Post resubmitted after it was censored by deletion from my blog, by those who have to save face no matter how ruthless, malicious and vindictively they stoop.  The evidence proving Patrick Kelly of Starship an absolute liar was taken down by them.

BS injury that contributed toward me getting convicted and accepted by judge Lynton Stevens as fact for sentencing No2, ear bruising.

 

1. Sentencing remarks.jpg

This ‘injury’ was most definitely against evidence Judge Lynton Stevens was well aware of.  It was seemingly made up, by Dr Patrick Kelly, Crown specialist paediatrician.

 

2. Dr K, Starship hospital notes 41 & 49.jpg

Shows Patrick Kelly was present and controlling the photographing and recording of every tiny single blemish on Melissa eleven hours after her admission to Starship, and yet bruised ears were not photographed.

 

3. Dr K, Starship hospital notes 47.jpg

Supposedly this is what Patrick Kelly concluded upon his nit-picking examination about Melissa’s head. 

            Point A is a small laceration that I think I could well have done in the manner I took Melissa’s T-shirt off when she was comatose, to put her in the shower to try and get a response from her.

Point B was also made up and will be a future post.

            Point C was something, but it was not an abrasion.  It appeared to be more a small bruise, which could have occurred also with the manner I took Melissa’s T-shirt off to put her in the shower, but it was actually quite non-descript and could even have been one of the natural Mongolian marks Melissa had.  A later post will show a photo of this.

Point D Patrick Kelly told the jury was bruising below and in front of Melissa’s ear as part of the supposed ‘extensive’ bruising of the left ear, which photos do not show and was another made up injury.

 

4. Dr K, Trial 281.jpg

Despite not photographing these Patrick Kelly described them elaborately to the jury. He said it was difficult to see in the photos.  It was impossible to see!  The photos taken at Tauranga and Starship hospitals presented to the jury, did not show ears.  It could only be post-mortem photos he was referring to. 

Of sixty or so people who saw Melissa prior to Patrick Kelly examining her and the photographer taking photos as he pointed things out, not a single other person reported his ‘finding’. 

Mr B the neurosurgeon who did the craniotomy, all the while looking at Melissa’s right ear, did not notice any bruising and yet Patrick Kelly recorded them as old and fading only eleven hours post surgery.

You will also notice Patrick Kelly says the tip of the right ear is bruised, and relates it the rawness “small break in the skin” in the same sentence as though he is getting at I did something to rip Melissa’s ear from her scalp and cause bruising as I did so. 

However Patrick Kelly is very vague, defining the entire ear as an earlobe to cover all bases, so the jury, as with a lot of the ‘evidence’ were left to make assumptions.  

 

5. Dr K, Trial 307-308.jpg

Patrick Kelly said the notable suspicious ‘injury’ was “bruising to both earlobes”, “typical locations for child abuse”.  So why did he not see the importance of photographing them? When Tauranga hospital took photos upon Melissa's admittance, they did not photograph them, only the things that did exist.  A minimum of three photo shoots were done, but no photos supported this. Patrick Kelly did ensure photos were taken of other insignificant things though. 

These comments also tell the jury what they are to make of what he said of Melissa supposedly having bruising at the top of her right ear, plus the hygiene neglect issue Melissa had prior to my care that appeared as a “small break in the skin” at that almost complete stage of healing; when he said it can be from pulling or striking on the ear.

 

6. Dr K, Trial 301.jpg

Ironically, he described supposed “extensive” bruising to Melissa’ left earlobe and said hospital staff pinched Melissa there to check pain response.  (It was another of Patrick Kelly’s lies that Melissa was not responding to painful stimuli. That will be a future post).

 

7. Paramedic W, Statements 1 & 3.jpg

8. Paramedic W, Trial 34,  38 & 55.jpg

Paramedic W, statements 1 & 3 to police saying there was no ear bruising, but of course he didn’t mention this at trial, but instead watered that down to a very non-descript comment of ‘no external injuries except a cheek graze’.  This paramedic had become quite nasty when police re-charged me.

My lawyer re-confirms for Judge Stevens what prosecution covered, but Judge Stevens still went against the evidence.

 

9. Paramedic E, Trial 59.jpg

The reasonable paramedic E on the other hand, did say it how it was at trial.

 

10. Photo left ear 1.jpg

 

11. Photo left ear 2.jpg

 

12. Photo left ear 3.jpg

Supposedly there is extensive bruising on the lobes and in front below this ear, according to Patrick Kelly.

 

13. Photo right ear.jpg

If there was bruising on this ear where Patrick Kelly said it was, the persons thumb is hiding it and they didn't obviously see it to photograph it.

 

These photos are post-mortem; those being the only ones taken of Melissa's ears, or at least that weren’t edited out.  I have never been permitted to see what the jury was shown, because it was ruled inadmissible some photos Patrick Kelly gave them.  He gave them graphic morgue photos to ensure an emotive conviction immediately after the horrific case of Nia Glassie also held at the Rotorua courthouse, and the only photos of the ears would have been post-mortem ones.  As you can see there is NO bruising.

After Melissa's death, someone placed her head to the side so her right ear went very red due to the natural process of lividity, which the pathologist described as ‘purplish’.  A few particularly offensive and disturbing photos of Melissa’s body showing lividity was shown to the jury and I think one of the right ear was passed off by Patrick Kelly as bruising.  There is no other photos he could be referring to.  This must be what Dr Z crown forensic paediatric pathologist was referring to below, as being “just a redness there that is very difficult to interpret in the photograph”. As you can see none of these photos show redness apart from normal ear color tone.

I think what the post-mortem photographer attempted to show is recently healed rawness of Melissa's ears at the very top of them.  When she was dropped off at my house, both ears at the top where they join the scalp and bottom, were very crusty with deep fissures into her skin caused by hygiene issue neglect. They bled at the slightest touch when I applied cream, oil and powders to clear it up.  I don't know how this was not noticed by the previous foster parent who was quick to go me, but go figure.

 

14. Dr Z, Trial 466.jpg

Dr Z Crown forensic paediatric pathologist refused to comment on bruised ears when the Crown prosecutor tried to make her do so, saying there was no evidence of it. 

She also realised the Crown prosecutor was presenting a photo to her of the lower ear, trying to pass it off as the top of the ear.  The post-mortem photograph showing lividity of the right ear was particularly noticeable at bottom ear lobe; so the Crown prosecutor was trying to make the bruising look more extensive to the jury than Patrick Kelly described and in an area where my grip would not have bruised.

 

15. Dr D, post-mortem Statement

Dr D, the pathologist who performed the autopsy did not report any ear bruising.

 

16. Journal extract.jpg

I wrote an entry about Melissa’s raw ears in her journal.

 

17. Appeal book 31.jpg

In my second arrest statement to police I said Melissa’s hair had come out in my right hand, so was from her left side which also happened to be the side Melissa had fallen on and grazed her cheek and forehead.  I suspect this is why Patrick Kelly elaborated there was ‘extensive’ bruising on the left ear at trial, although that is not what is in the notes he submitted after I told the social worker I thought Melissa could have bruised ears, but prior to my second statement. 

I was not asked this question in my earlier statement.

I did not pull Melissa’s hair out!! 

 

18. Dr O, Trial 267 & 268.jpg

Defence came up with this evidence from Dr O, dermatologist. 

The Crown got their corrupt ESR scientist to declare the hair was forcibly pulled out prior to this, but she was not the least qualified to say this and only had a recent science degree, but she had co-operated with them previously with covering up crucial evidence for defence. 

The Crown were pretty excited to be able to have evidence I ‘forcibly’ pulled out hair and it was going to be another of the ‘evidences’ they would take maliciously without consideration of any other explanation.  This was one thing my lawyer did do right.

Melissa had a condition in which her hair could be extracted with little force, leaving no sign on her scalp of this occurring.  Other evidence such as not having any neck, soft tissue, cervical cord, bruised brain, retinal haemorrhages in both eyes, diffuse axonal injury and other things that are found in shaken baby; that would support  I used a lot of force in my response, were NOT present. 

If anything there not being the slightest bruising or sign on Melissa’s scalp of traumatic hair removal and no other injuries of shaking, proves I actually shook her quite gently in a way that did her no harm, just as I suspected but not sure about because her hair came out in my hand, as in my police statement!!

 

19. Appeal book 28.jpg

 

20. Appeal book 29.jpg

 

I have included my very poor response to Melissa collapsing comatose in my arms, when I was totally shocked and dissociated as it shows the way in which I held Melissa could have resulted in bruised ears. 

I have a different thought process to most people. Being naturally very scientifically minded I relate things that most others don’t.  I have the ability to see through a lot that others are not aware of until I explain it, because of this.  My brain automatically scans for all cause and all effect, but also evaluates angles the person could be asking from; in order to give the most accurate and feasible answer for the circumstance. 

Much more often than many others I can identify any cause and know the effect/s it will have or any effect/s to know the cause and have often felt I was born before my time. My brain extremely strongly resists committing to any option unless I believe it to be the truth.  In non-trivial matters I place no weight on my own opinion unless I have evidence to support it as truth. 

Because of events that occurred to me as a child I knew it takes a lot of force to remove hair; which is why my mind related some of Melissa’s hair coming out in my hand to force.  I thought I had shaken Melissa gently in a way that had done no harm, but this contradicted what I had personally experienced so I was unable at that stage to definitely commit one way or another.  The detective picked up on this so repeated the question.   It is very evident in those replies that I related Melissa’s hair coming out and my grip of ears and hair to the force applied.  I did not know at the time I was interviewed that in Melissa’s case the two were not linked at all, and in fact very little force was required to extract the hair.

I realise because I have said that, that haters out there will say because I was abused as a child, of course I would be an abuser; or as the judge labelled me from this one event, a person with “a propensity (natural part of my personality) to violence”; but my pushing Melissa went totally against my character and all I believed in and how compassionate and empathetic a person I had become in spite of and to an extent because of, my upbringing, in addition to other things. 

My pushing Melissa resulted from the cumulated effect of repeat traumas not related to my upbringing.  I had already worked with a psychologist at twenty to resolve those.

I look back on my response and see it as a perfect example of how my brain shuts out when faced with trauma and stress.  In my right mind or in anyone’s right mind I suppose, I would not think that by showing a comatose person with their eyes shut, animals, would make them come around.  I had a number of other similar responses in situations involving accidental trauma to my children that could have been proven and was witnessed by other adults, but my lawyer did not follow up on any of those.

Yes I had psychological issues due to trauma at the time, and have a different thinking process to most people.  I shall be elaborating on these in a latter post.  This did not mean I was a murderer.  It just made it more convenient to the Crown to make out I was, and easier for them to scapegoat me. 

A few months after my interview, because of not knowing if I used more force than I originally suspected and because a woman I knew had previously caused me to believe ears bruise easily; I suggested to a social worker when we were discussing my response, that I thought Melissa could have bruises on her ears.  I also told her this would be from how I held her if so, and demonstrated my grip.

After my admission to the social worker, Patrick Kelly submitted an undated statement, evaluation notes and discharge document saying the ears were bruised, to defence. These seemingly have been edited, as seen by darker inane pages amongst lighter ones with this and other crucial information on them.

(It was common for defence to be given undated documents, I suppose so the jury could not see they had those documents prior to the withdrawal of my first arrest.  For what other reason would they scream out “extremely unprofessional”!!!!!!!!!)

            Much later on I explained to my lawyer Rachael Adams how I held Melissa and that it matched where Patrick Kelly reckoned there were bruises. 

Regardless of whether I happened to bruise Melissa’s ears with how I gripped her or not, why did Patrick Kelly not see the importance of photographing them if so?

Because I immediately co-operated fully with police despite my state of shock and dissociation, and was so openly honest apart from saying Melissa had fallen from the portacot, I set myself up to be convicted.  I enabled them to pick and choose, make up, and alter ‘evidence’ to suit Patrick Kelly’s agenda of getting me convicted and helping Dr Jones save face, to their greatest ability. 

It was to be my downfall to co-operate and be so honest.  The lie did not do that.  The evidence of a short fall is the evidence of a short fall as correctly acknowledged when my charge was withdrawn citing “no suspicious circumstances”.  It is what I enabled because of maintaining my personal integrity apart from that, that I would pay the price for.  That and because I had the ability to see through things and was probing.

 

21. Misc (M) 1-61, p14.jpg

 

22. Misc (M) 1-61, p29.jpg

 

23. Misc (M) 1-61, p30.jpg

Good old Judge Lynton Stevens, if there is no evidence from prosecution to prove the ears were bruised and in addition they deliberately cut out all photos of the ears because it would prove they weren’t, then accept it as fact anyway because Patrick Kelly said so.