As the "experts" continue to tout how safe and effective vaccinations are, something will get leaked. This news story is important as it shows the "experts" do not truly know or understand how vaccinations affect everyone entirely. It's safe for them to state that they are safe because the majority of children tolerate them. However, there are no long terms studies showing what these deadly chemicals and other ingredients are doing to our bodies in the long term.
What these doctors and other so called experts neglect to understand that although vaccinations are served up as a "one size fits all" program, they do not. Babies and children are dying from reactions to the vaccines and when the reason is not obvious, a caregive is being convicted under the guise of shaken baby syndrome or blunt force impact or whatever name the prosecution will utilize to sustain a conviction at all costs.
How about finding the real cause instead of being on a deadly witch hunt to convict someone? How about convicting the doctors or nurses that give these vaccines that cause injury or deaths? Perhaps if the doctors ran every imaginable test possible to rule out an underlying medical condition, a child might live or a person won't be wrongfully convicted. Has it been considered that doctors treating for SBS are the reasons why the child died? You have to treat for the correct diagnosis.
From Health Freedom Alliance:
An eight year study conducted at the Mayo Clinic, published by the American Thoracic Society suggests that there is a correlation between flu shots and risk of complications from influenza. The study evaluated every pediatric patient that was seen at the Mayo Clinic over the course of eight flu seasons to determine how much the flu shot prevented hospitalization from influenza in asthmatic children. ATS 2009, SAN DIEGO— The inactivated flu vaccine does not appear to be effective in preventing influenza-related hospitalizations in children, especially the ones with asthma. In fact, children who get the flu vaccine are more at risk for hospitalization than their peers who do not get the vaccine, according to new research that will be presented on Tuesday, May 19, at the 105th International Conference of the American Thoracic Society in San Diego.
Flu vaccine (trivalent inactivated flu vaccine—TIV) has unknown effects on asthmatics.
“The concerns that vaccination maybe associated with asthma exacerbations have been disproved with multiple studies in the past, but the vaccine’s effectiveness has not been well-established,” said Avni Joshi, M.D., of the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, MN. “This study was aimed at evaluating the effectiveness of the TIV in children overall, as well as the children with asthma, to prevent influenza-related hospitalization.”
The CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) and the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) recommend annual influenza vaccination for all children aged six months to 18 years.
The National Asthma Education and Prevention Program (3rd revision) also recommends annual flu vaccination of asthmatic children older than six months. In order to determine whether the vaccine was effective in reducing the number of hospitalizations that all children, and especially the ones with asthma, faced over eight consecutive flu seasons, the researchers conducted a cohort study of 263 children who were evaluated at the Mayo Clinic in Minnesota from six months to 18 years of age, each of whom had had laboratory-confirmed influenza between 1996 to 2006. The investigators determined who had and had not received the flu vaccine, their asthma status and who did and did not require hospitalization. Records were reviewed for each subject with influenza-related illness for flu vaccination preceding the illness and hospitalization during that illness.
They found that children who had received the flu vaccine had three times the risk of hospitalization, as compared to children who had not received the vaccine. In asthmatic children, there was a significantly higher risk of hospitalization in subjects who received the TIV, as compared to those who did not (p= 0.006). But no other measured factors—such as insurance plans or severity of asthma—appeared to affect risk of hospitalization.
“While these findings do raise questions about the efficacy of the vaccine, they do not in fact implicate it as a cause of hospitalizations,” said Dr. Joshi. “More studies are needed to assess not only the immunogenicity, but also the efficacy of different influenza vaccines in asthmatic subjects.”
Session # C94: “Viral Infections in Childhood Respiratory Disease”
Abstract # 561: “Flu Vaccination in Asthmatics: Does It Work?”
http://www.call4abstracts.com/ats/society_admin/abs_preview.php?absnum=561
Close Window
ATS 2009 · San Diego
International Conference
Abstract Number: 561
Contact/Presenting Author: Avni Y. Joshi
Department/Institution: Internal Medicine, Mayo Clinic
Address: 200, First St. SW
City/State/Zip/Country: Rochester, MN, 55905
Phone: 01-507-284-2511 Fax: 01-507-284-0902 E-mail: joshi.avni@mayo.edu
ATS member: No Student or in training: Yes
Funding Source: None.
Abstract Category: 14.03 - Pediatric Asthma
Presentation format: Either Poster or Oral
Preview Disclosure
Travel Award: Yes
Publication of email address: Yes, joshi.avni@mayo.edu
I confirm that all authors listed on this abstract have knowledge of the abstract submission:
Yes
Title: Flu Vaccination in Asthmatics: Does It Work?
A. Y. Joshi, MD1, V. N. Iyer, MD,MPH1, M. F. Hartz, MD1, G. W. Volcheck, MD,Ph.D1, A. M. Patel,
MD1 and J. T. Li, MD,Ph.D1. 1Mayo Clinic College of Medicine, Rochester, MN.
INTRODUCTION: Influenza is known to be associated with asthma exacerbation but the
effectiveness of the trivalent inactivated flu vaccine (TIV) in asthmatics is unknown.
METHODS: We conducted a cohort study of all pediatric subjects( 6 months to 18 years age)
who were evaluated at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA who had laboratory confirmed influenza
during each flu season from 1999-2006 to evaluate the efficacy of TIV. A case control analysis
was performed with the cases and the controls being the subjects with asthma who did and did not
required hospitalization with the influenza illness respectively.
RESULTS:
There were 236 subjects with laboratory confirmed influenza from 1996-2006.
In assessing the effectiveness of the TIV for preventing hospitalization with influenza in all
subjects, there was an overall trend towards higher rates of hospitalization in subjects who got the
TIV as compared to the ones who did not get the TIV( OR:2.97, CI: 1.3,6.7).Using Cochran-Mantel-
Haenszel (CMH) test for Asthma status stratification, there was a significant association between
hospitalization in asthmatic subjects and TIV (P=0.006).
http://www.call4abstracts.com/ats/society_admin/abs_preview.php?absnum=561 (1 of 2) [5/11/2009 1:43:56 PM]
http://www.call4abstracts.com/ats/society_admin/abs_preview.php?absnum=561
In the asthmatic subset:
There was no association between ER visit and receiving the TIV ,severity of asthma and the risk
of hospitalization or the hospital length of stay and receiving the TIV.
In assessing access to medical care, there was no association between hospitalizations and
health care insurance plans (Odds ratio:0.3, P= 0.13)
CONCLUSION:
1) TIV did not provide any protection against hospitalization in pediatric subjects’ esp. children with
asthma. On the contrary, we found a 3- fold increased risk of hospitalization in subjects who did
get the TIV vaccine.This may be a reflection not only of the vaccine effectiveness but also the
population of children who are more likely to get the vaccine.
2) More studies are needed to assess not only the immunogenicity but also efficacy of differentinfluenza vaccines in asthmatic subjects.
http://www.thoracic.org/sections/publications/press-releases/conference/articles/2009/abstracts-and-press-releases/joshi.pdf
Thursday, December 24, 2009
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
Saturday, December 12, 2009
Bond granted for woman accused of child abuse
Christine Ferretti / The Detroit News
Mount Clemens -- A Harrison Township woman who spent more than four years behind bars on a child abuse conviction was granted bond Wednesday as she awaits a new trial.
Julie Baumer's relatives and supporters hugged and shook hands after Macomb County Circuit Court Judge James M. Biernat outlined the terms of her release from the Huron Valley Correctional Facility in Ypsilanti.
"I feel justice has been done. She's innocent," said Julie's mother, Victoria Rose-Baumer. "We never expected the first conviction. It was unjust."
Biernat granted Baumer, 33, a new trial in November on claims her previous legal representation was inadequate. She was convicted in 2005 of first-degree child abuse for shaking her infant nephew, Philipp Baumer, and leaving him blind and brain-injured. The boy has since been adopted and renamed Ben Zentz.
Biernat set a cash or surety bond of $25,000.
Baumer will be required to wear a GPS tether and reside at the Grace Centers of Hope in Pontiac, a faith-based rehabilitation campus. She's also expected to begin working for her former Mount Clemens employer, Alliance Financial, next week.
Biernat prohibited Baumer from having contact with Ben or his new family, as well as young children. Ben's adoptive parents, Debi and Philip Zentz, who attended the hearing Wednesday, said the bond was reasonable.
"It'll be good for her to go reside at this facility and benefit from the programs they can offer her," said Debi Zentz, who has said the thought of a new trial is troubling. She just wants justice for Ben and for Baumer to serve the time she was given.
The judge's decision to grant a new trial followed a series of evidentiary hearings this fall in which Baumer's new attorneys -- Carl Marlinga and Charles Lugosi -- presented experts who testified that the boy's injuries were consistent with venous sinus thrombosis or a "childhood stroke," rather than shaking.
Biernat said Baumer's previous attorney deprived her of a substantial defense by failing to retain an expert who could back up the theory that a stroke may have caused Ben's condition.
The Macomb County Prosecutor's Office plans to challenge the judge's ruling with the state Court of Appeals. Once they do, Baumer and her attorneys will have to wait to see if the higher court will affirm Biernat's decision. The University of Michigan Innocence Clinic has agreed to represent Baumer on appeal. Baumer is serving a 10- to 15-year sentence.
Mount Clemens -- A Harrison Township woman who spent more than four years behind bars on a child abuse conviction was granted bond Wednesday as she awaits a new trial.
Julie Baumer's relatives and supporters hugged and shook hands after Macomb County Circuit Court Judge James M. Biernat outlined the terms of her release from the Huron Valley Correctional Facility in Ypsilanti.
"I feel justice has been done. She's innocent," said Julie's mother, Victoria Rose-Baumer. "We never expected the first conviction. It was unjust."
Biernat granted Baumer, 33, a new trial in November on claims her previous legal representation was inadequate. She was convicted in 2005 of first-degree child abuse for shaking her infant nephew, Philipp Baumer, and leaving him blind and brain-injured. The boy has since been adopted and renamed Ben Zentz.
Biernat set a cash or surety bond of $25,000.
Baumer will be required to wear a GPS tether and reside at the Grace Centers of Hope in Pontiac, a faith-based rehabilitation campus. She's also expected to begin working for her former Mount Clemens employer, Alliance Financial, next week.
Biernat prohibited Baumer from having contact with Ben or his new family, as well as young children. Ben's adoptive parents, Debi and Philip Zentz, who attended the hearing Wednesday, said the bond was reasonable.
"It'll be good for her to go reside at this facility and benefit from the programs they can offer her," said Debi Zentz, who has said the thought of a new trial is troubling. She just wants justice for Ben and for Baumer to serve the time she was given.
The judge's decision to grant a new trial followed a series of evidentiary hearings this fall in which Baumer's new attorneys -- Carl Marlinga and Charles Lugosi -- presented experts who testified that the boy's injuries were consistent with venous sinus thrombosis or a "childhood stroke," rather than shaking.
Biernat said Baumer's previous attorney deprived her of a substantial defense by failing to retain an expert who could back up the theory that a stroke may have caused Ben's condition.
The Macomb County Prosecutor's Office plans to challenge the judge's ruling with the state Court of Appeals. Once they do, Baumer and her attorneys will have to wait to see if the higher court will affirm Biernat's decision. The University of Michigan Innocence Clinic has agreed to represent Baumer on appeal. Baumer is serving a 10- to 15-year sentence.
Monday, December 7, 2009
New Findings May Exonerate SBS Accused
A recent article by Maurice Possley brings to light new evidence about shaken baby-related murder convictions. Over the last thirty years, thousands of parents and caretakers have been charged after the death of a child in his or her care was attributed to Shaken Baby Syndrome (SBS). A diagnosis of SBS is based on a triad of evidence: retinal hemorhage, bleeding in the brain, and brain swelling. Individuals are generally only charged after the diagnosis of SBS is made. However, new scientific findings show that SBS may not always be a result of violent shaking, but that a short fall may also produce the same symptoms.
Audrey Edmunds of Wisconsin, a day care provider, was charged in 1995 with murder, after a 7-month old in her care died, and prosecuters alleged that she had shaken the baby to death. Last year, with the help of the Wisconsin Innocence Project, Edmunds was granted a new trial and released. One of the experts who had testified at her trial came forward to say that he was no longer sure Edmunds had harmed the child, and that the damage could have taken place hours earlier than originally believed. An article in the Washington University Law Review by Deborah Tuerkheimer to be published in September seeks to examine recent research into SBS which could free thousands of people who were imprisoned with the help of faulty science.
The case of Louise Woodward, the 19 year old au pair who was charged with second degree manslaughter after she was accused of shaking to death the child in her care, illustrates the point. Experts for the prosecution alleged that the child was shaken violently and his head was hit against a hard surface. Experts for the defense testified that the boy's injuries could have been sustained days earlier. The most recent scientific findings show that there is no certainty in the medical community that SBS is caused by violent trauma. Indeed, symptoms from the triad of SBS symptoms may be found in children before they are taken home from the hospital for the first time.
In light of the most recent medical research, many of those convicted in SBS cases could receive new trials, and it seems that the burden of proof may be moving in their favor.
Source:
http://newenglandinnocenceproject.blogspot.com/2009/06/new-findings-may-exonerate-many-in.html
http://fightingunjustsocialserviceethics.blogspot.com/2009/12/new-england-innocence-project.html
Audrey Edmunds of Wisconsin, a day care provider, was charged in 1995 with murder, after a 7-month old in her care died, and prosecuters alleged that she had shaken the baby to death. Last year, with the help of the Wisconsin Innocence Project, Edmunds was granted a new trial and released. One of the experts who had testified at her trial came forward to say that he was no longer sure Edmunds had harmed the child, and that the damage could have taken place hours earlier than originally believed. An article in the Washington University Law Review by Deborah Tuerkheimer to be published in September seeks to examine recent research into SBS which could free thousands of people who were imprisoned with the help of faulty science.
The case of Louise Woodward, the 19 year old au pair who was charged with second degree manslaughter after she was accused of shaking to death the child in her care, illustrates the point. Experts for the prosecution alleged that the child was shaken violently and his head was hit against a hard surface. Experts for the defense testified that the boy's injuries could have been sustained days earlier. The most recent scientific findings show that there is no certainty in the medical community that SBS is caused by violent trauma. Indeed, symptoms from the triad of SBS symptoms may be found in children before they are taken home from the hospital for the first time.
In light of the most recent medical research, many of those convicted in SBS cases could receive new trials, and it seems that the burden of proof may be moving in their favor.
Source:
http://newenglandinnocenceproject.blogspot.com/2009/06/new-findings-may-exonerate-many-in.html
http://fightingunjustsocialserviceethics.blogspot.com/2009/12/new-england-innocence-project.html
Utah Law Review Society by Genie Lyons
Utah Law Review Society by Genie Lyons
Summary
Shaken baby syndrome in its most extreme form – assuming abuse when a child has two specific brain injuries but no other signs of trauma – quite possibly does not exist. Other countries are not so quick to find abuse where there are no external indicia: Eva Lai Wah Fung, a Hong Kong researcher writing in Pediatric International states, “Retinal hemorrhage and subdural hematoma without external signs of injury in Japan and Hong Kong is usually attributed to accidental, trivial head injury, whereas subdural heamoraghe associated with external signs of trauma to the face or head were commonly found in cases of genuine child abuse. In spite of the many scientific studies that uncritically accept the existence of SBS, an adequate link between shaking a baby and the two SBS markers has never been scientifically verified and the latest evidence points strongly to organic reasons for the babies’ distress, as opposed to shaking.
Courts should admit, under Daubert, that evidence showing that the two classic medical signs used to show that a child had been deliberately shaken to the point of injury or death is insufficient proof that a crime has been committed.
For full article please see source, click HERE.
Summary
Shaken baby syndrome in its most extreme form – assuming abuse when a child has two specific brain injuries but no other signs of trauma – quite possibly does not exist. Other countries are not so quick to find abuse where there are no external indicia: Eva Lai Wah Fung, a Hong Kong researcher writing in Pediatric International states, “Retinal hemorrhage and subdural hematoma without external signs of injury in Japan and Hong Kong is usually attributed to accidental, trivial head injury, whereas subdural heamoraghe associated with external signs of trauma to the face or head were commonly found in cases of genuine child abuse. In spite of the many scientific studies that uncritically accept the existence of SBS, an adequate link between shaking a baby and the two SBS markers has never been scientifically verified and the latest evidence points strongly to organic reasons for the babies’ distress, as opposed to shaking.
Courts should admit, under Daubert, that evidence showing that the two classic medical signs used to show that a child had been deliberately shaken to the point of injury or death is insufficient proof that a crime has been committed.
For full article please see source, click HERE.
How to Prepare If You Are Charged with SBS
If you are charged with Shaken Baby Syndrome (SBS) or Blunt Forced Trauma or whatever the latest phrase is to charge a person with a theory based crime. Keep in mind that this is based on a theory as ethically, you cannot shake a baby or a child to determine the extent of injuries. No one really knows what injuries could present themselves if shaken and the cases where a person has admitted shaking, you can most likely bet that it was a plea to hopefully get a lesser sentence. Just because a person admits to shaking a child, it may not be so. There have been studies done that you don't hear about dealing with the force necessary to create the types of injuries that are claimed to have been a result of SBS. Biomechanics experts, who are trained to understand height/velocity, have published their findings that it is impossible to shake a child to product the constellation or in most cases, one or two of the "known injuries" to charge a person with SBS.
Regardless if you believe or don't believe in SBS, it's important to treat the child for what is really happening. How many of these children might have an underlying disease state and are being treated inappropriately? How many children if diagnosed correctly, could be saved? How many siblings might be a ticking bomb due to a genetic medical condition? The point to this post is to ensure a child was diagnosed correctly. It serves no purpose to convict someone when the doctors cannot pinpoint the cause of the alleged injuries. It is the doctor's duty to ensure the child has been diagnosed correctly. On a second note, vaccination injuries do occur which is why there is a reporting database and why many lawsuits compensating parents have been resolved. A doctor should not exclude the possibility of a vaccination reaction if the timing is within a certain timepoint of the alleged injury.
Lucid intervals is another point that needs to be considered. There is literature showing that a child can have a lucid interval on a previous head injury. There are also brain injuries involved in the birthing process. There are many factors that need to be considered in treating and diagnosing these children that present themselves with no obvious reason or witness.
If you are convicted, there are important steps your attorney needs to take to ensure you are being represented appropriately.
Regardless if you believe or don't believe in SBS, it's important to treat the child for what is really happening. How many of these children might have an underlying disease state and are being treated inappropriately? How many children if diagnosed correctly, could be saved? How many siblings might be a ticking bomb due to a genetic medical condition? The point to this post is to ensure a child was diagnosed correctly. It serves no purpose to convict someone when the doctors cannot pinpoint the cause of the alleged injuries. It is the doctor's duty to ensure the child has been diagnosed correctly. On a second note, vaccination injuries do occur which is why there is a reporting database and why many lawsuits compensating parents have been resolved. A doctor should not exclude the possibility of a vaccination reaction if the timing is within a certain timepoint of the alleged injury.
Lucid intervals is another point that needs to be considered. There is literature showing that a child can have a lucid interval on a previous head injury. There are also brain injuries involved in the birthing process. There are many factors that need to be considered in treating and diagnosing these children that present themselves with no obvious reason or witness.
If you are convicted, there are important steps your attorney needs to take to ensure you are being represented appropriately.
- All hospital records have to be retrieved. This includes all medical records, reports, lab reports, notes, images, CT-Scans, radiology, prenatal records, well baby records, vaccination records, pre-existing conditions, autopsy rough and formal notes, reports and findings. All experts findings/notes that were involved with the child's care or via the autopsy needs to be obtained. Most likely, your attorney will need to issue a subpoena.
- All slides from the autopsy need to be obtained. You want to ensure tissue samples and retinopathy findings are included.
- All this data needs to be reviewed carefully and put into a timeline format. It will take skilled people to read and review this data to look for inconsistencies, errors or omissions.
- Review all interviews that the police conducted for additional clues into past injuries, pre-existing conditions, medications and so forth. Also, have your own interviews by a private investigator. Key information can be obtained such as the child was seen by various doctors in various towns or the child fell down the stairs a week prior. All events and knowledge are critical to piecing together the puzzle. The goal should not be to convict anyone if a child is presented with an unexplained injury. The goal is to determine what happened to treat the child first and foremost.
- Interview all medical experts for the prosecution and tape record the conversation. There is critical information that can be obtained from talking to these experts. The attorney needs to understand what the expert is utilizing to form their opinions. Perhaps they are referring to old journals and have not seen any of the new literature questioning SBS. Leave no stone unturned. Look to see if there are any complaints on this expert. Look at their history on other cases to see if there are any trends. There is an influx of pathologists being scrutinized for their past performance on these types of cases. Look at Dr. Charles Smith out of Canada.
Friday, December 4, 2009
Pensylvania Innocence Project: New Research Into Shaken Baby Syndrome Casts Serious Doubt On Validity Of Science
On right side of linked blog are many others SBS related posts.
Pensylvania Innocence Project: New Research Into Shaken Baby Syndrome Casts Serious Doubt On Validity Of Science
November 28, 2009
http://medicalmisdiagnosisresearch.wordpress.com/category/shaken-baby-syndrome/pensylvania-innocence-project-shaken-baby-syndrome/
A recent editorial in Reason Online discusses Shaken Baby Syndrome (SBS). Over the past twenty-plus years, the SBS diagnosis has supported homicide verdicts in cases involving otherwise unexplained infant deaths. In many of these cases, the only evidence to establish a defendant’s guilt has been the testimony of a physician who opined that the baby’s death was caused by shaking so violent it was the equivalent of dropping the child from a 2-story window, or being hit by a car going 35 miles per hour. In such cases, even with no direct evidence the defendant had ever harmed the child (much less violently shaken it), juries have convicted loving caretakers of murder. The testimony was based upon a finding of 3 separate physical symptoms–bleeding at the back of the eye, bleeding in the protective area of the brain, and brain swelling—which doctors and other child protective believed could only have been caused by violent shaking. But now, science is slowly realizing the terrible truth that, in fact, that conclusion is simply not true. Modern research (using lifelike dolls) has shown that vigorous human shaking produces bleeding similar to that of only a 2-foot to 3-foot fall. Furthermore, researchers were unable to reproduce symptoms with the severity of those typically seen in SBS death by shaking the dolls. In other words, what had been accepted as medical doctrine simply does not hold up.
This tide of events is having an impact in cases of innocence. Last January, a Wisconsin appeals court granted a new trial to Audrey Edmunds, who was convicted of murdering her infant following expert testimony that the baby died as a result of SBS. All charges were withdrawn by the government six months later, citing the “interests of justice for the victims” and the toll of a potential retrial on the family. Ms. Edmunds had served 11 years in prison.
This month’s Washington University Law Review features an article in which Professor Teurkheimer, of DePaul University Law, argues that due to the lack of sound medical research the courts should perform a review of SBS cases.
Discover Magazine featured an article last year, ‘Does Shaken Baby Syndrome Really Exist?’ in which both sides of scientific debate are discussed. Ronald Uscinski, a clinical assistant professor of neurosurgery at Georgetown Hospital and George Washington University, said in this article, “this is not to say that child abuse does not exist. I have witnessed such cases and have been deeply and painfully moved by the plight of innocents who have been injured or even killed….And yet I am no less moved by the plight of the wrongfully accused (and even convicted), their families and their loved ones. This is particularly so when such accusations are based on impure science, a flawed legal foundation, and completely inadequate or inappropriate public policy.”
The concern is that there are likely many innocent people currently in prison based on convictions that relied upon a faulty diagnosis. Scientific testing/research has cast increasingly significant doubt on the SBS diagnosis. The time has come for our legal system to revisit the appropriateness of its application, and the convictions that have resulted from it.
Source:
http://innocenceprojectpa.wordpress.com/2009/09/29/new-research-into-shaken-baby-syndrome-casts-serious-doubt-on-validity-of-science/
Main Website For Pensylvania Innocence Project:
http://innocenceprojectpa.org/
Pensylvania Innocence Project: New Research Into Shaken Baby Syndrome Casts Serious Doubt On Validity Of Science
November 28, 2009
http://medicalmisdiagnosisresearch.wordpress.com/category/shaken-baby-syndrome/pensylvania-innocence-project-shaken-baby-syndrome/
A recent editorial in Reason Online discusses Shaken Baby Syndrome (SBS). Over the past twenty-plus years, the SBS diagnosis has supported homicide verdicts in cases involving otherwise unexplained infant deaths. In many of these cases, the only evidence to establish a defendant’s guilt has been the testimony of a physician who opined that the baby’s death was caused by shaking so violent it was the equivalent of dropping the child from a 2-story window, or being hit by a car going 35 miles per hour. In such cases, even with no direct evidence the defendant had ever harmed the child (much less violently shaken it), juries have convicted loving caretakers of murder. The testimony was based upon a finding of 3 separate physical symptoms–bleeding at the back of the eye, bleeding in the protective area of the brain, and brain swelling—which doctors and other child protective believed could only have been caused by violent shaking. But now, science is slowly realizing the terrible truth that, in fact, that conclusion is simply not true. Modern research (using lifelike dolls) has shown that vigorous human shaking produces bleeding similar to that of only a 2-foot to 3-foot fall. Furthermore, researchers were unable to reproduce symptoms with the severity of those typically seen in SBS death by shaking the dolls. In other words, what had been accepted as medical doctrine simply does not hold up.
This tide of events is having an impact in cases of innocence. Last January, a Wisconsin appeals court granted a new trial to Audrey Edmunds, who was convicted of murdering her infant following expert testimony that the baby died as a result of SBS. All charges were withdrawn by the government six months later, citing the “interests of justice for the victims” and the toll of a potential retrial on the family. Ms. Edmunds had served 11 years in prison.
This month’s Washington University Law Review features an article in which Professor Teurkheimer, of DePaul University Law, argues that due to the lack of sound medical research the courts should perform a review of SBS cases.
Discover Magazine featured an article last year, ‘Does Shaken Baby Syndrome Really Exist?’ in which both sides of scientific debate are discussed. Ronald Uscinski, a clinical assistant professor of neurosurgery at Georgetown Hospital and George Washington University, said in this article, “this is not to say that child abuse does not exist. I have witnessed such cases and have been deeply and painfully moved by the plight of innocents who have been injured or even killed….And yet I am no less moved by the plight of the wrongfully accused (and even convicted), their families and their loved ones. This is particularly so when such accusations are based on impure science, a flawed legal foundation, and completely inadequate or inappropriate public policy.”
The concern is that there are likely many innocent people currently in prison based on convictions that relied upon a faulty diagnosis. Scientific testing/research has cast increasingly significant doubt on the SBS diagnosis. The time has come for our legal system to revisit the appropriateness of its application, and the convictions that have resulted from it.
Source:
http://innocenceprojectpa.wordpress.com/2009/09/29/new-research-into-shaken-baby-syndrome-casts-serious-doubt-on-validity-of-science/
Main Website For Pensylvania Innocence Project:
http://innocenceprojectpa.org/
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
Soldier acquitted of causing son’s death 10/21/09
One Innocent out of Thousands Received Justice!
Soldier acquitted of causing son’s death
Oct 21 2009 12:00AM By Melissa Braun Sun Staff Writer
It took three hours of deliberation and a “not guilty” verdict to pull a Fort Rucker soldier from what he described as the “hell” of his life for the past year.
Spc. Dedrick Fisher walked away Thursday night as a free man.
A Fort Rucker court-martial panel Oct. 15 found Fisher not guilty of all charges related to the death of his son Dedrick Jr.
Fisher was found not guilty of involuntary manslaughter and the lesser-included charges of negligent homicide and battery of a child under the age of 12.
Fisher had been under watch by Army officials after his infant son, Dedrick Jr., died at Dale Medical Center in Ozark Feb. 2 as a result of injuries he sustained three months earlier.
At that time, Fisher was accused of shaking his infant son, which caused several brain and retinal hemorrhages that resulted in his death.
A court-martial panel convened Oct. 13 to determine Fisher’s future in the United States Army and whether he would be a free man.
For almost two days, government prosecutors called witnesses who presented evidence that Fisher had lost his temper and turned his aggression on his son.
With his head bowed and making little eye contact, he listened as military police and doctors describe the trauma he allegedly inflicted on his son.
He showed little reaction as investigators testified Fisher had even admitted to shaking his son, citing a written statement where Fisher said, “My son is damn near dead because of me.”
After two days of listening to evidence against him, Fisher took the stand and recalled the events in November of last year when his son’s health roller–coasted out of control.
Fisher said he was feeding his son when he began choking.
“I said, ‘You need to slow down,’” he explained, adding that when the child whined a second time he gave him the bottle again.
“He started choking bad,” Fisher said.
He testified that he patted his son on the back and then placed him on the couch.
He left the child to go into the kitchen, not realizing his child’s health was quickly deteriorating.
Moments later, his wife realized Dedrick Jr. was not breathing and his heart had stopped beating.
The next few hours, Fisher said, were “a blur.”
From finding medical help to seeing his wife in handcuffs as they were interviewed about what happened to their son, Fisher said his temper continued to rise.
“My wife was getting emotionally tortured over this, my daughter was at someone’s house I didn’t know, my child was in the hospital sick and I was like (thinking) they (investigators) are not going to let us out of here until they get what they want,” he said, adding that is the reason why he admitted to shaking his child when he didn’t. “I told her (Fisher’s wife) that when we got out of there we were going straight to Birmingham (to Children’s Hospital where the infant had been transferred) and we are going to PCS (request for transfer) out of this post.”
During questioning from the Judge Advocate General government prosecutors Capt. Christopher Coy and Capt. Shawn Tate, Fisher continued explaining what he had given a false confession to the alleged crime.
“He (military police investigator Chief Warrant Officer 3 Raymond Massey) kept on asking me the same questions over and over and I just gave him what he wanted to hear,” he said, adding that the confession changed his life. “I look at all these folks giving their kids a yank like that (how he allegedly picked up his child) and look at me, going through all this and I didn’t even do nothing.”
After three days of testimony from Fisher, law enforcement and medical personnel the verdict ultimately hinged on expert testimonies.
Dr. Ronald H. Uscinski, a world-renowned neurosurgeon from Georgetown and an expert witness for the defense, testified that Fisher did not cause his child’s brain trauma.
“I do not believe that the findings on the diagnostic studies and histories indicate the child was injured on the day in question,” he said.
He said the infant, instead, died from brain trauma, a chronic subdural hematoma, he suffered at the time of his birth.
The injury, he further explained, was caused by overlapping sutures in the child’s brain that occurred as he was pushed through the birth canal and damaged a portion of his brain.
Symptoms of the injury manifested in Nov. 2008 –– the day Fisher went under investigation for abusing his son, Uscinski said.
Uscinski explained that through his work as a neurosurgeon he no longer believes in Shaken Baby Syndrome.
“It is against the laws of physics. Human beings cannot shake a baby hard enough to cause that kind of brain trauma,” he said. “You cannot shake a baby this size hard enough (to cause these internal injuries) without breaking its neck.”
Dedrick Jr. had no injuries to any bones including his neck.
The infant’s retinal hemorrhages, he said, could have been caused by an increase in blood pressure when the hematoma began to bleed once again, but also said they could have been caused by CPR pressure.
During his time as a neurosurgeon, Uscinski said he is also unaware of any situation in which the shaking of an infant was witnessed and also resulted in a subdural leak, which he says caused the death Dedrick Jr.
Prosecution witness Dr. Melissa Peters, of Children’s Hospital in Birmingham, testified that Dedrick Jr., did suffer isolated injuries in November that caused traumatic brain injury sever enough for him to live the last two months of his life connected to breathing and feeding tubes.
Peters said she first saw Dedrick Jr. while he was in the Intensive Care Unit.
Peters said the infant had bruises on his arm, suffered hemorrhages in two locations above the brain but inside the skull, and that he also had more than 50 multi-layered retinal hemorrhages consistent with shaking injuries.
As a pediatrician at the Children’s Hospital, Peters said she is very familiar with injuries a child suffers as a result of being shaken.
“This child had evidence of severe head injury,” she said.
She also explained that the infant’s birth records signified a normal birth and that overlapping sutures are somewhat common.
In her examination of Dedrick Jr., Peters said her findings were “consistent with acute head trauma which could have involved shaking.”
His injuries were not consistent, she further explained, with normal child care or play.
Retinal hemorrhaging, she said, would not be expected from a subdural leak, despite Uscinski’s testimony otherwise.
Uscinski did not personally exam the child, but relied on tests results, including two CT scans.
Fisher’s attorney, Victor Kelley, asked the panel to weigh the experts’ testimonies and remember Uscinski specializes in neurology unlike Peter, who he called a “child advocate.”
“It is just not right to be here to begin with,” Kelley said. “If they (investigators) had gotten the right information (medical diagnosis) to begin with we wouldn’t be.”
He asked the panel to also remember that if there was any reasonable doubt in their heads about Fisher’s guilt, they must acquit.
Only a majority consensus of the six-member panel was needed for a verdict.
Soldier acquitted of causing son’s death
Oct 21 2009 12:00AM By Melissa Braun Sun Staff Writer
It took three hours of deliberation and a “not guilty” verdict to pull a Fort Rucker soldier from what he described as the “hell” of his life for the past year.
Spc. Dedrick Fisher walked away Thursday night as a free man.
A Fort Rucker court-martial panel Oct. 15 found Fisher not guilty of all charges related to the death of his son Dedrick Jr.
Fisher was found not guilty of involuntary manslaughter and the lesser-included charges of negligent homicide and battery of a child under the age of 12.
Fisher had been under watch by Army officials after his infant son, Dedrick Jr., died at Dale Medical Center in Ozark Feb. 2 as a result of injuries he sustained three months earlier.
At that time, Fisher was accused of shaking his infant son, which caused several brain and retinal hemorrhages that resulted in his death.
A court-martial panel convened Oct. 13 to determine Fisher’s future in the United States Army and whether he would be a free man.
For almost two days, government prosecutors called witnesses who presented evidence that Fisher had lost his temper and turned his aggression on his son.
With his head bowed and making little eye contact, he listened as military police and doctors describe the trauma he allegedly inflicted on his son.
He showed little reaction as investigators testified Fisher had even admitted to shaking his son, citing a written statement where Fisher said, “My son is damn near dead because of me.”
After two days of listening to evidence against him, Fisher took the stand and recalled the events in November of last year when his son’s health roller–coasted out of control.
Fisher said he was feeding his son when he began choking.
“I said, ‘You need to slow down,’” he explained, adding that when the child whined a second time he gave him the bottle again.
“He started choking bad,” Fisher said.
He testified that he patted his son on the back and then placed him on the couch.
He left the child to go into the kitchen, not realizing his child’s health was quickly deteriorating.
Moments later, his wife realized Dedrick Jr. was not breathing and his heart had stopped beating.
The next few hours, Fisher said, were “a blur.”
From finding medical help to seeing his wife in handcuffs as they were interviewed about what happened to their son, Fisher said his temper continued to rise.
“My wife was getting emotionally tortured over this, my daughter was at someone’s house I didn’t know, my child was in the hospital sick and I was like (thinking) they (investigators) are not going to let us out of here until they get what they want,” he said, adding that is the reason why he admitted to shaking his child when he didn’t. “I told her (Fisher’s wife) that when we got out of there we were going straight to Birmingham (to Children’s Hospital where the infant had been transferred) and we are going to PCS (request for transfer) out of this post.”
During questioning from the Judge Advocate General government prosecutors Capt. Christopher Coy and Capt. Shawn Tate, Fisher continued explaining what he had given a false confession to the alleged crime.
“He (military police investigator Chief Warrant Officer 3 Raymond Massey) kept on asking me the same questions over and over and I just gave him what he wanted to hear,” he said, adding that the confession changed his life. “I look at all these folks giving their kids a yank like that (how he allegedly picked up his child) and look at me, going through all this and I didn’t even do nothing.”
After three days of testimony from Fisher, law enforcement and medical personnel the verdict ultimately hinged on expert testimonies.
Dr. Ronald H. Uscinski, a world-renowned neurosurgeon from Georgetown and an expert witness for the defense, testified that Fisher did not cause his child’s brain trauma.
“I do not believe that the findings on the diagnostic studies and histories indicate the child was injured on the day in question,” he said.
He said the infant, instead, died from brain trauma, a chronic subdural hematoma, he suffered at the time of his birth.
The injury, he further explained, was caused by overlapping sutures in the child’s brain that occurred as he was pushed through the birth canal and damaged a portion of his brain.
Symptoms of the injury manifested in Nov. 2008 –– the day Fisher went under investigation for abusing his son, Uscinski said.
Uscinski explained that through his work as a neurosurgeon he no longer believes in Shaken Baby Syndrome.
“It is against the laws of physics. Human beings cannot shake a baby hard enough to cause that kind of brain trauma,” he said. “You cannot shake a baby this size hard enough (to cause these internal injuries) without breaking its neck.”
Dedrick Jr. had no injuries to any bones including his neck.
The infant’s retinal hemorrhages, he said, could have been caused by an increase in blood pressure when the hematoma began to bleed once again, but also said they could have been caused by CPR pressure.
During his time as a neurosurgeon, Uscinski said he is also unaware of any situation in which the shaking of an infant was witnessed and also resulted in a subdural leak, which he says caused the death Dedrick Jr.
Prosecution witness Dr. Melissa Peters, of Children’s Hospital in Birmingham, testified that Dedrick Jr., did suffer isolated injuries in November that caused traumatic brain injury sever enough for him to live the last two months of his life connected to breathing and feeding tubes.
Peters said she first saw Dedrick Jr. while he was in the Intensive Care Unit.
Peters said the infant had bruises on his arm, suffered hemorrhages in two locations above the brain but inside the skull, and that he also had more than 50 multi-layered retinal hemorrhages consistent with shaking injuries.
As a pediatrician at the Children’s Hospital, Peters said she is very familiar with injuries a child suffers as a result of being shaken.
“This child had evidence of severe head injury,” she said.
She also explained that the infant’s birth records signified a normal birth and that overlapping sutures are somewhat common.
In her examination of Dedrick Jr., Peters said her findings were “consistent with acute head trauma which could have involved shaking.”
His injuries were not consistent, she further explained, with normal child care or play.
Retinal hemorrhaging, she said, would not be expected from a subdural leak, despite Uscinski’s testimony otherwise.
Uscinski did not personally exam the child, but relied on tests results, including two CT scans.
Fisher’s attorney, Victor Kelley, asked the panel to weigh the experts’ testimonies and remember Uscinski specializes in neurology unlike Peter, who he called a “child advocate.”
“It is just not right to be here to begin with,” Kelley said. “If they (investigators) had gotten the right information (medical diagnosis) to begin with we wouldn’t be.”
He asked the panel to also remember that if there was any reasonable doubt in their heads about Fisher’s guilt, they must acquit.
Only a majority consensus of the six-member panel was needed for a verdict.
Sunday, October 18, 2009
Shaken Baby Syndrome Misdiagnosed
I had to reprint this to keep the information flowing on the fallacy surrounding Shaken Baby Syndrome.
Regardless of your opinions related to SBS, the profound underlying statement that needs to occur is that anyone convicted of a crime needs to be guilty. To charge someone based on theory and opinion is just as criminal. Whereas no one likes a person to "get away" with murder or abuse of a child, no one should like a person being convicted falsely.
I think my biggest issue aside from flawed science is the fact that some of these children could have an underlying medical condition lurking behind the scene. As a parent, if my child had died unexpectedly, I would want all tests ran to ensure there was no genetic issue at play. What if my other children are a ticking bomb to face the same fate or what if that child passes on that trait to their children? It's easy to charge "the last person with a child" but it's not easy to be the one accused falsely.
We owe it not only to the person accused but we owe it to the child, offspring and parents.
Just imagine if a child would have lived had the doctors accurately diagnosed a child and exhausted all underlying possibilities? This is the biggest question of all. What if? What if the child was treated incorrectly?
It can take weeks or months to run panels of labs and they are expensive to run. I propose someone start collecting the labs ran on alleged SBS victims and determine if there is a consensus on labs ran, why are they not all ran and did anyone ever collect all the results?
Most children don't have but a minimal set of labs ran due to ER doctors already assessing guilt at onset. It's a vicious cycle of injustice for all.
It's not acceptable to take one or more symptoms and mold them into an SBS or blunt force trauma case.
From Radley Balko:
In January 2008, a Wisconsin appeals court granted a new trial to Audrey Edmunds, a 45-year-old woman who had been sentenced in 1995 to 18 years in prison for murdering Natalie Beard, an infant in her care. The ruling was significant, because medical experts said Beard died as a result of Shaken Baby Syndrome (SBS), a diagnosis that grew increasingly common in the late 1980s and early 1990s. The Wisconsin appellate court was the first in the country to recognize increasing doubts about the reliability of SBS diagnoses.
The phrase shaken baby syndrome entered the pop culture lexicon in 1997, when British au pair Louise Woodward was convicted of involuntary manslaughter in the death of Massachusetts infant Matthew Eappen. At the time, the medical community almost universally agreed on the symptoms of SBS. But starting around 1999, a fringe group of SBS skeptics began growing into a powerful reform movement. The Woodward case brought additional attention to the issue, inviting new research into the legitimacy of SBS. Today, as reflected in the Edmunds case, there are significant doubts about both the diagnosis of SBS and how it's being used in court.
In a compelling article published this month in the Washington University Law Review, DePaul University law professor Deborah Teurkheimer argues that the medical research has now shifted to the point where U.S. courts must conduct a major review of most SBS cases from the last 20 years. The problem, Teurkheimer explains, is that the presence of three symptoms in an infant victim—bleeding at the back of the eye, bleeding in the protective area of the brain, and brain swelling—have led doctors and child protective workers to immediately reach a conclusion of SBS. These symptoms have long been considered pathognomic, or exclusive, to SBS. As this line of thinking goes, if those three symptoms are present in the autopsy, then the child could only have been shaken to death.
Moreover, an SBS medical diagnosis has typically served as a legal diagnosis as well. Medical consensus previously held that these symptoms present immediately in the victim. Therefore, a diagnosis of SBS established cause of death (shaking), the identity of the killer (the person who was with the child when it died), and even the intent of the accused (the vigorous nature of the shaking established mens rea). Medical opinion was so uniform that the accused, like Edmunds, often didn't bother questioning the science. Instead, they'd often try to establish the possibility that someone else shook the child.
But now the consensus has shifted. Where the near-unanimous opinion once held that the SBS triad of symptoms could only result from a shaking with the force equivalent of a fall from a three-story to four-story window, or a car moving at 25 mph to 40 mph (depending on the source), research completed in 2003 using lifelike infant dolls suggested that vigorous human shaking produces bleeding similar to that of only a 2-foot to 3-foot fall. Furthermore, the shaking experiments failed to produce symptoms with the severity of those typically seen in SBS deaths.
The research implies that human beings simply cannot shake a baby to death without an accompanying impact to the head. SBS cases, however, frequently show no external injuries. This suggests that other causes are at work. Additional research has shown babies to be lucid up to 72 hours before classic SBS symptoms set in, casting doubt on the long-held theory that the child's caretaker at the time of death (or loss of consciousness) was the likely killer.
Last year, Discover magazine published a provocative article laying out much of this new research. Notably, the magazine found several specialists who have since changed their minds after testifying for the prosecution in multiple SBS cases. (At a post-conviction hearing for Edmunds, all of her defense experts said that when the case was tried in 1995, they would have testified for the prosecution.) One of those specialists is Ronald Uscinski, a student of Ayub Ommaya, the scientist whose research on monkeys in the late 1960s is thought to be the origin of the SBS diagnosis. When Uscinski went back and reexamined the study, he found no support for the way Ommaya’s research is currently being being used in the courtroom.
"When I put all of this together, I said, my God, this is a sham,” Uscinski told Discover. "Somebody made a mistake right at the very beginning, and look at what’s come out of it."
Teurkheimer estimates that "what's come out of it" is about 200 SBS prosecutions per year in America, mostly for murder. She believes there's legitimate reason to review nearly all of these cases, including even those where a suspect admitted to having shaken the baby. As she points out, suggestive or coercive questioning may have elicited such admissions. Moreover, in some cases, a defendant who admitted to shaking a child in order to revive it after it had already been unconscious was seen as having confessed to killing the child.
Whether someone can actually "free shake" an infant to death remains hotly disputed in the medical community. Where there is consensus, however, is that the triad of symptoms traditionally associated with SBS are not exclusive to it. A number of other things can produce these symptoms, including falls, head impacts, infections, birth defects, reaction to vaccinations, and surgical procedures. That's a significant departure from what prosecutors have been telling juries for the past 20 years.
In other words, there are almost certainly a significant number of innocent people in prison today who were wrongly convicted of shaking a baby to death. The problem is that there are also likely a number of guilty people who, nevertheless, shouldn't have been convicted on the basis of science-based testimony we now know to be false. The task will be convincing both the courts and the public to risk freeing actual child killers in order to free the innocent people convicted with flawed medical testimony.
Furthermore, unlike with DNA testing, which came about through rapid scientific breakthroughs, the issue of SBS is tied to a slow shift in the scientific consensus. We simply won’t have the slam-dunk evidence DNA provides when it points to the real culprit. With SBS, the question is usually whether a crime was even committed, or if a child's symptoms were caused by something other than shaking.
This whole controversy speaks to a fundamental tension between science and law. Science moves along a slow trajectory from inquiry toward certainty. While the courts have been eager to embrace new science—particularly forensic science—at the trial level, they're reluctant to revisit those cases when the science changes. One example is the now-discredited specialty of identifying bite mark evidence. But while science is mostly interested in testing, revising, and improving existing theories, once the jury has delivered its verdict, our criminal justice system puts a premium on finality. It takes a major upheaval in the scientific community (like DNA technology) to get courts to consider reopening old cases.
But at the very least the courts should stop prosecutors from making the same mistakes in the future. But even that isn't happening. Tuerkheimer, for example, found literature in current manuals for prosecutors that relies on discredited research from the 1980s and 1990s, still touting the pathognomic nature of SBS symptoms. And the same week Edmunds was given a new trial, an appeals court in Arkansas denied a new trial to a woman convicted under similar circumstances, based on the presence of the same symptoms.
Britain, Canada, and Australia have all initiated major reviews of shaken baby prosecutions in response to new research. Teurkheimer makes a convincing case that it’s time for the U.S. to do the same.
Radley Balko is a senior editor at Reason magazine
Washington University Law Review, DePaul University law professor Deborah Teurkheimer
Regardless of your opinions related to SBS, the profound underlying statement that needs to occur is that anyone convicted of a crime needs to be guilty. To charge someone based on theory and opinion is just as criminal. Whereas no one likes a person to "get away" with murder or abuse of a child, no one should like a person being convicted falsely.
I think my biggest issue aside from flawed science is the fact that some of these children could have an underlying medical condition lurking behind the scene. As a parent, if my child had died unexpectedly, I would want all tests ran to ensure there was no genetic issue at play. What if my other children are a ticking bomb to face the same fate or what if that child passes on that trait to their children? It's easy to charge "the last person with a child" but it's not easy to be the one accused falsely.
We owe it not only to the person accused but we owe it to the child, offspring and parents.
Just imagine if a child would have lived had the doctors accurately diagnosed a child and exhausted all underlying possibilities? This is the biggest question of all. What if? What if the child was treated incorrectly?
It can take weeks or months to run panels of labs and they are expensive to run. I propose someone start collecting the labs ran on alleged SBS victims and determine if there is a consensus on labs ran, why are they not all ran and did anyone ever collect all the results?
Most children don't have but a minimal set of labs ran due to ER doctors already assessing guilt at onset. It's a vicious cycle of injustice for all.
It's not acceptable to take one or more symptoms and mold them into an SBS or blunt force trauma case.
From Radley Balko:
A Shake to the System
New research into "shaken baby syndrome" could put hundreds of convictions in peril.
In January 2008, a Wisconsin appeals court granted a new trial to Audrey Edmunds, a 45-year-old woman who had been sentenced in 1995 to 18 years in prison for murdering Natalie Beard, an infant in her care. The ruling was significant, because medical experts said Beard died as a result of Shaken Baby Syndrome (SBS), a diagnosis that grew increasingly common in the late 1980s and early 1990s. The Wisconsin appellate court was the first in the country to recognize increasing doubts about the reliability of SBS diagnoses.
The phrase shaken baby syndrome entered the pop culture lexicon in 1997, when British au pair Louise Woodward was convicted of involuntary manslaughter in the death of Massachusetts infant Matthew Eappen. At the time, the medical community almost universally agreed on the symptoms of SBS. But starting around 1999, a fringe group of SBS skeptics began growing into a powerful reform movement. The Woodward case brought additional attention to the issue, inviting new research into the legitimacy of SBS. Today, as reflected in the Edmunds case, there are significant doubts about both the diagnosis of SBS and how it's being used in court.
In a compelling article published this month in the Washington University Law Review, DePaul University law professor Deborah Teurkheimer argues that the medical research has now shifted to the point where U.S. courts must conduct a major review of most SBS cases from the last 20 years. The problem, Teurkheimer explains, is that the presence of three symptoms in an infant victim—bleeding at the back of the eye, bleeding in the protective area of the brain, and brain swelling—have led doctors and child protective workers to immediately reach a conclusion of SBS. These symptoms have long been considered pathognomic, or exclusive, to SBS. As this line of thinking goes, if those three symptoms are present in the autopsy, then the child could only have been shaken to death.
Moreover, an SBS medical diagnosis has typically served as a legal diagnosis as well. Medical consensus previously held that these symptoms present immediately in the victim. Therefore, a diagnosis of SBS established cause of death (shaking), the identity of the killer (the person who was with the child when it died), and even the intent of the accused (the vigorous nature of the shaking established mens rea). Medical opinion was so uniform that the accused, like Edmunds, often didn't bother questioning the science. Instead, they'd often try to establish the possibility that someone else shook the child.
But now the consensus has shifted. Where the near-unanimous opinion once held that the SBS triad of symptoms could only result from a shaking with the force equivalent of a fall from a three-story to four-story window, or a car moving at 25 mph to 40 mph (depending on the source), research completed in 2003 using lifelike infant dolls suggested that vigorous human shaking produces bleeding similar to that of only a 2-foot to 3-foot fall. Furthermore, the shaking experiments failed to produce symptoms with the severity of those typically seen in SBS deaths.
The research implies that human beings simply cannot shake a baby to death without an accompanying impact to the head. SBS cases, however, frequently show no external injuries. This suggests that other causes are at work. Additional research has shown babies to be lucid up to 72 hours before classic SBS symptoms set in, casting doubt on the long-held theory that the child's caretaker at the time of death (or loss of consciousness) was the likely killer.
Last year, Discover magazine published a provocative article laying out much of this new research. Notably, the magazine found several specialists who have since changed their minds after testifying for the prosecution in multiple SBS cases. (At a post-conviction hearing for Edmunds, all of her defense experts said that when the case was tried in 1995, they would have testified for the prosecution.) One of those specialists is Ronald Uscinski, a student of Ayub Ommaya, the scientist whose research on monkeys in the late 1960s is thought to be the origin of the SBS diagnosis. When Uscinski went back and reexamined the study, he found no support for the way Ommaya’s research is currently being being used in the courtroom.
"When I put all of this together, I said, my God, this is a sham,” Uscinski told Discover. "Somebody made a mistake right at the very beginning, and look at what’s come out of it."
Teurkheimer estimates that "what's come out of it" is about 200 SBS prosecutions per year in America, mostly for murder. She believes there's legitimate reason to review nearly all of these cases, including even those where a suspect admitted to having shaken the baby. As she points out, suggestive or coercive questioning may have elicited such admissions. Moreover, in some cases, a defendant who admitted to shaking a child in order to revive it after it had already been unconscious was seen as having confessed to killing the child.
Whether someone can actually "free shake" an infant to death remains hotly disputed in the medical community. Where there is consensus, however, is that the triad of symptoms traditionally associated with SBS are not exclusive to it. A number of other things can produce these symptoms, including falls, head impacts, infections, birth defects, reaction to vaccinations, and surgical procedures. That's a significant departure from what prosecutors have been telling juries for the past 20 years.
In other words, there are almost certainly a significant number of innocent people in prison today who were wrongly convicted of shaking a baby to death. The problem is that there are also likely a number of guilty people who, nevertheless, shouldn't have been convicted on the basis of science-based testimony we now know to be false. The task will be convincing both the courts and the public to risk freeing actual child killers in order to free the innocent people convicted with flawed medical testimony.
Furthermore, unlike with DNA testing, which came about through rapid scientific breakthroughs, the issue of SBS is tied to a slow shift in the scientific consensus. We simply won’t have the slam-dunk evidence DNA provides when it points to the real culprit. With SBS, the question is usually whether a crime was even committed, or if a child's symptoms were caused by something other than shaking.
This whole controversy speaks to a fundamental tension between science and law. Science moves along a slow trajectory from inquiry toward certainty. While the courts have been eager to embrace new science—particularly forensic science—at the trial level, they're reluctant to revisit those cases when the science changes. One example is the now-discredited specialty of identifying bite mark evidence. But while science is mostly interested in testing, revising, and improving existing theories, once the jury has delivered its verdict, our criminal justice system puts a premium on finality. It takes a major upheaval in the scientific community (like DNA technology) to get courts to consider reopening old cases.
But at the very least the courts should stop prosecutors from making the same mistakes in the future. But even that isn't happening. Tuerkheimer, for example, found literature in current manuals for prosecutors that relies on discredited research from the 1980s and 1990s, still touting the pathognomic nature of SBS symptoms. And the same week Edmunds was given a new trial, an appeals court in Arkansas denied a new trial to a woman convicted under similar circumstances, based on the presence of the same symptoms.
Britain, Canada, and Australia have all initiated major reviews of shaken baby prosecutions in response to new research. Teurkheimer makes a convincing case that it’s time for the U.S. to do the same.
Radley Balko is a senior editor at Reason magazine
Washington University Law Review, DePaul University law professor Deborah Teurkheimer
Sunday, August 9, 2009
Click here for the whole story.
THE NEXT INNOCENCE PROJECT:
SHAKEN BABY SYNDROME AND THE CRIMINAL COURTS
DEBORAH TUERKHEIMER
Every year in this country, hundreds of people are convicted of having shaken a baby, most often to death. In a prosecution paradigm without precedent, expert medical testimony is used to establish that a crime occurred, that the defendant caused the infant's death by shaking, and that the shaking was sufficiently forceful to constitute depraved indifference to human life.
Shaken Baby Syndrome (SBS) is, in essence, a medical diagnosis of murder, one based solely on the presence of a diagnostic triad: retinal bleeding, bleeding in the protective layer of the brain, and brain swelling.
New scientific research has cast doubt on the forensic significance of this triad, thereby undermining the foundations of thousands of SBS convictions. Outside the United States, this scientific evolution has prompted systemic reevaluations of the prosecutorial paradigm. In contrast, our criminal justice system has failed to absorb the latest scientific knowledge. This is beginning to change, yet the response has been halting and inconsistent. To this day, triad-based convictions continue to be affirmed, and new prosecutions commenced, as a matter of course.
This Article identifies a criminal justice crisis and begins a conversation about its proper resolution. The conceptual implications of the inquiry—for scientific engagement in law's
shadow, for future systemic reform, and for the notion of innocence in a post-DNA world—should assist in the task of righting past wrongs and averting further injustice.
THE NEXT INNOCENCE PROJECT:
SHAKEN BABY SYNDROME AND THE CRIMINAL COURTS
DEBORAH TUERKHEIMER
Every year in this country, hundreds of people are convicted of having shaken a baby, most often to death. In a prosecution paradigm without precedent, expert medical testimony is used to establish that a crime occurred, that the defendant caused the infant's death by shaking, and that the shaking was sufficiently forceful to constitute depraved indifference to human life.
Shaken Baby Syndrome (SBS) is, in essence, a medical diagnosis of murder, one based solely on the presence of a diagnostic triad: retinal bleeding, bleeding in the protective layer of the brain, and brain swelling.
New scientific research has cast doubt on the forensic significance of this triad, thereby undermining the foundations of thousands of SBS convictions. Outside the United States, this scientific evolution has prompted systemic reevaluations of the prosecutorial paradigm. In contrast, our criminal justice system has failed to absorb the latest scientific knowledge. This is beginning to change, yet the response has been halting and inconsistent. To this day, triad-based convictions continue to be affirmed, and new prosecutions commenced, as a matter of course.
This Article identifies a criminal justice crisis and begins a conversation about its proper resolution. The conceptual implications of the inquiry—for scientific engagement in law's
shadow, for future systemic reform, and for the notion of innocence in a post-DNA world—should assist in the task of righting past wrongs and averting further injustice.
Monday, August 3, 2009
Vaccinations are causing impaired blood flow (Ischemia), Chronic Illness, Disease and Death for us all
Great post:
Vaccinations are causing impaired blood flow (Ischemia), Chronic Illness, Disease and Death for us all
By
Jamie
Published: 03 August 2009 4:05 AM MSTPosted in: Featured, News, Vaccine ReactionsTags: 12-IMAM Brain Damage measurement system, aduvant, alum, aluminum, andrew moulden, AS03, AS04, aseptic meningitis, Autism, blood flow, bulbar palsies, chronic fatigue, diabetes mellitus, Dr. Andrew Moulden, encephalopathy, febrile seizures, fibromyalgia, gardasil, guillain barre, hypsarrythmia, infantile paralysis, infantile spasms, ischemia, Kawasaki syndrome, M.A.S.S., Meningitis, MF59, Moyamoya, multiple sclerosis, Parkinson Disease, schizophrenia, seizures, shaken baby syndrome, sludged blood, thimerisol, tourette's syndrome, West syndrome, wild polio
ALL VACCINATIONS ARE CAUSING IMPAIRED BLOOD FLOW (Ischemia), CHRONIC ILLNESS, DISEASE AND DEATH FOR US ALL…PROVEN…see for yourself.
2 Timothy: 4-7: I have fought a good fight. I have finished my course. I have kept the faith.”
By Andrew Moulden MD, PhD; www.BrainGuardMD.com
Medical & Neurobehavioral Therapies Director
www.Therapies4Kids.com www.BrightStepsForward.org
Former Leader – www.CanadianActionParty.ca
This is a stern, yet humble, warning to all citizens of the globe. It is now proven that we are all being harmed by repeat vaccinations. This evidence must be circulated broadly in light of the imminent Fall, 2009 plan to turn North American schools into MASS vaccine centers to institute triple flu vaccine to us all. Children will be the first to be injected with experimental flu vaccines. The entire vaccine industry, as it turns out, has been experimental. We did not know that we were causing damages – for us all.
In case you are wondering what will happen, the answers are contained in this article. The same thing will happen as has been happening with all vaccines. Clinically silent ischemic brain and body damages will happen. The only difference is that you can now see these damages, with your own eyes, in the here and now, in real time, and in your family photos going back fifty or more years if you have to.
ALL vaccines are causing immediate and delayed, acute and chronic, waxing and waning, impairments to blood flow, throughout the brain and body. This IS causing us all to become chronically ill, sick, and causing brain damages along a continuum of clinically silent to death. This is causing ischemic “strokes”. In some respects, this is also “aging.” Since the damages are microscopic, we cannot see them as they occur. However, we can now see the neurological aftermath of these damages – within hours and days of vaccination – all vaccinations.
For the entire article, go here: http://vactruth.com/2009/08/03/vaccinations-are-causing-impaired-blood-flow-ischemia-chronic-illness-disease-and-death-for-us-all-hp/
Vaccinations are causing impaired blood flow (Ischemia), Chronic Illness, Disease and Death for us all
By
Jamie
Published: 03 August 2009 4:05 AM MSTPosted in: Featured, News, Vaccine ReactionsTags: 12-IMAM Brain Damage measurement system, aduvant, alum, aluminum, andrew moulden, AS03, AS04, aseptic meningitis, Autism, blood flow, bulbar palsies, chronic fatigue, diabetes mellitus, Dr. Andrew Moulden, encephalopathy, febrile seizures, fibromyalgia, gardasil, guillain barre, hypsarrythmia, infantile paralysis, infantile spasms, ischemia, Kawasaki syndrome, M.A.S.S., Meningitis, MF59, Moyamoya, multiple sclerosis, Parkinson Disease, schizophrenia, seizures, shaken baby syndrome, sludged blood, thimerisol, tourette's syndrome, West syndrome, wild polio
ALL VACCINATIONS ARE CAUSING IMPAIRED BLOOD FLOW (Ischemia), CHRONIC ILLNESS, DISEASE AND DEATH FOR US ALL…PROVEN…see for yourself.
2 Timothy: 4-7: I have fought a good fight. I have finished my course. I have kept the faith.”
By Andrew Moulden MD, PhD; www.BrainGuardMD.com
Medical & Neurobehavioral Therapies Director
www.Therapies4Kids.com www.BrightStepsForward.org
Former Leader – www.CanadianActionParty.ca
This is a stern, yet humble, warning to all citizens of the globe. It is now proven that we are all being harmed by repeat vaccinations. This evidence must be circulated broadly in light of the imminent Fall, 2009 plan to turn North American schools into MASS vaccine centers to institute triple flu vaccine to us all. Children will be the first to be injected with experimental flu vaccines. The entire vaccine industry, as it turns out, has been experimental. We did not know that we were causing damages – for us all.
In case you are wondering what will happen, the answers are contained in this article. The same thing will happen as has been happening with all vaccines. Clinically silent ischemic brain and body damages will happen. The only difference is that you can now see these damages, with your own eyes, in the here and now, in real time, and in your family photos going back fifty or more years if you have to.
ALL vaccines are causing immediate and delayed, acute and chronic, waxing and waning, impairments to blood flow, throughout the brain and body. This IS causing us all to become chronically ill, sick, and causing brain damages along a continuum of clinically silent to death. This is causing ischemic “strokes”. In some respects, this is also “aging.” Since the damages are microscopic, we cannot see them as they occur. However, we can now see the neurological aftermath of these damages – within hours and days of vaccination – all vaccinations.
For the entire article, go here: http://vactruth.com/2009/08/03/vaccinations-are-causing-impaired-blood-flow-ischemia-chronic-illness-disease-and-death-for-us-all-hp/
Friday, July 31, 2009
Grandmother seeks to reopen shaken-baby case: Hershey
http://www.democratandchronicle.com/article/20090728/NEWS01/907280323/1002/NEWS
Grandmother seeks to reopen shaken-baby case
James Goodman • Staff writer • July 28, 2009
A 69-year-old Ontario County woman put behind bars for causing the death of her stepgrandson made clear at her sentencing in December 2007 that she would not take responsibility for what happened to 4-month-old Ethan Hershey.
Barbara Hershey shouted at her stepson, David Hershey, and his wife, Amanda, the parents of Ethan: "Why don't one of you admit that you did it?"
With a motion recently filed in Ontario County Court, Barbara Hershey hopes to reopen this emotionally charged case. She is serving a sentence of five to 15 years for second-degree manslaughter in the state's Albion Correctional Facility.
"David Hershey lied at trial. As a result, the conviction of Barbara Hershey was obtained by perjured testimony," says the court papers filed by J. Michael Chamblee, who is Barbara Hershey's lawyer. Traumatic brain injury caused by violently shaking the baby is the basis for Hershey's conviction.
Ontario County Court Judge Frederick Reed, who presided over the 2007 trial, will hold a hearing on this motion at the end of September. Hershey seeks to set aside the verdict, claiming that new evidence — not considered at trial — needs to be aired.
The Hershey case is part of a trend calling into question convictions based on shaken baby syndrome. Some say that injuries associated with the syndrome can have other causes.
Hershey's court papers contend that the 911 operator gave Barbara Hershey instructions for performing cardiopulmonary resuscitation on Ethan that were for an adult, rather than an infant, and suggest that the mistake could have killed him or led to a wrongful diagnosis of shaken baby syndrome.
Ontario County District Attorney Michael Tantillo, who prosecuted the Hershey case, calls her motion frivolous.
"The evidence presented at the trial overwhelmingly established Barbara Hershey's guilt of killing a little child. Many people testified at the trial that until the day he was killed, Ethan Hershey was a perfectly healthy kid," said Tantillo.
Tantillo also said that Barbara Hershey's emotional outburst at sentencing showed a "hair-trigger tendency" to lash out and "that this is what happened to Ethan."
Questions arise
On Oct. 25, 2005, David Hershey, who lived with his wife in Gorham, took their son and daughter Anna to Barbara Hershey's nearby home. While at the home, Ethan stopped breathing and, though resuscitated by emergency medical technicians, never recovered and died several weeks later.
David Hershey testified at the trial that there were no red flags about Ethan's health.
But a telephone conversation that Barbara Hershey's son, Gregory Donald Coston, 46, of Gorham, had with David Hershey in May 2008 and secretly taped puts a new focus on Ethan's health.
In that conversation Coston said, "David you're the one that told me 'the boy was a ticking time bomb.' You're the one that stopped and said, 'I'm going to need bail money by the time I get up there.'" David Hershey responded, "I did tell you that, yah, but I did not know that until he stopped breathing."
David Hershey also said: "I knew something was wrong with him."
Amanda and David Hershey now live in Ballston Spa, Saratoga County, and did not respond to telephone messages requesting comment.
Several weeks after Barbara Hershey's sentencing, Coston also secretly taped a conversation with Joan Colf, who is David Hershey's mother. According to the transcript, Colf said that Tantillo decided not to use her as a witness when he learned what she was going to say.
Later in the conversation, Colf told Coston, "I saw problems with my grandson, but there is not — I cannot say for sure she didn't do it."
Medical testimony at trial revealed that Ethan not only had new bleeding on the brain but also old bleeding.
The broader debate
The questions being raised in the Hershey and other shaken-baby cases are part of a debate about whether there has been a rush to judgment in some cases.
Deborah Tuerkheimer, a law professor at DePaul University College of Law in Chicago, has written an article, "The Next Innocence Project: Shaken Baby Syndrome and the Criminal Courts," to be published in the Washington University Law Review.
Tuerkheimer said in an interview that the telltale signs of shaken baby syndrome — retinal bleeding, swelling of the brain and bleeding in the protective layer of the brain — might not be due to the syndrome.
She noted that there has been a shift in the debate. "There may be other causes of the injuries," she said.
That's also the contention of the defense in another shaken-baby case in Ontario County on appeal.
In that case, Clifton Springs resident Dexter Mastowski was sentenced to 17 years in prison in 2003 after being convicted of causing severe brain injuries to his infant daughter.
Mastowski, 33, maintained at his trial that he did not shake or injure his daughter, who was 2½ months old. He believes her injuries instead were caused by multiple vaccinations she received shortly before she was taken to the hospital in October 2002, according to family members.
An appellate court in May denied his request to set aside his assault conviction. Mastowski, who claims that there is new evidence about shaken-baby diagnoses not considered at his trial, is now asking the state Court of Appeals to consider the case.
The American Academy of Pediatrics recently adopted a new policy position that refers to shaken baby syndrome as "abusive head trauma."
Dr. Robert Block, a professor of pediatrics at the University of Oklahoma's School of Community Medicine, was co-author of the new policy position that makes the injuries more understandable to the general public.
He is skeptical of the criticism raised about shaken baby syndrome and said, "We need to look at the science."
JGOODMAN@DemocratandChronicle.com
Includes reporting by staff writer Steve Orr.
Grandmother seeks to reopen shaken-baby case
James Goodman • Staff writer • July 28, 2009
A 69-year-old Ontario County woman put behind bars for causing the death of her stepgrandson made clear at her sentencing in December 2007 that she would not take responsibility for what happened to 4-month-old Ethan Hershey.
Barbara Hershey shouted at her stepson, David Hershey, and his wife, Amanda, the parents of Ethan: "Why don't one of you admit that you did it?"
With a motion recently filed in Ontario County Court, Barbara Hershey hopes to reopen this emotionally charged case. She is serving a sentence of five to 15 years for second-degree manslaughter in the state's Albion Correctional Facility.
"David Hershey lied at trial. As a result, the conviction of Barbara Hershey was obtained by perjured testimony," says the court papers filed by J. Michael Chamblee, who is Barbara Hershey's lawyer. Traumatic brain injury caused by violently shaking the baby is the basis for Hershey's conviction.
Ontario County Court Judge Frederick Reed, who presided over the 2007 trial, will hold a hearing on this motion at the end of September. Hershey seeks to set aside the verdict, claiming that new evidence — not considered at trial — needs to be aired.
The Hershey case is part of a trend calling into question convictions based on shaken baby syndrome. Some say that injuries associated with the syndrome can have other causes.
Hershey's court papers contend that the 911 operator gave Barbara Hershey instructions for performing cardiopulmonary resuscitation on Ethan that were for an adult, rather than an infant, and suggest that the mistake could have killed him or led to a wrongful diagnosis of shaken baby syndrome.
Ontario County District Attorney Michael Tantillo, who prosecuted the Hershey case, calls her motion frivolous.
"The evidence presented at the trial overwhelmingly established Barbara Hershey's guilt of killing a little child. Many people testified at the trial that until the day he was killed, Ethan Hershey was a perfectly healthy kid," said Tantillo.
Tantillo also said that Barbara Hershey's emotional outburst at sentencing showed a "hair-trigger tendency" to lash out and "that this is what happened to Ethan."
Questions arise
On Oct. 25, 2005, David Hershey, who lived with his wife in Gorham, took their son and daughter Anna to Barbara Hershey's nearby home. While at the home, Ethan stopped breathing and, though resuscitated by emergency medical technicians, never recovered and died several weeks later.
David Hershey testified at the trial that there were no red flags about Ethan's health.
But a telephone conversation that Barbara Hershey's son, Gregory Donald Coston, 46, of Gorham, had with David Hershey in May 2008 and secretly taped puts a new focus on Ethan's health.
In that conversation Coston said, "David you're the one that told me 'the boy was a ticking time bomb.' You're the one that stopped and said, 'I'm going to need bail money by the time I get up there.'" David Hershey responded, "I did tell you that, yah, but I did not know that until he stopped breathing."
David Hershey also said: "I knew something was wrong with him."
Amanda and David Hershey now live in Ballston Spa, Saratoga County, and did not respond to telephone messages requesting comment.
Several weeks after Barbara Hershey's sentencing, Coston also secretly taped a conversation with Joan Colf, who is David Hershey's mother. According to the transcript, Colf said that Tantillo decided not to use her as a witness when he learned what she was going to say.
Later in the conversation, Colf told Coston, "I saw problems with my grandson, but there is not — I cannot say for sure she didn't do it."
Medical testimony at trial revealed that Ethan not only had new bleeding on the brain but also old bleeding.
The broader debate
The questions being raised in the Hershey and other shaken-baby cases are part of a debate about whether there has been a rush to judgment in some cases.
Deborah Tuerkheimer, a law professor at DePaul University College of Law in Chicago, has written an article, "The Next Innocence Project: Shaken Baby Syndrome and the Criminal Courts," to be published in the Washington University Law Review.
Tuerkheimer said in an interview that the telltale signs of shaken baby syndrome — retinal bleeding, swelling of the brain and bleeding in the protective layer of the brain — might not be due to the syndrome.
She noted that there has been a shift in the debate. "There may be other causes of the injuries," she said.
That's also the contention of the defense in another shaken-baby case in Ontario County on appeal.
In that case, Clifton Springs resident Dexter Mastowski was sentenced to 17 years in prison in 2003 after being convicted of causing severe brain injuries to his infant daughter.
Mastowski, 33, maintained at his trial that he did not shake or injure his daughter, who was 2½ months old. He believes her injuries instead were caused by multiple vaccinations she received shortly before she was taken to the hospital in October 2002, according to family members.
An appellate court in May denied his request to set aside his assault conviction. Mastowski, who claims that there is new evidence about shaken-baby diagnoses not considered at his trial, is now asking the state Court of Appeals to consider the case.
The American Academy of Pediatrics recently adopted a new policy position that refers to shaken baby syndrome as "abusive head trauma."
Dr. Robert Block, a professor of pediatrics at the University of Oklahoma's School of Community Medicine, was co-author of the new policy position that makes the injuries more understandable to the general public.
He is skeptical of the criticism raised about shaken baby syndrome and said, "We need to look at the science."
JGOODMAN@DemocratandChronicle.com
Includes reporting by staff writer Steve Orr.
Baby's death ruled accident, mother still in jail
http://www.venturacountystar.com/news/2009/jul/30/babys-death-ruled-accidental-but-mother-still-in/
Baby's death ruled accident, mother still in jail
By Raul Hernandez (Contact) Thursday, July 30, 2009
The infant died from blunt-force trauma, according to the Ventura County Medical Examiner.
“The manner of death was ruled as accidental,” Chief Deputy Medical Examiner James Baroni said Wednesday.
The mother, Cecilia Garcia Cortes, 23, of Oxnard, has been in jail with bail set at $500,000 since her arrest in April.
Cortes’ lawyer, Barbara Lewis, who works for the Public Defender’s Office, said the baby was accidentally dropped by Cortes’ boyfriend.
The child died April 30, according to police, and Cortes was accused of fatally shaking the girl. Lewis said the autopsy was performed May 1, but she didn’t get a copy of the results from the District Attorney’s Office until July 17. She said she was told prosecutors received the results a day earlier.
Lewis said prosecutor Thomas Dunlevy indicated the district attorney is going to seek a second opinion, even though the office has relied on the Ventura County Medical Examiner to do hundreds of autopsies.
“There is no reason to doubt his opinion here,” she said.
Lewis said she will try to meet with Dunlevy this week or next to discuss the case.
An early disposition conference on the case is scheduled for Wednesday, Lewis said.
Dunlevy declined to comment. He said his office will conduct further investigation and know in the next few weeks whether the charges against Cortes will be dismissed.
Baroni said the child died because she didn’t get enough oxygen to the brain after the blunt-force trauma. He said the autopsy required further tests and everything had to be thoroughly reviewed before the medical examiner could issue the findings.
Lewis said Cortes has always maintained that the death was an accident. “She knew the truth would come out,” Lewis said.
Oxnard police initially alleged the infant was crying continuously and Cortes became upset with her. Police said they believed Cortes violently shook the baby to get her to stop crying.
The alleged incident occurred April 27 in the 4800 block of Saviers Road in Oxnard, where Cortes lived after having recently moved from Fillmore, according to police.
The baby stopped breathing several hours later, police said. The child was taken to the hospital and died three days later, police said.
Baby's death ruled accident, mother still in jail
By Raul Hernandez (Contact) Thursday, July 30, 2009
The infant died from blunt-force trauma, according to the Ventura County Medical Examiner.
“The manner of death was ruled as accidental,” Chief Deputy Medical Examiner James Baroni said Wednesday.
The mother, Cecilia Garcia Cortes, 23, of Oxnard, has been in jail with bail set at $500,000 since her arrest in April.
Cortes’ lawyer, Barbara Lewis, who works for the Public Defender’s Office, said the baby was accidentally dropped by Cortes’ boyfriend.
The child died April 30, according to police, and Cortes was accused of fatally shaking the girl. Lewis said the autopsy was performed May 1, but she didn’t get a copy of the results from the District Attorney’s Office until July 17. She said she was told prosecutors received the results a day earlier.
Lewis said prosecutor Thomas Dunlevy indicated the district attorney is going to seek a second opinion, even though the office has relied on the Ventura County Medical Examiner to do hundreds of autopsies.
“There is no reason to doubt his opinion here,” she said.
Lewis said she will try to meet with Dunlevy this week or next to discuss the case.
An early disposition conference on the case is scheduled for Wednesday, Lewis said.
Dunlevy declined to comment. He said his office will conduct further investigation and know in the next few weeks whether the charges against Cortes will be dismissed.
Baroni said the child died because she didn’t get enough oxygen to the brain after the blunt-force trauma. He said the autopsy required further tests and everything had to be thoroughly reviewed before the medical examiner could issue the findings.
Lewis said Cortes has always maintained that the death was an accident. “She knew the truth would come out,” Lewis said.
Oxnard police initially alleged the infant was crying continuously and Cortes became upset with her. Police said they believed Cortes violently shook the baby to get her to stop crying.
The alleged incident occurred April 27 in the 4800 block of Saviers Road in Oxnard, where Cortes lived after having recently moved from Fillmore, according to police.
The baby stopped breathing several hours later, police said. The child was taken to the hospital and died three days later, police said.
Head Trauma outcomes of verifiable falls in newborn babies
Authors:
Caroline Ruddick, Martin Ward Platt, Camille Lazaro
Affiliations:
Ms Caroline Ruddick, Midwifery Manager, Directorate of Women’s ServicesDr Martin Ward Platt, Consultant Paediatrician, Directorate of Women’s ServicesDr Camille Lazaro, Consultant Paediatrician, Department of Child Health
Corresponding author:
Dr Martin Ward PlattWard 35Royal Victoria Infirmary,Newcastle upon Tyne NE1 4LPTele: 0191 282 5197Fax: 0191 282 5038E mail: m.p.ward-platt@ncl.ac.ukJuly 7, 2009 as 10.1136/adc.2008.143131
Head trauma outcomes of verifiable falls in newborn babies
Abstract
Eleven newborn babies of normal weights sustained falls onto a hard surface in hospital. The one baby who fell from over a metre sustained clinical and radiological trauma and encephalopathy, with a skull fracture and cerebral contusion. No other baby demonstrated neurological signs despite the presence of parietal skull fractures in four of six who were X-rayed; only two babies had scalp swelling. The findings suggest that parietal fractures can result from very low level falls and scalp swelling is a poor marker for underlying fracture.
Introduction
The conditions under which very young infants can sustain skull fractures can be contentious, but are clearly important in determining whether an injury might be consistent with the history given.Studies of linear skull fractures and external evidence of skull injury have mostly focused on falls of 3 feet or more1 2, so there is little information on the outcomes of lower level falls. In the context of the accident and emergency department, the prevarication and false histories that are part of thepresentation of child abuse create difficulties for clinicians and researchers alike.
Therefore, we believed it would be useful to present our experience of injuries sustained from falls in newborn babies in the postnatal ward where the fall occurred under verifiable conditions, or was witnessed by someone other than the mother; there was information about the physical environment; immediate medical assessment was available; and many of the falls were from heights as low as 0.5m.
Method
We used our adverse event register, cross checked with the codings for all trauma in newborn babies from the Hospital Episode Statistics, to identify cases where babies fell accidentally to the floor in our maternity unit for the five years January 1999 to December 2003. The records for each child were examined; details of the height to impact, nature of the surface struck, clinical symptoms and the results of any imaging were identified for each child.
Results
The details of the babies are given in the table. 11 babies were identified, seven girls and four boys,all born at term. Birth weights ranged from 2.1 kg to 3.8 kg. Of the 11, seven were totally breast fed, three artificially fed and one mixed fed. Seven of the falls occurred at night, between the hours of 8 p.m. and 8 a.m. Four babies dropped to the floor when their mothers fell asleep following breast feeding.
The estimated distance to impact in most babies was one metre or less. One baby fell about 1.2m. The surface impacted upon in all falls consisted of vinyl tiles laid upon concrete with an intervening solid screed.No clinical findings were identified in eight of the eleven babies. Of the three with clinical findings,one had a bruise over the temporal area, one had a swelling over the parietal area and one had signs of traumatic encephalopathy.
All imaging was at the discretion of the attending physicians. Six of the eleven babies had skull Xrays, one had a CT scan (but no skull X-ray), and two an ultrasound scan. Of the six with X-rays, five had no scalp swelling, but three of these five had a solitary linear parietal skull fracture. Three of the eleven babies had localised scalp swelling, of which two were imaged and each of these had asingle linear parietal fracture. The baby who fell 1.2m had a fronto-parietal contusion beneath the fracture, and had a transiently decreased level of consciousness consistent with a mild traumatic encephalopathy; this baby was born by normal vaginal delivery.
Discussion
Our observations demonstrate that low height falls of under a metre can cause a linear skull fracture, and such skull fractures are not necessarily accompanied by a boggy swelling in the overlying scalp. However not all babies were radiographed so we cannot make any estimate of the rate of fracture among babies who fall.All the fractures, including that caused by the highest fall, were linear and confined to the parietes. Even the baby falling further, and sustaining brain contusion, had a linear fracture, not a more complex one. Although this finding supports the contention that complex, stellate or occipital fractures do not arise from simple domestic falls3 we cannot rule out the possibility that otherkinds of fracture could result from falls such as we have seen.In spite of the fact that hospital floors are particularly hard and unyielding, we found that symptoms suggestive of underlying brain injury (decreased consciousness, feeding problems, irritability,seizures or apnoea) were not found in 10 of 11 babies, even when fractures were found to have occurred. Existing biomechanical evidence suggests that that there is little difference in the effects of falls onto a hard floor or a carpeted domestic floor 4.
We conclude that even very low level falls may produce linear skull fractures, but that such fractures may occur without the scalp swelling traditionally considered suggestive of a fracture.
References
1. Greenes, D. S., Schutzman, S A. Infants with isolated skull fracture: what are their clinicalcharacteristics, and do they require hospitalization? Annals of Emergency Medicine. 1997;30:253-9.
2. Johnson, K., Fischer, T., Chapman, S., Wilson, B. Accidental head injuries in children under 5years of age. Clinical Radiology 2005;60:464-8.
3. Hobbs, C.J. Skull Fracture and the diagnosis of abuse. Archives of Disease in Childhood1984;59:246-52.
4. Coats, B., Margulies, S. S. Potential for head injuries in infants from low-height falls. Journalof Neurosurgery: Pediatrics 2008;2:321-30.
Caroline Ruddick, Martin Ward Platt, Camille Lazaro
Affiliations:
Ms Caroline Ruddick, Midwifery Manager, Directorate of Women’s ServicesDr Martin Ward Platt, Consultant Paediatrician, Directorate of Women’s ServicesDr Camille Lazaro, Consultant Paediatrician, Department of Child Health
Corresponding author:
Dr Martin Ward PlattWard 35Royal Victoria Infirmary,Newcastle upon Tyne NE1 4LPTele: 0191 282 5197Fax: 0191 282 5038E mail: m.p.ward-platt@ncl.ac.ukJuly 7, 2009 as 10.1136/adc.2008.143131
Head trauma outcomes of verifiable falls in newborn babies
Abstract
Eleven newborn babies of normal weights sustained falls onto a hard surface in hospital. The one baby who fell from over a metre sustained clinical and radiological trauma and encephalopathy, with a skull fracture and cerebral contusion. No other baby demonstrated neurological signs despite the presence of parietal skull fractures in four of six who were X-rayed; only two babies had scalp swelling. The findings suggest that parietal fractures can result from very low level falls and scalp swelling is a poor marker for underlying fracture.
Introduction
The conditions under which very young infants can sustain skull fractures can be contentious, but are clearly important in determining whether an injury might be consistent with the history given.Studies of linear skull fractures and external evidence of skull injury have mostly focused on falls of 3 feet or more1 2, so there is little information on the outcomes of lower level falls. In the context of the accident and emergency department, the prevarication and false histories that are part of thepresentation of child abuse create difficulties for clinicians and researchers alike.
Therefore, we believed it would be useful to present our experience of injuries sustained from falls in newborn babies in the postnatal ward where the fall occurred under verifiable conditions, or was witnessed by someone other than the mother; there was information about the physical environment; immediate medical assessment was available; and many of the falls were from heights as low as 0.5m.
Method
We used our adverse event register, cross checked with the codings for all trauma in newborn babies from the Hospital Episode Statistics, to identify cases where babies fell accidentally to the floor in our maternity unit for the five years January 1999 to December 2003. The records for each child were examined; details of the height to impact, nature of the surface struck, clinical symptoms and the results of any imaging were identified for each child.
Results
The details of the babies are given in the table. 11 babies were identified, seven girls and four boys,all born at term. Birth weights ranged from 2.1 kg to 3.8 kg. Of the 11, seven were totally breast fed, three artificially fed and one mixed fed. Seven of the falls occurred at night, between the hours of 8 p.m. and 8 a.m. Four babies dropped to the floor when their mothers fell asleep following breast feeding.
The estimated distance to impact in most babies was one metre or less. One baby fell about 1.2m. The surface impacted upon in all falls consisted of vinyl tiles laid upon concrete with an intervening solid screed.No clinical findings were identified in eight of the eleven babies. Of the three with clinical findings,one had a bruise over the temporal area, one had a swelling over the parietal area and one had signs of traumatic encephalopathy.
All imaging was at the discretion of the attending physicians. Six of the eleven babies had skull Xrays, one had a CT scan (but no skull X-ray), and two an ultrasound scan. Of the six with X-rays, five had no scalp swelling, but three of these five had a solitary linear parietal skull fracture. Three of the eleven babies had localised scalp swelling, of which two were imaged and each of these had asingle linear parietal fracture. The baby who fell 1.2m had a fronto-parietal contusion beneath the fracture, and had a transiently decreased level of consciousness consistent with a mild traumatic encephalopathy; this baby was born by normal vaginal delivery.
Discussion
Our observations demonstrate that low height falls of under a metre can cause a linear skull fracture, and such skull fractures are not necessarily accompanied by a boggy swelling in the overlying scalp. However not all babies were radiographed so we cannot make any estimate of the rate of fracture among babies who fall.All the fractures, including that caused by the highest fall, were linear and confined to the parietes. Even the baby falling further, and sustaining brain contusion, had a linear fracture, not a more complex one. Although this finding supports the contention that complex, stellate or occipital fractures do not arise from simple domestic falls3 we cannot rule out the possibility that otherkinds of fracture could result from falls such as we have seen.In spite of the fact that hospital floors are particularly hard and unyielding, we found that symptoms suggestive of underlying brain injury (decreased consciousness, feeding problems, irritability,seizures or apnoea) were not found in 10 of 11 babies, even when fractures were found to have occurred. Existing biomechanical evidence suggests that that there is little difference in the effects of falls onto a hard floor or a carpeted domestic floor 4.
We conclude that even very low level falls may produce linear skull fractures, but that such fractures may occur without the scalp swelling traditionally considered suggestive of a fracture.
References
1. Greenes, D. S., Schutzman, S A. Infants with isolated skull fracture: what are their clinicalcharacteristics, and do they require hospitalization? Annals of Emergency Medicine. 1997;30:253-9.
2. Johnson, K., Fischer, T., Chapman, S., Wilson, B. Accidental head injuries in children under 5years of age. Clinical Radiology 2005;60:464-8.
3. Hobbs, C.J. Skull Fracture and the diagnosis of abuse. Archives of Disease in Childhood1984;59:246-52.
4. Coats, B., Margulies, S. S. Potential for head injuries in infants from low-height falls. Journalof Neurosurgery: Pediatrics 2008;2:321-30.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)