symptoms first came to public attention in 1998 in the US trial of British au pair Louise Woodward, who was found guilty of the second-degree murder of eight-month-old Matthew Eappen in October 1997. She was sentenced to a minimum of 15 years to life in prison.

Her conviction was then reduced to involuntary manslaughter. Her sentence was also reduced to time served on remand, 279 days, and she was freed. /p>

Around 200 cases of shaken baby syndrome are diagnosed in Britain every year and many accused of abuse strenuously deny any wrongdoing.
UNQUOTE
Denial is the obvious response of anyone accused. A calm look at the evidence is important. Patter merchants flourishing obscure medical terms should be treated with suspicion.

 

Met Accused Of 'Campaign' Against Shaken Baby Witnesses
QUOTE
 Three leading pathologists have accused the Metropolitan Police of attempting to discredit them as expert witnesses in so-called Shaken Baby court cases.
About 250 Non-Accidental Head Injury (NAHI) cases go to court every year, with the outcome often relying on a expert testimony from pathologists.  The Royal College of Pathologists has called for an inquiry into the claims. Responding to the allegations, the Met said the force was "completely committed to the judicial process". The scientific debate over NAHI has grown increasingly acrimonious over the past 10 years...........

Now, senior consultant pathologists have accused the Metropolitan Police and others of an orchestrated strategy to discredit them as expert witnesses for parents and carers accused of murdering their children. Dr Waney Squier, Dr. Irene Scheimberg [ a Jew - see Irene Scheimberg - Transcript Summary ],  Dr Marta Cohen say their evidence is based on a speech made by Detective Inspector Colin Welsh, a lead investigator with the Met's Child Abuse Investigation Command.

The BBC has obtained a version of the speech made at the 11th International Shaken Baby conference in Atlanta, September 2010.

In this speech, DI Welsh referred to a meeting in 2008 attended by representatives of the police, medical experts and CPS officials at which the "impact and effect of contradictory expert evidence" was discussed. The Met has confirmed the meeting took place but said it was standard procedure following an acquittal in a court case.

According to a note by a Seattle-based lawyer called Heather Kirkwood, DI Welsh talked about the failure of a number of high profile Shaken Baby prosecutions and stated the number one problem as "defence expert testimony".

He suggested as tactics to question everything about them - qualifications, employment history, testimony research papers presented by these experts, and even going to their expert bodies "to see if we turn up anything".

DI Welsh is also reported to have referred to "judicial inexperience", using the term "so deal with back door" apparently in reference to relaying concern to judges about expert witnesses.

A police spokesman confirmed that DI Welsh had given the speech but added that The Metropolitan Police Service "is completely committed to the judicial process and would never seek to improperly influence it".

Complaints
The pathologists, however, say they were all the subject of inquiries by outside bodies initiated by the Metropolitan Police and others.

DrDr Squier, who works at the John Radcliffe Hospital in Oxford, was the subject of two separate inquiries last year.

The Human Tissue Authority investigated a complaint that Dr Squier may have retained human tissue, a criminal act if true. The accusation was found to be without foundation.

The complainant was identified as an officer with the Met. DI Welsh appeared as an "interested party" in a second inquiry by the General Medical Council into Dr Squier and Dr Cohen. The GMC inquiries resulted in both doctors being brought before emergency Interim Orders Panels, but proved inconclusive.

The Human Tissue Authority also conducted an inquiry into Dr Scheimberg following a complaint from a colleague based at Great Ormond Street Hospital. She was also cleared.

Professor Tony Risdon often acts for prosecution teams and made his complaint about Dr Scheimberg based on information from a third party but which he personally could not verify. He declined to comment when approached by the BBC.

Investigation call
Dr Squier defends the evidence she gives, saying a court "should be able to hear evidence for both prosecution and for a defence and that anybody who has a valid and sincere opinion should be given the opportunity to express that opinion in court".

"And it appears to me that there has been an attempt to remove from the courts all of those people who are willing to challenge the mainstream hypothesis, even if those opinions are sincerely held and are based on a lot of day-to-day experience and are based on a thorough grounding in the current evidence available in the scientific literature." 

A spokesman said the Metropolitan Police Service had registered concerns "about certain practices of a doctor in December 2009" but declined to comment on the reasons. p>

"We are aware of a report registered by the National Policing Improvement Agency with the General Medical Council regarding two doctors. The MPS has co-operated with a request from the GMC in June 2010 to provide any relevant information," the spokesman added.

Professor Peter Furness, President of the Royal College of Pathologists, expressed concern about the allegations of a campaign.

"The allegations that there has been a systematic attempt to intimidate people from presenting their honestly held views to a court should be investigated," he says.

"I would normally suggest that should be investigated by the police, in this case at least some of the allegations it appears the police have been involved in it.

"There are processes for conducting investigations into police activity. It sounds to me from what I've been told that those mechanisms should probably be used.

"My concerns about this are as a private citizen not as president of the Royal College of Pathologists. I think anybody who feels the process of justice is being illegitimately subverted ought to feel concerned and ought to try to do something about it."

The BBC approached a significant number of pathologists who act for prosecution teams. They all declined a request for an interview, some saying they too had been the subject of threats and complaints.
UNQUOTE
The prosecution witnesses claim that they are the victims of threats but give no reason to believe. The defence witness really are being threatened by police. That is another issue apparently.

 

Irene Scheimberg - Transcript Summary
Scheimberg makes like a victim; family did a runner from Russia. Why? Hated with good reason perhaps. Whines about nasty military dictator in Argentina, another ghastly leftie?

 

 

Related Articles

 

Munchausen Syndrome By Proxy ex Wiki
Munchausen syndrome by proxy ( (< (MSbP or MbP) is a behavior pattern akin to Munchausen syndrome (a psychiatric factitious disorder wherein those affected feign disease, illness, or psychological trauma to draw attention, sympathy, or reassurance to themselves) in which a caregiver or spouse fabricates, exaggerates, or induces mental or physical health problems in those who are in their care, usually to gain attention or sympathy from others.[1] With deception at its core, this behavior is an elusive, potentially lethal, and frequently misunderstood form of child abuse[2] or medical neglect[3] that has been difficult to define, detect, and confirm.

MSbP has also spawned much heated controversy within the legal and social services communities. In a handful of high-profile cases, mothers who have had several children die from sudden infant death syndrome have been declared to have MSbP. Based on MSbP testimony of an expert witness, they were tried for murder, convicted, and imprisoned for several years. In some cases, that testimony was later impeached, resulting in exoneration of those defendants.[4]