more to come

Appeal court, coroners, Health and disability Commissioner,Ombudsmans Office, CYFS and Judicial misconduct authority obstructive authorities and closing ranks to come yet. I have had a change of mind on posting documents on CYFS and the Judicial misconduct authority; as those issues are not related to Melissa's hospital treatment neglect and how worthless she was regarded, Doctors saving face and taxpayers dollars and the scapegoating of myself so they would not be held accountable. A CYFS social worker and an Open Home Foundation social worker got together to be very nasty making up allegations and saying other children had said it. A lot of this they got from what Dr K crown specialist pediatrician, told them, that was so extreme and out there that the police did nothing with it, but the two social workers had a field day with it, saying other children had said things supporting what Dr K said. Autopsy proved him very wrong and CYFS have been sweeping it under the mat since. Despite my having documents that clearly show where they got their "allegations" from and that CYFS had never interviewed the children, they ruled the social workers were perfect. Of course, as they do. The Judicial Misconduct Authority was in relation to how the trial judge broke the law on a couple of occasions to stack things against me and accepting what Dr K had to have it be for sentencing AGAINST the facts, and how biased he ran the trial. They focused only on what he did right to rule he was perfect (he certainly is intelligent with his sly deceit). As they do. And as anyone non-independent rules of their own workers.

Obstructive authority 4, ADHB

They,like the BOP health board originally told me I was entitled to Melissa's notes, but then changed their mind when they realised who I was. The cheek of them to say they were protecting the deceased privacy, when they didn't give the slightest care about preserving her life.

Obstruction authority 3, BOP health board

After initially telling me I was fully entitled to Melissa's notes as her caregiver, they then changed their mind when they realised I was the scapegoat.

Obstruction authority 2, Medical Council

No reply at all!

Obstruction authority 1, Crown Law Office

Melissa's parents once said they would like to know the truth about what happened to Melissa. Perhaps they should take over pushing for a coroners inquest then. That is if they really want to know. I am awaiting the final reply. It will be all excuses and beating around the bush also. I shall post it when it arrives.

"In the midst of serious injuries and 54 people dying in the UK"...........(young women with straight long light brown hair, white top/dress, only see top half, she is sitting, very black left eye. It wasn't her that said this, it was a he, she is featured).

Another two faced eg

Then there's this paper he co-authored too, in which he analyses the cost. I always knew it was about the cost. Money means so much more to the government then anyones life. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0145213412001901 Friedman, J., Reed, P., Sharplin, P., & Kelly, P. (2012). Primary prevention of pediatric abusive head trauma: a cost audit and cost-utility analysis. Child abuse & neglect, 36 (11-12), 760-770 A GCS of 8 or less is defined as “severe,” likely to require lifelong personal support. Nine or more is defined as “moderate,” if “long term support needs” are evident 6 months later. ACC states “some flexibility is required when considering children, especially those aged three and younger. This is because it can be difficult to determine GCS and PTA [post-traumatic amnesia] accurately at these ages,” and “cerebral palsy” from childhood brain damage is “an exception, and should be profiled” (Accident Compensation Corporation, 2009). Dr K crown specialist pediatrician, measured Melissa's responsiveness, GSC whilst she was sedated, on paralytics and hypothermic. Melissa's parents were told that Melissa would be paralyzed down one side and her other leg paralyzed as well and that she would not be able to talk, be blind in one eye, etc in order that they would minimize the cost to taxpayers. But there is no certainties with brain injury, only much uncertainty, especially of children, who have much greater capacity to heal then Dr K would ever admit.

Hypocrites of anti domestic violence campaign

Paediatricians pick and choose who they will treat when they know they can scapegoat someone else for it and stroke their ego and manipulate statistics. Then they give the further seriously injured children a morphine overdose when they refuse to die, to make themselves correct. The coroner, the crown law office, CYFS, judges, police, the human rights commission, the health and disability commissioner, the ombudsman, they all know it happens, but no-one speaks out. (And the ones who dare to are gagged, oppressed and ostracised). You see the government likes to dictate and for us to obey and be controlled, but they hate to set by example.

They can't even get the obvious basics right!

Does anyone else see something amiss here, or is it just me??? Tauranga doctors who immediately diagnosed "shaken baby" when Melissa was admitted on the 4th January 2006, also happened to say Melissa would die any moment and that was their excuse to neglect her and not give her emergency surgery offered by the Tauranga neurosurgeon. The judge gave them their own way to rule it was 'shaken baby", but isn't saying she died on a day other than that in which she did so, a bit out there? How did I allegedly kill Melissa before she was dead?

perjury of Mr B, neurosurgeon

Mr B committed perjury when he said he did not find macroscopic evidence of the earlier accidental head injury when he operated. Many hospital notes say otherwise. Detective Senior Sergeant T told my lawyer that the assault charge was withdrawn as Mr B had removed two clots at surgery of two different ages and that meant little force was required for the re-bleed. My lawyer did nothing with this information come trial. If you can read doctors illegible writing, here's just some of the documented evidence of a prior subdural seen and removed prior to and at surgery. It was not the head injury that was fatal as Dr Gabrielle Nuthall says in the bottom excerpt of course. Hospital neglect and morphine overdose saw to that. I put that one in anyway as it is subdural haemorrhages, plural! Mr B has since threatened me with defamation if I am to publish this, but I thought defamation only related to lies??? I have nothing to lose anyway and couldn't care less what I get charged with for whistleblowing. Oh well, good luck to him. He will be anonymous in my book, as I see him a reluctant player in the game of perjury, he is not responsible for Melissa's misdiagnosis, neglect or death and because I see him as very professional and have empathy that he is caught up on a system that is only about saving face.

Manipulating statistics

Dr K,crown specialist paediatrician has already been slammed in the media by one daring honest judge for saying things are abuse when they aren't. That is just the tip of the iceberg. The system condones the way he dices with lives. I wonder how long this has been going on for and how many children died prior to Melissa and hence, because a doctor refuses to assist them to the full extent; just because they know they can put it down to abuse and scapegoat and nail someone else to the max ability they can? Dr K’s focus is on venge and spite, not children's lives or quality thereof. People don't matter in this country. Even the value of the lives of children is all lip service. People like Dr Gabrielle Nuthall, intensivist, choose not to treat children if she feels assured she can put it down to someone else causing the death and she gets away with it and has the system close rank for her. Dr’s like K then go on to say BS things in court like "because she died it was inflicted" and makes up his own self glorified 'research' based upon children refused treatment and what he wants their death to be, so he can dispute all the honest reputable research out there. I was offered a plea bargain bribe after my second arrest. The police would reduce the charge to manslaughter if I pled guilty and told the courts I only shook Melissa. I did not accept as it was untrue, but that is what the judge gave Dr K anyway. That way Dr K would have free reign and never be held to account to say as he liked of the actual and made up injuries for his ‘research’. At trial he used his own incorrect unscientific ‘research’ to encourage a conviction, such as saying shaken baby cases can have unilateral deep large haemorrhages with only half the brain and only one eye injured. All of which go against logic and other reputable science of shaking. Mark my words, when Dr K retires, so long as an objective, professional, scientific, child loving paediatrician steps into his shoes, NZ's "child abuse" rate will drastically fall, especially of child deaths. In England a well renowned paediatrician was given a little slap on the hand for sending a lot of people to prison he accused of murder when their children died of cot death. But this one paediatrician had it in his head that 'cot death' was made up, no such thing and come hell or high water he was dead set on disputing it and making up his own rules and statistics at the cost of peoples lives. We have our very own one of those right here in NZ's backyard.

Saving face tactics of CYFS, lawyer, crown prosecutor etc and their gagging

When I was first arrested on 4 Jan 2006, CYFS kept me from being with my family for four months (I was not even allowed to hug them goodbye when flown to Wellington from Tauranga police custody and my youngest had never been apart from me and believed it was his fault I didn’t ‘want’ to be with him). I don't hold it against CYFS that immediately they would want me kept from the family until an investigation found I was a good mother to them, but I was bailed to a friend in Wellington who had four children, the eldest 6 years, the youngest 4 months; and they carried on excluding me from being with my children long after their investigation had concluded I was a good parent of them all, there had never been concerns, I had many supporters testifying to that and they had closed their investigation. On the night I pushed Melissa, the police gave me a choice to have the children go into CYFS care and I could be with my husband, or to be released elsewhere and the children could stay with my husband. I chose the latter because I always put my children first and I had plenty of friends in the Tauranga area to go to. When a nasty OHF social worker found out the deal, she told CYFS. That was when CYFS told police that if I’m released the children would be taken from my husband, split up and put in a number of homes regardless. Therefore, it was CYFS who forced the police to arrest me immediately. (This reflects the care and concern CYFS had for my children to not be together and with friends and their father when experiencing major trauma). The police were as reasonable as they could be initially, but were put in a situation of having to tip the scales against me to further put my children first. When the police with-drew that charge it caused CYFS to then allow me home. There was never any follow up from CYFS to see how I was coping, no thought to effect on the household with my return in my emotional state they had put me in or for what I had experienced, never a face to face interview with me. As soon as the police could take the blame if I was to do anything, CYFS were nowhere to be seen or heard. When I was re-arrested in May 2007 I was given a bail condition that I could not look after children under contract. In other words foster children or barnados day care etc; but I was allowed to look after anyone under private arrangement or newspaper adverts etc. Again I feel this was to save face. So how much of a murderous maniac did the Crown prosecutor and police really believe I was? A CYFS national office worker told me that if anything goes through the courts for my wanting access and custody of my son, they would sabotage that. And that is exactly what CYFS have gone on to do. Any case that go through courts they come down on the parent who has had publicity such as mine whether there are valid concerns or not. I was told to make arrangements outside of court if I want custody, but my ex is not reasonable or normal enough for that and wants to maintain his income source. So rather then allow the much better parent who steps up to the plate have custody, they choose to let my son stay in the abusive, negative, neglectful situation I was rescued from when I went to prison. When providing court documents to the judge, they ensured they put in the words “high profile”. I know what instruction that was to the judge. This is exactly like my trial. Only this time instead of everything stacked against me, it is stacked against my son. Again to save face, but this time for CYFS,not doctors. It seems the judge has not even bothered to read my submissions by his totally incorrect statements. All he had to read was the two words “high profile” CYFS wrote. CYFS refused to put anything positive on their submission of course. The entire document was as incriminating as they could make it, given lies accepted as fact against the evidence by judge Lynton Stevens; and lies Dr K told them in addition, that were never presented to anyone else as they were so far out and extreme. A notification of very serious abuse I made to CYFS four years before they acted upon it which they chose to ignore “because of what we have on our file about you” and my contacts to their office a number of times over it were not explained, as they were in my favour and CYFS would lose face, but they gave those contact dates to the court as dates in which notifications had been made to them about ME! They also said a meeting I had with them about how nasty and unprofessional one of their social workers had been and misconduct by CYFS, was my having a meeting “to discuss custody and access”. They refuse to reply to me on providing full explanations to the court on those events and on things that are not the least bit incriminating that they have taken out of context and twisted around, so the judge can read it only as incriminating. You see, authorities to save face have to bring someone down to be victimised. They have to choose to believe all the lies and add to it. In order to save face they have to scapegoat someone else and abuse their power of authority. And useless lawyers and the injustice system condone it all. It is not about children’s wellbeing. It’s about saving face in case the media find out; and my ex and his nasty girlfriend will make sure they do. They get rewarded for being the poor parents who never step up in any relationships and for being nasty; and my son gets to carry on having very low self esteem, unsupported education, no interest in him as a person from that household, introverting to cope with life more and more, the misery of living at that house etc etc. The contributors of what led me to push Melissa, is what CYFS say is fine for my son to stay in. So long as you don’t have media or court action, CYFS let the lousiest parents parent all they like. If New Zealands child abuse rate is as high as unprofessional, unscientific, vengeful, biased people like Dr K wants us all to believe, then CYFS contribute toward that a great deal with their focus and emphasis on saving face. It’s not about children, to Dr K or to CYFS. With CYFS it does not matter what the truth is, just as for the justice system. When Mr Kahui was found innocent of killing his twins, CYFS kept him from his new daughter anyway. It did not matter that his partner had to struggle without his support with a newborn, or that his daughter had her formative years without her father. All that mattered was if the haters in society found out and caused a stir. That’s how it was and is for me too. They refuse to do what’s best for my son because the stirrers in society will make sure the media knows, and New Zealanders pack much more of a drama when they have a seemingly socially condoned excuse to hate upon people, then they do of making authorities do what they are meant to and acknowledging the truth. Children pay the price of saving face tactics the authorities have and the vengeful hate of those in society champing at the chance to spite. I am allowed to have custody and care of anyone else’s children freely and to my hearts content now I am off parole, but I am not permitted to do what’s best for my son because it is going through the family court. There was much more incriminating evidence against the Kahui twins mother then there was the father, but she got to carry on with children and parenting with no restrictions at all, because she wasn’t the subject going through the court public domain. The police will never re-charge a stronger suspect if the initial person charged is exonerated. There is no way they will choose to carry on losing face over revealing the truth and justice. They will let murderers walk free rather then do that. It is all about saving face for them too. They want to look infallible rather then human. That is theirs and CYFS biggest failings. The Crown prosecutor, my trial lawyer and police still do their darndest to save face, with the mysterious disappearance of documents I am entitled to and refusal to provide evidential documents they never gave defence. My trial lawyer moonlights as a lecturer at Lincoln University and the law society are investigating her over a misconduct of other client’s documents. I was given documents of other people’s cases in the 75% of papers she returned to me. The law society refuse to tell me if a box of my missing papers are amongst the ones she sent off to other clients and they didn’t care that the most important documents and CD’s happen to be the ones missing. She will be protected because she gives it to the crown and is a lecturer. Each authority who is meant to do their job and assist truth and justice makes the excuse that everything I seek should have been brought up at trial or that I’ve waited too long to address it. I have been pushing to address it for 2 years and I happened to get a lawyer who gave it to the crown. The 7 years prior to that, the crown had me well and truly gagged and bound. Now I see why. Now I see there was more to it them taking nearly four years to take it to trial, other than just having to make it a tight case based upon lies and sourcing “experts” prepared to perjure. Isn’t it so very handy for the crown that they have bought in a bill under guise of an anti-bullying bill that will force servers to remove material from the web that is deemed upsets another with intent. They will use that bill to gag freedom of speech, to further gag whistle blowers and in time, to probably shut this blog down as they did for my Topix one when it was not yet legal for them to do so. They say it doesn’t matter if the person is wronged and putting the truth on the web. This Bill is to give the government more power to gag people.

Bla bla two faced talk of judge Stevens

(Trial 690) Judge Stevens: "Inferences are simply conclusions drawn from other proven facts. It must be logical and rational. It must never be speculation or guess work. If in relation to any aspect of the case, the evidence would support two conclusions of similar weight, then to choose between them would be to guess and you should not do that". It turned out that the jury did exactly what instructed not to do, but due to my lawyers fault more than their own. (Although my benefit of the doubt runs thin when you read all the defence evidence that was actually presented in court by crown and defence experts alike. It would seem a lot of coin tossing still went on). And this is exactly what Judge Stevens did deliberately. The irony thing again! So what can you ‘infer’ given all the factual evidence as it really is? I know first hand now, how easily our justice system puts innocent people in prison. It makes me thankful I am guilty of assault, as I can commit much easier to trying to make the most of this. I don’t have to waste energy beating at stone walls designed to maintain convictions to save face, come hell or high water. I can see how frustrated they must get at lack of evidence to convict child abusers. I can see the majority of the time they get it correct. I can make excuses for all they did wrong in order to get me convicted, by putting it down to frustration and them being so intuitive they believed I was guilty. However, I can not accept the truth of what actually happened, not being accepted. I owe Melissa, her family, other children of New Zealand and God, that much at least.

co-operating with hate against yourself

I think most people respect the police and would co-operate with their interviews, but when you are suspected it is definitely the wrong thing to do. The police used my co-operation to arrest me immediately when I was in a state of shock, then fed the information to Dr K so he could pick and choose what he was going to make up, elaborate on and inflate, to go me to the best of his ability. A few things Dr K has made up are in relation to ideas he got from others, but also my saying I shook Melissa gently (first said at Tauranga hospital hence the immediate decision to write Melissa off) was what made him decide very early on, that he had firm ground to declare it was ‘solely shaken baby’ and to make all other ‘facts’ support this.

When all the lies are taken out

The prior accidental head injury consisted of: a small subdural, pons beading in the upper brainstem (covered up by the crown neuropathologist, accepted as fact by the judge), “one cervical cord root with an area of abnormal fibers of unknown significance” and a bruise left rear (covered up). The recent head injury: large subdural re-bleed; (T,420,Tl 436) lower brainstem medulla beading, minor trauma; (T, 422), corpus collosum beading; bruising front left; small contact subdural front left (both covered up). Secondary to injury and not being operated on in time, was spinal cord ischemia determined by Dr R defense neuropathologist four additional tests, and widespread brain cell death caused by ischemia. Judge Stevens remarked to me at sentencing that he hoped I had read Melissa’s fathers victim impact statement, as he thought it extremely fair and balanced. In particular he hoped I had read “to this day I still do not really know how or why Melissa received such serious injuries. These have never been truthfully explained by the accused in my view, and this only makes it worse for me not knowing exactly how Melissa’s final few hours of meaningful life unfolded. It would certainly help if I knew what had really happened on the day in question”. Judge Stevens then did all he could to cover up the truth and not let Melissa’s loved ones have the ‘facts’. Incidentally, I was refused the opportunity to read any impact statements by my lawyer despite my repeated requests to do so. Making these lies ‘fact’ covered up evidence of a prior head injury Melissa accidentally sustained fifteen days earlier, that made her very susceptible to a catastrophic head injury with little force. It also enabled the Crown prosecutor to make out there were multiple impact sites in order to make out the event was extremely violent, deliberate and prolonged. They also said “the lethal consequences of shaking babies and striking babies is often enough publicized”. What I did was neither of these and I still would never have guessed that Melissa could hit her head, for what I did, but she did and the impact was significant due to a high degree of rotation. But what it enabled the most, was Drs K, J, Gabriel Nuthall and Tavey Dorofaeef to get away with picking and choosing whom they decide is worthy of treatment and life, and to then have no accountability whatsoever. My entire trial was generally based upon lies, twisting innocent things around to appear guilty, circumstantial evidence, inferences, guesses, crown biased judge….. and Mr HJ would just keep saying to the jury “What do you make of that”. The jury wasn’t meant to make things of nothing and imagine. But I wonder what they would all think when they read this blog or my book. Dr M, defense specialist pediatrician (Trial, 566): “If in the face of the obvious, you say that the obvious does not exist, well fine”.

I don’t call him a “justice” that’s for sure.

135 False or misleading statements and omissions in certain documents (1)Every person commits an offence against this section, and is liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $1,000, who, in any document to which subsection (2) applies, makes a statement or omits any matter knowing that, or being reckless as to whether, the statement or omission makes the document false or misleading in a material particular. (2)This subsection applies to the following documents: (a)a doctor's report required under section 40: (b)a witness's evidence put into writing, read over to or by the witness, and signed by the witness, in accordance with section 79(3): That's what I mean by you need to be a doctor or a judge in order to do a finger to the law and get away with it.

Judge Lynton Stevens does a finger to the law for sentencing

Judge Lynton Stevens does a finger to the law for sentencing Mr HJ, crown prosecutor (633) at summing up said “Crown says that the mechanism of death involved impact. Involved impact! It did involve impact and we are agreed on that. The debate is not that impact involved death, but what caused the impact. You can exclude shaking alone. To be legally culpable, legally responsible for that, that mechanism has to have caused Melissa’s death.” Judge Stevens repeated it was impact many times in summing up. “I have set out what the Crown allegation is, that the unlawful act was an assault by the accused by impacting the head of the deceased” (T 694). At sentencing Judge Stevens changed his story from impact to accepting as fact “solely shaking” and said “I accept that was the way in which the case was originally put to trial but…..(bla bla BS)”. Durrrrr Judge Stevens, it’s what you used to get me convicted at summing up because that’s all the evidence proved!!!!!!! (801) The crown prosecutor persisted with impact for sentencing, but was totally disregarded by Judge Stevens. (7, 8 crown submission for sentence). Your honesty in this regard did not go un-noticed by me Mr HJ! I have not given up on getting the truth out. You can all stonewall me as much as you can and you will not succeed. As that idiot judge told me at sentencing Melissa’s family deserve to know the truth.

9) That there were “injured nerve fibres in the spinal cord caused by whiplash mechanism”.

9) That there were “injured nerve fibres in the spinal cord caused by whiplash mechanism”. (Crucial for shaken baby). Most definitely against evidence “Justice” Stevens was well aware of. Dr R defence forensic specialist neuropathologist, (trial 432, 435-438) discovered by doing four tests more then Dr S, crown forensic neuropathologist to determine the type of injury; that all confirmed it was due to ischemia (not being operated on soon enough and oxygen deprivation to the tissue). Dr S did one test that confirmed brain tissue death only and was inconclusive as to primary injury or secondary complication. Despite this, Dr K, crown specialist paediatrician pushed it at trial, and the judge accepted it as ‘fact’. Dr S (Trial 430) in falls the damage to the brain can be described as rotational. In relation to the neck to simplify it for people we can describe it as ‘whiplash’, and people would normally associate that with sudden or violent movement of the head in relation to the neck, but in actual fact in a fall the rotational movement of the head on occasion can have a whip-like effect on the neck. In other words so Dr K and judge Stevens could be as dramatic as possible they described the non-existent “inured” nerve fibres in the neck as being caused by whiplash mechanism and Dr K showed a video of a very young baby (doll) being shaken very violently gripped under the armpits and it’s head being thrown back and forth violently, so the jury could have that image as “whiplash”. Dr S, admitted that even with her insistence of her inconclusive test being due to trauma rather than secondary, that Dr R’s finding could well be right (trial 430) and that this ‘injury’ she would accept as being caused by a low level fall regardless. There was no soft tissue injury in the spinal cord (trial 431). She summed up that disregarding the ischaemia in the spinal cord as being due to ‘trauma’ all that is left is a subdural haematoma that she accepts can occur in short falls.

8) Cause of death violent shaking b)

Dr Z, crown forensic paediatric pathologist, (Trial 471): Nature of the subdural haematoma is not usually seen in a shaking case. ((Trial 479): Dr F, defence forensic pathologist agrees). (Trial 472): subdural is typical of impact not shaking. “Melissa death was the consequence of a process which began with a severe impact”. There was no soft tissue, ligament, muscle or fracture damage to the neck. (Trial 468): “I believe Melissa died from a head injury that was associated with impact that has led to subdural haemorrhage and the subsequent cerebral oedema on the right side”. (Trial 470): “it was indeed my first thought when I saw this impact abrasion” when asked by Mr HJ, crown prosecutor if she agrees with Dr F’s conclusion that the cheek mark was from the carpet. “Dr D crown pathologist and I both identified it as a patterned injury caused by a patterned surface”. “I recognized the textured surface of the carpet with the pattern on the cheek”. Dr F defence forensic pathologist (Trial 479) “when you get to older children, the likelihood of being able to shake a child to produce any significant injury to the brain becomes really quite remote”. (Trial 479) Shaken baby subdural are usually bilateral and thin, not unilateral and large and are caused by hypoxia (breathing lack of oxygen that Melissa did not experience). (Trial 503): tells the jury that it is his area of expertise that should give opinion of the retinal haemorrhage cause, not Dr K’s or an ophthalmologist. (Trial 506): the compression and starvation of oxygen applied only to the one eye on the same side of the brain where there was ischemia and deprivation of oxygen caused the retinal haemorrhages (Tersons syndrome). (Trial 481) There is clear evidence of impact with similar left cheek and left forehead injury. He agrees entirely with Dr Z crown forensic paediatric pathologist that both injuries are similar (both grazes caused by hitting the carpet). Dr M defence specialist paediatrician and director of the paediatric forensic service of a children’s hospital with a catchment of 6,000,000 people said (Trial 559): “I have never seen a case in shaken baby of a large mass effect subdural on one side causing pressure on the brain”. The judge got this expert to reconfirm that he sees no reason to think that repetitive rotational injury (shaking) occurred here and that the retinal haemorrhages had to be caused by pressure in the brain, despite this expert being quite clear about this previously. It was quite a drilling with the judge being well and truly clarified by Dr M that it was not shaking! The judge concluded the questioning by saying “yes, I understand”. If he did then he went against his own understanding to support Dr K. (Trial 542): “shaken baby syndrome would not enter my head as a primary diagnosis”. When discussing the brain swelling: “if it’s a primary effect it’s due to the shaking of the brain within the skull stretching the axons causing diffuse injury to the axons” (This is why Dr K insisted there was diffuse axonal injury immediately and throughout trial even when it was proven she did not have that by autopsy. It was crucial for shaken baby) or it’s a secondary effect due to hypoxia (the haemorrhage pressure preventing oxygen getting to the tissues, which in time if the pressure is not alleviated within a crucial timeframe causes ischemia). (Trial 543): Retinal haemorrhages secondary to raised intracranial pressure, which he himself had seen a case of. (Trial 550): there is nothing inconsistent with an impact. “an impact is by far and away the most likely cause for the subdural haemorrhage, no question about that. I don’t think anybody would question that by far and away”. (Trial 555): “there is absolutely no reason at all to invoke shaking”. (Trial 560): Dr M is the qualified expert to interpret the ophthalmologist’s findings. It is their role to provide the findings. Melissa’s retinal haemorrhages is a result of brain swelling putting pressure on her eye, Tersons syndrome (Trial 561): The type of retinal haemorrhages seen in Melissa’s eye is totally consistent with impact. (Trial 552): impact injury is most likely cause for all the findings. Mr HJ, crown prosecutor tried very forcefully to get Dr M defence specialist paediatrician to say that if a case presented like Melissa’s only with no impact evidence and a prior ‘unexplained’ head injury that the logical conclusion would be to assume abuse immediately. I believe he did this so Dr K could have a very respected ally. However, Melissa did have impact injury for both the inadvertently inflicted and prior explained accidental head injury. It explains why the Crown ignored the old scalp bruising found left rear at autopsy and only included the internal effects in Melissa’s head of pons beading and a small subdural. It also explains why Dr K had to have the recent impact evidence classed as bruising from the pressure monitor inserted at surgery. One of Dr K’s ‘hearsays’ to the jury was that Mr B, neurosurgeon had said to him that the obvious impact evidence underlying the outer forehead graze found at autopsy was caused by the pressure monitor. Mr B himself had never documented this or was asked it when he took the stand, nor was he the expert to determine this. (Trial 465): The three pathologists Dr D, original crown pathologist, Dr Z, crown forensic paediatric pathologist and Dr F, defence forensic pathologist, who were the experts to determine this, said the bruising was well away from the monitor and described the contact subdural. Defence specialist paediatrician Dr M agreed. Dr Z also commented that Mr B would not have reflected the scalp as she did, to determine the bruising was not separate from the monitor (Trial 465). There is not a comment to be found from Mr B, who obviously accepted it was not his area of expertise and was professional. With all the evidence it seemed Dr B was very reluctant to join in with Dr K’s vendetta and attempted to uphold his integrity. Unfortunately he did lie about not seeing the older subdural haemorrhage when he operated. A rather important omission. Only Dr K would think to dispute evidence of impact injury under the scalp immediately under the forehead graze noticed at Tauranga hospital, by saying a not yet inserted monitor caused it. Dr D, crown pathologist, said monitor was midline. “bruising is noticed adjacent to the pressure monitor. There is some further bruising of the deep scalp over the left side in a rather diffuse pattern”. A 5cm wide grayish area was present close to the olfactory bulb on the undersurface of the left frontal brain lobe. There was a separate red 1cm round area on the inner or medial surface of the left frontal brain lobe. Both these areas were suggestive of bruises”. Dr K also said at trial of Mr B neurosurgeon that he’d said the bleeding was still occurring at operation and he had to stop it. Mr B has only ever documented the opposite and said so at trial. This was to counter the evidence that two subdurals were picked up by CT scan and seen and removed at operation, so Dr K could support his story that it was acute and hyperacute detected and removed, rather than the subdural that occurred 15 days earlier as well as the later one. Despite this Dr K himself said: impact is “probably part” of the abuse; Subdural pattern very different to ‘shaking’ agreeing with Dr M, defense specialist pediatrician. (Trial 370): Significant element of rotation in a complex fall can tear a bridging vein, and that the forces can be significant but not extreme if these two conditions apply. (Trial 353, 356, 357, 366): He also said “Melissa was too old, an unusual presentation for ‘shaking’ and that it would be extremely difficult to cause a haemorrhage of this nature by shaking”. Dr S, crown forensic neuropathologist (Trial 427): “I have seen recently, an indication that it may well be that in short falls on occasion the positioning of the body as it falls will suddenly produce or rise above the levels of force at which tissue damage as this can be done”. (Trial 424): “there is a limited time period before the tissues begin to die off so that the sooner the blood clot can be removed; the more likely it is that there will not be permanent tissue damage leading to serious consequences to the brain”. “There was already tissue death by the time Melissa was operated on”. (Trial 423): “singulate hernia put pressure on the anterior arteries”. (Trial 415): “A hippocampal hernia put pressure on the mid brain stem”. “A large subdural haematoma needs to be removed to relieve the pressure on the brain and to allow for these hernias of tissue to retreat back to their normal position”. (Trial 416): “brain was still quite swollen, but with the release of pressure of the blood clot the midline structures had moved back to a more normal position. The singlulate hernia had retracted to the normal place in the brain and also the hippocampal hernia had retreated back and lay in its normal position”. (Trial 423): “widespread areas of tissue death because when the hernia from the hippocampal area was pushed down into the opening in the tentorial membrane, it had squeezed the blood vessels supplying that part of the brain stem and led to small but quite numerous areas of tissue death consistent with the pressure from the subdural clot pushing the brain tissue downward”. (Trial 422): “damage was due to poor blood flow to certain parts of the brain as a result of the brain compression from the haematoma before it was removed at operation”. Dr F, defence forensic pathologist, (M35) Melissa Sale died as a direct result of at least one and probably the combined effect of two impact injuries (prior accidental and subsequent inadvertently inflicted) to her head. There is no evidence that this impact was contributed to by an episode of deliberate shaking. (My lawyer failed to get Dr F to mention this in court which is one of the main points in which she was clearly “giving it to the crown” ) Dr G, defence ophthalmologist (Trial 532): brought up a case at trial virtually identical to Melissa’s of a child who had a low level fall, except for a few less retinal haemorrhages and that the child was operated on soon enough. The child is doing extremely well and has no after effects. Bearing in mind my confession to shaking (to get a response from comatose Melissa) was very early on; don’t you think my original charge would not have been withdrawn with conclusion of “no suspicious circumstances”, if the Crown believed the shaking was much more then that, and all the evidence supported their belief?” The manner in which I shook Melissa was with her in a sitting position with both my hands cupped over her head gripping some hair and top of ears at the top of her head, followed by more rocking rather than shaking her cradled in my arms when some of her hair came out in my hand. It was done so gently that as the evidence shows she did not get any injury as a result. This is totally different to the dramatic video Dr K showed in court of a very young infant doll with its head lolling back and forth violently, held under the armpits. Dr K told CYFS that retinal haemorrhages means ‘shaken baby’. It was this that caused them to not operate on Melissa immediately and to put her aside to die. Part of the covered up evidence and instruction my lawyer refused to bring up was that Dr K was on duty when Melissa was brought to Tauranga hospital and had conversed with staff there soon after her arrival and had given his opinion immediately (SOF version 3,19). It was the detectives excuse to arrest me by that a paediatrician of Starship had phoned them and said it was extremely violent shaken baby immediately. I asked them three times who that paediatrician was and they refused to tell me, but other documents show it was Dr K. It was covered up because the doctor immediately involved in treating Melissa was not permitted to then be a witness at trial. Dr K told the jury he heard of the case and met Melissa a couple of days later after ‘many’ experts notified him the case was suspicious and that his first assessment was when he was doing his nitpicking bodily injury examination and documentation. The judge tried very hard throughout trial to have the jury disregard strong defence points in a number of corrupt and unjust ways. He was very prejudiced. His contempt of court sidekick who tossed her head, had convulsions and verbally scoffed whenever defence experts were on the stand, has also edited the trial transcript to be more biased in the crowns favour, a number of times. At sentencing, Judge Lynton Stevens said a mitigating factor was my taking emphasis off my offending by blogging some facts. His comment was edited out of the sentencing notes. My answer to that is “when fact is thrown at fiction, the natural effect is for fiction to be downplayed”. I refuse to take responsibility/blame for what I didn’t do; only what I should.

8) Cause of death violent shaking a)

8) Cause of death violent shaking. Most definitely against evidence Judge Stevens was well aware of. (13A SOF, version 3): It was not until the final revised version of the Crown summary of facts, written up shortly before trial, undated and un-named where it was stated that medical investigations had concluded that Melissa had been solely violently shaken and my admission of gently shaking and rocking to try and get a reaction from Melissa was included. It was Dr K crown specialist paediatrician that had to have it be put down to solely shaken baby and although he said it was all other experts too and told the media in the area of circulation of jury selection shortly before trial, “that all the experts had concluded Melissa was violently shaken”; it was only him. In the previous SOF’s it was stated that impact was involved. Det.Snr.Sgt T didn’t request ESR to test luminal positive mark on the carpet until 9/5/07. The sample was sent to them along with a false comment that medical investigations concluded it was shaking. The sample was sent 25/6/07, (AFTER I had already been re-charged with murder, the police citing ‘new evidence’ of which they never produced). On 21/4/06 Det.Snr.Sgt T told the prosecution officer that testing was complete and no further charges will be laid. Why did they never get the luminal mark tested prior to reopening the case? I infer, because the luminal mark looks exactly like what was on Melissa’s cheek. Why did ESR’s scientist V have to know the alleged cause of death Dr K wanted it to be, to do the comparison, if they are supposedly objective, scientific and professional? Dr K had to have cervical cord injury and retinal haemorrhaging to support his theory and ego and to carry on saving face. As explained prior, there was no cervical cord injury. Of the retinal haemorrhaging: (Trial 451): Judge Stevens cut off my lawyer when she began to question Dr M2 original crown ophthalmologist on impact alone causing retinal haemorrhages. The crown sourced another ophthalmologist Dr M3 second crown ophthalmologist from overseas very close to trial when it became apparent Dr M2 was going to be too professional, objective and scientific for Dr K’s purpose, even with all the medical facts kept from him and only a filtered opinion from Dr K handed to him. (He said at trial that he was given a lot more medical information two days before trial because Dr G, defence ophthalmologist gave him some). It appears Dr M2 was also of Dr M1’s personality, so the crown refused to give him all the details of the case to make his assessment on and gave him information Dr K approved of only. This resulted in a very non-committed, contrary, indecisive, confused M2 on the stand when my lawyer put facts to him he was unaware of, but overall he gave no evidence contrary to defence that the retinal haemorrhages in one eye can be from a low level fall. Incidentally the crown did not get the original ophthalmologist who examined Melissa personally to give evidence at court, saying that was because he wasn’t a paediatric ophthalmologist. However, that person works at Starship a children’s hospital, so one would assume he had a paediatric subspecialty at least, which is the same qualification of the other two ophthalmologists the crown went on to use. The primary ophthalmologist however, did not record as extensive a retinal haemorrhages as was later photographed. Dr M2 original crown ophthalmologist (Trial 201): when asked if retinal haemorrhages are diagnostic of child abuse and non-accidental injury said “this case isn’t”. (Trial 152) there is no evidence of how these haemorrhages arise. (Trial 189): “we exclude raised intracranial pressure before we say a cause....often impact”. (Trial 186): agrees with Dr G, defence ophthalmologist that this is a relatively mild case. (Trial 185): “atypical of shaking”. (Trial 189): “Another theory that rapid deceleration causes retinal haemorrhaging in the far periphery”. (Trial 190): Judge Stevens cut off my lawyer and called a recess as she was about to ask Dr M2 if the mild shaking I had done would cause retinal haemorrhages. When court resumed my lawyer did not go back to her previous questioning. Dr M3 second crown ophthalmologist, (Trial 3): Melissa’s retinal haemorrhages were progressive. Retinal haemorrhages will progress if pressure is not relieved. (Trial 450): Can be impact alone. (Although there is no evidence Melissa’s haemorrhaging was ongoing after admission to Tauranga hospital, the pressure within her skull was progressive due to swelling. This is clearly seen by the extent of skull deformation between CT and MRI scan). (the Judges sidekick who had contempt of court spasms, head jerking and convulsive twitches whenever defence experts gave evidence, edited out of the transcript M3’s reply of my mild shaking would not have done any harm to Melissa). Judge Stevens also cut off my lawyer when she questioned Dr M3 about impact alone causing retinal haemorrhages and refused to let her carry on. When Dr M3 was discussing that no cause or theory has been proven for the cause of retinal haemorrhaging to my lawyer, the judge interrupted and put words in his mouth for the Crown, saying “you mean the scientific reaction that’s going on inside the eye to create the retinal haemorrhages”. Dr G, defence ophthalmologist, who teaches paediatric ophthalmology (trial 518) this is a very un unusual presentation for the theory presented for shaken baby. (trial, 520) “Melissa’s retinal haemorrhages are entirely consistent with a brain bleed transmitting pressure to the eye”. “I can conclude that there is no necessity for shaking”. (Trial 523): “the retinal haemorrhages are secondary to raised intracranial pressure”, “by definition this is Tersons syndrome”. (Trial 529) This is on the very, very minimal end of what’s described in “shaken baby”. (Trial 533) “That retinal haemorrhages can occur from raised intracranial pressure is fact”; (Trial 534), “it’s absolutely shown that they occur”. Mr B, neurosurgeon, (Trial 134) “absolutely impact trauma” to tear a subdural vein. Dr S, crown forensic neuropathologist, (Trial 417) “there was no bruising on the brains surface” (as one expects when a brain is beaten back and forth against a skull). Dr S and Dr Z determined the vast majority of cause of brain tissue death was secondary to swelling and severe ischemic damage (not being operated on soon enough). (Trial 423):

7) Considerable violence was used

7) Considerable violence was used. Most definitely against evidence Judge Stevens was well aware of. Det.Snr.Sgt T (M12) To C, prosecutions barrister 28/4/06 (when withdrawing my assault charge saying there was no suspicious circumstances and no further charges would be laid.) “The pathology has revealed that Melissa Sale had at some stage in the three months preceding the fatal injury received a head injury and brain bleed. The enquiry was unable to date that injury. Unfortunately, the first brain bleed meant that the degree of force required to cause the second and fatal brain bleed was nowhere near as great as that which would have been required to cause the fatal injury in the absence of the earlier bleed”. Mr B, neurosurgeon, (trial 132, 135) no fractures. (Trial 135) I am ‘not qualified to interpret radiologist’s findings’. (When Mr HJ, crown prosecutor tried to get him to say the CT did not show evidence of a prior). The radiologist’s report of the CT done at Tauranga (that was not disclosed to defence prior to the assault charge being withdrawn) detected a prior subdural haemorrhage. It was the radiologist’s with the expertise to conclude this as he correctly did so. Despite this, the judge let Dr K, crown specialist paediatrician be the expert to say it was not. Dr Z, Crown forensic paediatric pathologist, (trial 471): size of haematoma not related to force. (Trial 472): no fractures. (Trial 468) “I think it very unlikely that such an action would cause a unilateral large subdural haemorrhage that was seen in Melissa”. (when giving her opinion to how I shook Melissa to get a response from her when she went comatose) Dr M, defence specialist paediatrician (equal standing to Dr K except that he is professional, objective and scientifically minded). (Trial 538) “pattern of massive subdural bleeding and same sided brain swelling is well recognized to be due to impact from a significant, but not extreme force. It’s a rare but well documented event after a relatively short fall”. (553 Trial) “It is now shown that even short falls can have significant rotational acceleration associated with them”. (In other words the initiating applied force is magnified with such a fall. So a significant applied force can end up being a considerable reactive force. It does not mean the force applied was “considerably violent”). Dr F defense forensic pathologist, (M35) The evidence indicates that there was prior episode of head impact injury and it is not possible to exclude such an injury from having contributed to or predisposed to her fatal subdural haemorrhage. (Trial 485) forces required are the field of a bioengineer. The crown did not have a biomechanical engineer at trial. Dr V defence biomechanical engineer, (trial 581) force to rupture a bridging vein causing a subdural depends upon the nature of the fall. (Trial 586) falls are never totally linear. (Trial 608) if a rotational element is involved, can easily exceed adult limits of risk of bridging vein rupture. (Trial 585) based upon what we know about children, they may be even more susceptible then adults. (Trial 616) a child could have a subdural haematoma and not necessarily have symptoms and if that progresses or re-bleeds, you have this catastrophic event. (Trial 573) short falls can result in subdural haemorrhages, retinal haemorrhaging and death. (Trial 585) “shaking does not result in very large acceleration. The accelerations are in the more benign level. It’s unlikely they’re going to result in subdural haematoma. By this method, it would be chest and neck injury”. This would explain why Dr K crown specialist paediatrician and the judge wanted it accepted as fact that the chest scratch was fresh and Melissa had cervical cord injury. (Judge Stevens saying “that’s simply not on” cut of defence when this expert was on the stand as defence had not given something he began to say to the crown in advance, so Dr K could argue it outside of his area of expertise. Very shortly afterwards Mr HJ, crown prosecutor bought up material defence had never been given and the judge was fine with it) Dr F, defence forensic pathologist, (trial 484) force that resulted in a carpet burn that is on the cheek is enough to have caused a subdural haemorrhage also. (Trial 481) said “the size of the haemorrhage is to some extent dependent upon two things. One is the size of the blood vessel that tears and two how long it takes for the blood to accumulate. So it’s a question of time as well as the size of the vessel. But neither of these relate well to the amount of force involved. So we really don’t know the amount of force involved”. Dr M2 original crown ophthalmologist (trial 157) “It’s highly unlikely that the forces required to produce retinal haemorrhage in a child less than two years of age would be generated by a reasonable person in an attempt to rouse an apparently unconscious child” Dr K, crown specialist paediatrician, significant element of rotation in a complex fall can tear a bridging vein, and the forces can be significant but not extreme if these two conditions apply. Low level falls can result in these injuries, but extreme force was used on Melissa as she had no underlying medical factors that made her susceptible (He often brought up things in court to appear objective then would shoot it down in flames). ((This explains why it was hidden from the jury that Dr B, neurosurgeon said all of Melissa’s blood vessels had a susceptibility to bleed and that Melissa had a prior subdural haemorrhage seen macroscopically and at surgery). Melissa’s head had grown from ‘normal’ size to in the 98th percentile rapidly for unknown reason well before her latest fall. Dr K used a child’s large head of a defence example of an all but identical case, to say that child would have an underlying medical issue that would have made them susceptible, which wasn’t ruled out). No-one knows exactly if a bridging vein was ruptured with the impact. It was assumed as it is a large main blood vessel, and it was a large haemorrhage. Greater force would be required to rupture it than more fragile smaller vessels. The neurosurgeon did not find a source of the bleed. Eliminated as evidence from trial was Mr B’s, neurosurgeon (operation note) finding that “no single obvious bleeding point was identified, but the brain and surrounding dura were inclined to bleed”. In other words, it could well be that the blood came from a number of small vessels rather than one large one. Dr S, crown forensic neuropathologist, (Trial 417) “A large haematoma like this is likely to need a largish blood vessel or vessels to be torn to produce the clot”.

6) Disregarded prior head injury

6) Disregarded prior head injury During trial Dr S, crown forensic neuropathologist, changed the pons beading primary injury to ischemia when she became aware it supported exactly the accidental head impact injury I had documented in Melissa’s journal fifteen days prior. She also changed her evidence of it being ‘at least 10 days old’ to ‘up to 10 days old’ to take it out of my documentation time. However, despite her change of evidence, Judge Stevens accepted non ischemic old injury in pons as fact for sentencing. This shows how the judge intentionally went against the evidence from the actual experts in the field to have what Dr K crown specialist paediatrician wanted ruled as ‘fact’. Judge Stevens would have known I could appeal my conviction if the pons injury was not acknowledged for what it was and the truth was already in the juries printed documents and pictures. However, he did not want to acknowledge that both head injuries were the result of impacts and the second injury was a re-bleed with little force required, so he had to disregard this. The crown covered up all the external evidence of an accidental earlier head injury impact as it was very strong for defence; and so they could say a huge amount of force was required; rather than admit Melissa being a “ticking time bomb” (an OHF social workers quote to me) for a large re-bleed from a low force impact. The judge permitted the prior supposedly ‘irrelevant’ accidental head injury at trial because Dr K had a theory he wanted rammed home, that Melissa had been the victim of “at least” two assaults of the same manner. To influence a conviction the crown experts were permitted to say the internal evidence of the prior was a microscopic subdural so very un-influential, when it was actually seen and removed at surgery. They then made up prior cervical cord injury to go with it. When taken out of context with the excluded old bruising found at autopsy on the scalp left rear that occurred 15 days earlier, they made it look like internal head injury with no external evidence of cause; ie, so shaking could be construed and the judge could state this was cause of death at sentencing upon an incorrect basis. When the manipulation had succeeded in getting me convicted, it was then disregarded for sentencing purposes. Dr K used the accidental head injury as an excuse to conclude very early on that “Melissa was the victim of at least two inflicted head injuries”, as he said at trial. Despite saying if there’s a previous bleed the person is susceptible to a re-bleed, he then played down Melissa’s to the point that the jury would accept it had no influence. He also repeatedly connected both as identical in nature by saying both had Cervical cord, brain stem and corpus collosum injury in common. The only thing they had in common was a subdural at the same spot, (right front) and evidence of head impact, 2x bruises (one left front, one left rear) and 2x axonal beadings in different places (pons for the rear accidental impact, corpus collosum for the front inadvertently inflicted impact. Axonal beading is present in tissue that has been jarred or stretched suddenly such as one gets with impact and occurs at particular junctions of brain momentum resistance. Both areas of axonal beading are situated close to where the impact occurred. The haemorrhages were situated contrecoup to the impacts, unfortunately both impacts being in line to cause subdurals at the same spot; an initial and a re-bleed, (the shock wave of the movement of the brain within the skull concluded at the same spot).

5) delay in my dialing 111.

5) 15m delay in my dialing 111. Judge Stevens at sentencing. (807) “I take into account to a limited extent” The crown had to stretch out the ‘delay’ as much as possible as it is a good inference that I would have deliberately shaken or bashed Melissa’s head to delay getting help. They loved being able to say it shows I was only worried about myself and being found out. I was interviewed whilst in shock. Normally people are given the courtesy to not be interviewed whilst in shock, but CYFS put immense pressure on the police to detain me under threat that they would remove the children from my husband if not. Despite their looking for homes to split up my children from each other and my husband immediately, whilst they were also in shock and living experiencing the trauma, they could not find any immediate placements. So the police had to find excuse to arrest me immediately. I estimated at my original interview that it would have been 10-15 minutes before I called an ambulance. When in shock as I was, time goes in slow motion and estimating time is extremely difficult and unreliable, for me I would say impossible. I do not wear watches and was not thinking in a calculated manner to be using one anyway. For my second interview I estimated the time much more accurately as I could compare it to similar episodes whilst I was under such intense shock and because I had time to think straight on how very rapidly I did what I did to get a response from Melissa, was much more like 5 minutes if that. S (in D), Crown neuropathologist, not said at trial: “Injury has not caused severe depression of breathing that the brain suffered damage from lack of oxygen before medical assistance was available”. This was sanitised for trial (Trial 16) “no evidence of universal nerve cell damage in the brain from lack of oxygen due to impaired breathing”. (Trial 422), small, but numerous areas of tissue damage was due to circulation being cut off prior to surgery, not deprivation of oxygen, which is why some parts of the brain were spared of damage. (Trial 66) Dr B upon admission at Tauranga hospital, “decided to intubate then, gurgled breathing”. E, paramedic, (Trial59) “We obviously had good airway at that point, which later required suctioning just to keep her O2 sats up”. (Trial 60): “respirations became irregular” as they approached Tauranga. Melissa deteriorated rapidly, but ambulance staff had arrived well before Melissa was likely to experience respirational hypoxia. I had no watch. I estimated time while in shock due to trauma, when it seems to move very slowly and everything is silent and in slow motion, but I know what I did to try and get a response was done rapidly. (Hence, the scratched nose with the manner I took off her tee to put her in the shower to try and get a response from her). I also took her outside to show her the animals she so loved to try and get her awake. The manner I tried to get a response from unconscious Melissa clearly shows how I was not thinking straight prior to calming down enough to think to call an ambulance. My later statement had my lower estimate of 5 minutes. This was most correct, but it was re-edited to 15 minutes for the jury. I had evidence of coping poorly in similar circumstances and trauma that I had told my lawyer that could have been verified. It was part of the psychological issues I had at the time. This was another refusal of instruction and response by my lawyer.

4) fresh chest scratch

4) That a chest scratch was fresh. Most definitely against evidence Judge Stevens was well aware of. W, paramedic, (trial 10) “old sore on left breast”. E, paramedic, (trial, 59) “small looking older wound on her left”, (trial, 61) “didn’t seem to be fresh, it looked old” “scabby”. Dr J, Tauranga hospital specialist paediatrician, (trial 89) sore could have been several days old. Dr K, Crown specialist paediatrician, (trial 282), thin scab on it. Dr Z, Crown forensic paediatric pathologist, (trial 463), could be several days old, Tauranga photo looks no different to when Dr K saw it (19h later). R, told police in his statement he’d noticed a chest scratch a few days before, but this was not said at trial, nor did my lawyer ask. It had occurred the Sunday before, so was four days old exactly how I explained it occurred very early on. Accidentally! When I went to grab Melissa’s left arm with my left hand when she slipped in the shower and was about to fall face first on the shower door edge. In the close up of the photo it can be faintly seen where two other of my fingers barely scraped also, due to the manner of quickly reaching my hand toward Melissa’s arm as she faced me. I had told my lawyer of the faint evidence of the indentation of two other fingers also, but she refused to do anything about it. There happened to be a very faint chest mark on the right hand side of Melissa’s chest at about the same height and about half the size of the fresher one that was well and truly healed over and pigmented prior to Melissa coming into my care. It was so barely noticeable that Tauranga hospital staff tasked to photograph injuries had not noticed it. Dr K said this mark was ‘identical’ to the fresher one I accidentally inflicted, to say each mark occurred in two episodes of like abuse sessions. By appearance with extreme close up photos the crown used at trial, I can see an old school sore at the end of this old mark. It appears to me as though it would have become an open wound by Melissa scratching it, as she had done with a number of her school sores in my care and as her other healed sores looked. Dr K interpreted them to mean I had used restraints (tied Melissa up) on two occasions, but strong inference was also put upon my injuring her in a grip of shaking twice.

“Facts” against evidence accepted by judge Lynton Stevens to help Drs save face.

The following accepted by “Justice” Stevens, (now promoted to an appeal court judge) as ‘fact’ went against the evidence. He was not aware of a small amount of facts as I instructed my lawyer to bring certain evidence up in court but she refused. I have substantial evidence to prove the following are false. Only a few are listed. 1) That “swelling and soft spots were detected on Melissa’s head” by ambulance staff. Statement one by paramedic W, “I couldn’t detect any swelling or soft spots”. Statement three by paramedic W, “I could not detect any swelling or soft spots”. (Trial, 34) paramedic W: “I couldn’t find any external trauma apart from a minor graze to the cheek”. (Trial 38) paramedic W: “I couldn’t find any external injuries apart from a graze”. (Trial 55) paramedic W: “no visible injuries”, apart from a chest scratch and cheek graze. E the other paramedic had never mentioned there was swelling or soft spots at trial or otherwise. Dr K crown specialist paediatrician, (A48) palpated Melissa’s head as part of his examination said, “no obvious swelling” in the hospital notes, but excluded this from his discharge summary, two police statements and trial. Dr J, Tauranga hospital specialist paediatrician (23/7/07 statement). “There was no scalp swelling”. This was conveniently left out at trial. Although the direct statement that there was no swelling and soft spots on Melissa’s head was conveniently eliminated from trial and my lawyer had refused my instruction to include the paramedics statements, NOR was it said there was. Despite all the evidence that Melissa did not have swelling and soft spots, the crown summary of “facts” said she did. So the judge obviously went by this and chose to ignore all the evidence that said there wasn’t.

Covered up evidence

- Old beading in the pons - Recent contact subdural left front - Recent contact bruise left front - Old contact bruise left rear - Old subdural at exactly the same spot as the recent one and that a chronic and acute subdural clotting was seen macroscopically and removed at surgery. (A49) Dr K, Crown specialist paediatrician, “Melissa has subdural haemorrhages of two different ages, seen by neurosurgeon at surgery” Despite this Dr K said at trial that the CT result could be old and acute, but could also be CSF leakage or acute/hyper acute bleeding. Hyper acute being ongoing after initial acute has clotted, but from same event. It is the radiologist field of expertise to interpret what he saw not Dr K’s, but the radiologist was not a crown witness and the judge let Dr K say this outside of his area of expertise. Melissa did not have CSF leakage, but this was not brought up at trial. Two haemorrhages of two different ages seen macroscopically by CT and at surgery supports Melissa was a ‘ticking time-bomb’ (quote of OHF social worker) of susceptibility of catastrophic effect if she hit her head again. As that would be a substantial cause of death, Dr K said at trial that Mr B, neurosurgeon said the bleeding was still occurring at operation and he had to stop it. Mr B has only ever documented the opposite and said so at trial. Mr B did not have Dr K’s hearsay put to him at trial. Defence was never given evidence to the contrary, despite it being evidence the Crown would have fully and co-operatively handed over. Dr S, crown forensic neuropathologist found blood of two different age clots with her investigation. - Melissa’s luminal mark hidden by ESR and police, and perjury committed against it by V, ESR scientist. - Evidential printout of luminal mark. - Mr B, neurosurgeon, (11/1/06 operation note and briefs), “no single obvious bleeding point was identified, but the brain and surrounding dura were inclined to bleed”

Lies at trial by Dr K, Crown specialist paediatrician

Lies said by the crowns main witness Dr K at trial to make it shaking, and to say I had done the exact same kind of abuse (shaking) twice. No external injuries. (Despite this the judge said an aggravating factor was all the innocent ‘injuries’ on Melissa’s body, but what Dr K meant was being in denial of impact injury evidence). Bilateral retinal hemorrhages. (They were in the contra eye only). Diffuse Axonal Injury (DAI, common in shaking, but Melissa did not have it) Entire brain swelling (as expected of shaking, was only one side of Melissa’s). Cervical cord injury old and recent. Melissa had neither. That the old injury was exactly like the recent. He also told CYFS additional lies which he touched upon at trial to make out I had basically tortured my victim the whole time she was with me and some of these have been told to my victims family.

Right to life, but not for Melissa

So now I see that what has happened with Melissa has occurred for a very long time with authorities condoning it. No wonder the closing ranks is so down pat and tight. "This right to refuse treatment does not extend to children and babies in New Zealand. Because children are dependent upon adults for all their needs special conditions override this right". But obviously this is lip service too because doctors then had to alter the law to cover their own asses. "Doctors successfully campaigned to dilute the sections of the Crimes Act dealing with medical manslaughter so that now no action will be taken in most cases of negligence resulting in death. Yet parents can face the trauma of a criminal trial." (3) I guess doctors wanted the law changed of refusal to offer treatment in case they unwittingly did not provide what they should have. I believe the majority of doctors would have liked the courtesy of being able to make mistakes like any human being does and as they are. But manipulative doctors, such as K, crown specialist paediatrician, Gabrielle Nuthall, intensivist, and Tavey Dorofaeef, paediatric registrar, are exploiting that clause to deliberately pick and choose who they will treat, refuse treatment of and euthanase because they know they will never be held accountable, then using that as 'research', to manipulate statistics and supposed injuries for their own glory, and vengeance, rather then the love of a child’s wellbeing.

Why insistence on a coroners inquest?

I am pushing for a coroners inquest to be instigated, as my victim did not die as a result of what the key Crown ‘witness’ Dr K Crown specialist paediatrician had to have it be in order to not be held accountable himself, to protect the others involved and for them all to save face. He was given permission and free reign to use hearsay, act expert across all fields, say my victim had injuries she did not and undermine other Crown and Defence experts with his opinion in their expert fields, that Judge Stevens then took as ‘fact’. All but none of the extreme dramatic violence, abuse and torture my victims family has been led to believe I did that was said by this ‘expert’ to ensure I was convicted and to protect the truth from being revealed, is correct. A coroner’s inquest is required so the truth can finally be made known to Melissa’s family and society. V, ESR scientist is sitting upon evidence that could further encourage a coroner’s inquest, and I know of a few other sources of information that was kept from defence that should also encourage one, had we a just honest justice system. Of course the fact there was so much corruption in my case will be partly made known upon a coroners’ inquest, which is why I am having so much obstruction. I know the system well enough to know that corruption will be watered down, whitewashed, smoke screened and made excuse for to nothing, and will be gagged by court order. So they really have nothing to fear, but it is the right just thing that the truth be put to rest.

The “justice” system it is not

The New Zealand “justice” system seems to be such an absolute crock of shit. It is much more important to them to have paediatricians who refuse to give treatment to children on the whim of a guess, to the point of letting that child die rather then make a full recovery, save face; then it is to go all out to save a child. So long as they have a scapegoat, they will do as they please willy nilly. The Ombudsman’s reckon it's not their role to investigate corruption when V, ESR scientist perjured that the luminal mark is from a male when it's Melissa’s. Funny how no one will give me any evidence that supports that lie, nor was defence ever given any. The Crown solicitor reckons that when a coroner says he's not holding an inquest, that that means one has been performed and we don't need another. The Health and Disability Commissioner reckon it's not their role to investigate corrupt un-objective, dishonest, unprofessional conduct of doctors. Even the Human Rights Commissioner don’t dare look into murder by doctors. They know how futile it is to make a stand against commonly accepted corruption and oppression. The government never heeds their guidance. They are just a token gesture as are other commissioners. The police won't investigate the perjury of any of the witnesses who perjured. They tell me the judge has to request that. What biased, arrogant judge who let the corrupt paediatrician run the show and have free reign to play expert across all fields, say my victim had injuries she did not, undermine the actual Crown and defence experts, condoned the perjury and then accept his lies as ‘fact’ against the evidence at sentencing to help him save face, is gonna request that? Is he really going to have the self integrity to ensure a just trial and accountability for those who perjure? There is no such thing as justice or truth in the ‘justice’ system, just making the Crown appear 'right'. The justice system is a joke that wore thin with me years ago.

Conviction = no coroners inquest

If New Zealands child abuse death rate is as terrible as Dr K, Crown specialist paediatrician tells us all it is, then why are the number of people charged such a drop in the bucket? Because there is no evidence to say it was inflicted????? And yet NZ statistics and dramatic haters in society will go by what the Doc says regardless! I know why the Crime Law office and head coroner refuse to have a coroners inquest for Melissa. They know the truth that she died as a result of not being treated, not of what Dr K says of it. Melissa experienced a low level fall and inadvertently hit her head. She should have been operated on immediately. But Dr J, Tauranga hospital specialist paediatrician made the call that it was solely ‘shaken baby’ and treatment would be futile and Dr K backed him up adding severe extremely violent 'shaken baby'. The autopsy proved them very wrong and they tried to sweep it under the mat that Melissa died due to their negligence and euthanasia. But they didn't count on me not taking it laying down, so I had to be convicted at all cost. Now they refuse a coroners inquest as they do not want it made public that two paediatricians are responsible for Melissa's manslaughter and two doctors of her murder. The charge was withdrawn with police saying 'no suspicious circumstances as what I said happened matched the evidence". But then a coroners inquest was going to be held. Suddenly someone needs to be scape-goated, whose that gonna be? Certainly not a doctor who has put himself on one of the highest pedestals around. One that overlooks all people. Well done on getting me convicted on your total BS Dr K. I now see fully why that had to be. So your dirty secret could be kept so. Conviction = no coroners inquest = Drs free to do it over and over again smirking to themselves. The law is all pick and choose for people on pedestals.

Friends post 1, on Topix

Events like this bring out the nasty in not only the initial perpetrator. Also, I don't understand how it honors Melissa that the truth be covered up by so many lies, and people to want to vehemently believe those lies instead of the truth. This case was never about the truth, just of hiding it. Karen withdrew appeal on conviction, but she is not guilty of anything said and concluded of this case. If this case was about the truth and justice why are they refusing a coroners inquest?

Duped jury

I am not angry with the jury members. They were duped and it isn't their fault they made an incorrect decision. That's how the NZ ‘justice’ systems work. One thing our CIB guys and Crown prosecutors know how to do expertly, is manipulate the truth and peoples minds, and to induce and exploit lies.

Friends post 2, on Topix

To be found guilty of manslaughter the judge told the jury what Karen did had to be operative and substantial. I know what she did was operative, but it was by no means substantial. Karen is not innocent. She assaulted Melissa, but she is pretty angry about what the authorities have got away with, when it appears Melissa’s life meant nothing to them and they did not treat her promptly enough for her to fully recover. She did love Melissa, despite her impulsive act. She is pretty hacked off at the injustice of what the public is led to believe of those we are meant to be able to have faith in. She should not be the only one held accountable, but a lot of people have got away with stooping very low, because they had a scapegoat to put it on to.

Friends post 6, on Topix

You see, Karen should not have told the TRUTH to hospital staff. It was a low force low level fall that caused a subdural haemorrhage that the hospital didn't prioritise removing. So pressure was put upon Melissa’s brain and cut off circulation, causing tissue death; before they bothered to question themselves and decide to do something after all. But because Karen told the TRUTH, that she shook Melissa gently to try and get a response from her, after Melissa collapsed in her arms; the hospital staff chose to put it down to solely shaken baby, and to write Melissa off. Like Karen has so often said, this case was never about the truth. So really did it matter that Karen said Melissa fell from a portacot, rather then she pushed her away from her and she fell from her standing height and happened to hit her head?

Friends post 8, on Topix

Isn't it ironical that Karen now wants 100% truth to be acknowledged and accepted by the public and Melissa’s family, and is totally prepared to correct all they had wrong with the truth she knows; and yet, she is being so obstructed in her attempt to do so, because of how much the Crown has painted themselves into that corner Karen so likes the metaphor of, and because they now vehemently need to cover up THEIR lies?

Friends post 7, on Topix

The cover-up is about having to have it be shaken baby, especially after the very ignorant and unprofessional things said by Dr K Crown specialist paediatrician, who was proven 100% wrong by autopsy..

References Dr K doesn’t like to refer to and the Crown removed from Topix

CW Christian, AA Taylor, Hertle RW et al: Retinal hemorrhages caused by accidental household trauma. J Paed. 1999; 135:127. Retinal hemorrhages caused by accidental mechanisms are usually ipsilateral to intracranial hemorrhage, often unilateral. Seelig, JM, Becker DP and Miller JD. Traumatic acute subdural hematoma: major mortality reduction in comatose patients treated within four hours 1981. N Eng J Med; 304: 1511. Mortality is significantly decreased when surgical evacuation of hematoma is accomplished within four hours of injury. Yue in 1982 got similar results. Research by Ommaya, Goldsmith and Thibault 2002 British journal of neurosurgery, found that layering type SDH’s have the highest tendency to rebleed.

Dr K Crown specialist paediatrician, momentarily tells the truth at trial

It wasn't an accident when Dr K said people should be looked at as guilty until proven innocent in the court of law, except that his sub-conscious got the better of his tongue.

Perjury of Dr S, neuropathologist

She said that there was cervical cord injury when it was proven there wasn't, so Dr J, Tauranga hospital specialist paediatrician and Dr K Crown specialist paediatrician who incorrectly assumed "extremely violent shaken baby" immediately, could save face. She also changed her evidence immediately before she had to take the stand to say that the old head injury she found to be at least ten days old, was up to ten days old; so she could take it out of the accidental head injury Melissa sustained and which I documented in her journal, which she became aware of only at trial.

Melissa’s luminal mark, perjury of V ESR scientist

Hey Jury what did you make out of V saying the luminal mark was from a male? The carpet in that house had been down for about two years. I had managed it the entire time. I KNOW for a fact that no person has bled onto the carpet at the base of the portacot in that time. The Crown and ESR said they didn't take photos of that luminal mark, they didn't think to. They didn't think to measure the luminal mark or get a precise location or description of it either. They did so for the hair sample and old blood spots from Melissa picking at school sores on herself that were on her mattress blanket though. They thought to do it for that. What ESR and police would go to what they consider a crime scene and not take photos of a luminal mark they find where I have told them a child fell? Are our police and ESR that incompetent? I think the photos will look exactly like Melissa’s cheek mark, that's why they weren't given over. My lawyer and I were not given any ESR results until nearly two years later, which was only a hand written report by V saying the result was a males. Was the luminal factual evidence they never handed over, part of what made them believe there was no suspicious circumstances and no evidence of assault and withdraw my fist charge I wonder? V was very awkward and appeared guilty under oath in her video link when she commented on it and quickly changed the subject, just as she did in her written statement. Defence was told there was never negatives or sd memory card with the scene photographs on it, and that it was downloaded immediately to a hard-drive from the camera. All the better an excuse to edit only what photos they want to give defence. I contacted ESR Wellington, just for them to answer yes or no that the DNA analysis machines give an evidential printout (as we have never been given one) and they hedged around the question and played dumb on it. They eventually passed it on to Auckland, suspicious on its own, as this is where V works. They must have anticipated my e-mails to have sent them on to Auckland and V’s sister; and for the Crown prosecutor to get up in arms as soon as I contacted them. I don't see how any DNA scientist in New Zealand can not give a yes or no answer on whether the machines they work with give an evidential printout, without having to pass my e-mails on to the police. I then was given a bail condition that I am not to contact any witness's, their employers or their organisations. So jury what can you 'infer' with that? The inferring works both ways even without taking my word that the luminal mark at the base of the portacot is NOT from a male, but MUST be from Melissa. Never has any evidence that the luminal mark is from a male been brought forward. I have requested the information from ESR and they have refused, saying it would violate the "unknown males" privacy. ESR are very obstructive and set out to give the police what they wanted. The police when they sent a request to V about two years after the incident and only when they recharged me, told V that medical professionals had concluded Melissa was extremely violently shaken, when wanting her to test Melissa luminal positive mark from the impact of her cheek on the carpet. So why did she have to know the alleged cause of death and what the paediatricians had to have it be to save face, to do this analysis?

III call centre transcript change

Many documents and crown witness statements and briefs were edited to stack prejudice against me or because earlier versions were not condemning enough. That includes my second statement as to my answer as to how long I waited to call an ambulance.

Inadmissible/non-existent ‘injuries’ shown to jury

I just received the photos the jury was shown today. Plain as day what WASN'T there that they were told was, such as bruised ears and petechial grazing on BOTH sides of the head. It's also plain as day what innocent explanation marks on Melissa were portrayed as abuse I had done also, such as cat bites on her hand and a scratch on her calf muscle and chest. Remember the journal where I wrote she was going through a stage of being cruel to the cat? Think hard! There are also small bruises and puncture marks on her inner thigh. They ‘forgot’ to show you the Starship hospital showing luers the staff put there. You should have seen the mess they made of her left arm trying to get veins.

Shaking component of my reaction

I did admit to shaking in order to try and get a response from Melissa when she was comatose. I assumed she was only concussed. All the experts at my trial said how it was done did NO further injury to Melissa, but this is where Dr K, crown specialist paediatrician got his idea from to say it was solely shaken baby. The police had my admission to this shaking well before they withdrew the first charge and said no further charges would be laid as there were no suspicious circumstances or evidence of assault.

What the jury wasn't told

In August 2009, I was convicted of manslaughter of my foster daughter. Here's a little of what the jury wasn't told: The police initially laid a charge of assault and withdrew that because the 'evidence' did not support it' and there was 'no suspicious circumstances". You can check out a story in the Bay of Plenty Times of 29 April 2006, titled "Bay foster carer cleared of assault". It was decided after a meeting that was never disclosed to defence, with Dr’s K, crown specialist paediatrician, Mr B, neurosurgeon and Dr S, crown forensic neuropathologist in attendance that the charge would be withdrawn. Those doctors then and the police, had substantial doubt, but the jury did not have reasonable doubt. The police in their excuse to re-arrest me at the end of 2006 when I happened to be enquiring as to how Melissa was treated, or should I say NOT treated, and a coroners inquest was about to be held, said they had new evidence. I was given none at my murder arrest interview, but finally over a year later a written statement from Mr B was given to my lawyer as the 'new evidence'. He stated he did a craniotomy and removed a clot. Of course this was known to police in the early hours of 5 Jan 2006. What was new was that he said he did not remove a prior clot in the same spot, when he’d written the opposite prior to this and many other documents support that and that the subdural haemorrhage was a re-bleed. Re-bleeds require minimal force. Dr K had already said extreme violence was used prior to them withdrawing the assault charge, but at that stage he was disregarded. Police documents refer to minimal force being required for such a large subdural haemorrhage because the prior one re-bled, upon withdrawing the first charge. It was decided to re-charge me with murder after another meeting also never disclosed to defence, with the same doctors present. Mr B eventually came up with the ‘new’ evidence. That meeting was obviously about how those ‘experts’ in attendance would have to alter their evidence and commit perjury to ensure I was convicted. They were the main experts to get me convicted and all committed perjury on crucial evidence. Dr K in particular was obsessively dogmatic about getting me convicted and committing perjury. Melissa died because of the eleven hour delay before surgery at Starship. Tauranga hospital stalled transfer to Starship and Dr J, Tauranga hospital specialist paediatrician turned down emergency surgery to be performed there. It was said of the Bain trial that the 'police do things differently nowadays when their low tactics came to light. I know they are better at covering it up and more laws have been made to protect it. People who have blind faith in those we are mean't to have faith in and still persecute David Bain, open up the wool over your heads a crack and get real!

A business for them

I'm sorry I take my conviction personally. I'm sorry I don't consider it like a business transaction gone wrong like all of you get to do.

“It” was Melissa!

It was just another one to Drs K,crown specialist paediatrician, Gabrielle Nuthall, intensivist and Tavey Dorofaeef, paediatric registrar. "It" was Melissa to me.

Vitals, effect of the morphine overdose on Melissa

Dr Tavey Dorofaeef, paediatric registrar, changes his mind about leaving a paper trail.

Morphine overdose

Morphine is administered for pain, it also has another use as an overdose. How much pain was Melissa in, in a coma? Dr K,crown specialist paediatrician told everyone at trial that she was in a deep coma and totally unresponsive, (although the notes say otherwise). So how much pain does a person feel in a deep coma? I know normal sleep has always been a natural painkiller for me, totally blocking it out. So was Melissa a lot more awake then you will admit Dr K? Or was the morphine for the other purpose? If Melissa was a lot more alert and aware then Dr K dared to admit, then she would not die ‘peacefully’ as was said of her passing and suffocating to death. If she was in a deep coma, then why the need for a painkiller? See what I mean by lies get you cornered Dr K? Either way you have dug a hole for yourself. One need only look at the hospitals 'vitals' graph effect immediately after Melissa's IV infusion that dramatically increased after morphine was approved, to see that morphine was indeed given, one minute prior to Melissa passing away "peacefully". As peacefully as one is suffocating to death. (T 65) “Due to the nature of her injuries Melissa was unable to sustain life”. No one can sustain life with a morphine overdose! And it was not severe injury, it was secondary ischaemia due to not being operated on soon enough. Further circumstantial evidence that Melissa was indeed overdosed with morphine is that my blogs on the matter and on how Melissa was selected to die as soon as she got to Starship were deleted from my Topix blog repeatedly, prior to Topix stopping my posting at all. The Crown making them do that confirmed it much stronger in my mind, although with what I have I know it is fact anyway. By documents it appears Dr Tavey Dorofaeff, paediatric registrar, administered a lethal dose of morphine via IV line, or gave it to a staff nurse to administer, under the instruction of Dr Gabrielle Nuthall, intensivist, at approximately 1443 on the 8th of January 2006. Dr Dorofaeef is now a paediatrician in Australia. There was no surer way to prove Drs J, Tauranga hospital specialist paediatrician and K right when they said Melissa would inevitably die and Melissa would not co-operate with that.

Pressure to get consent to flick the switch

And who made sure Melissa was hypothermic, sedated, paralysed and in an induced coma for her brain function tests? Dr K,crown specialist paediatrician was quick to say Melissa had made no improvements, was unresponsive and on her way to 'brain death' at trial. The notes say otherwise and also say she should not have been tested in that enforced incapable of responding state. Despite not operating for eleven hours, by then too late for widespread ischaemia to be avoided, Melissa was still fighting, improving and defying his prognosis; and yet.......... Melissa’s parent were told Melissa would be paralysed down one side if she survived. So how was she moving her arms and legs as soon as the paralysing agents wore off?

SEP showing Melissa's normal latency for age of half her brain.

>

Melissa improving.

On the 7th Jan 2006 at 0050 hours, Melissa was reported to have had a stable day (and had been stable since her operation), coughing and "withdrawing her arm until a few hours ago", yet was planned to extubate anyway. By 0645 hours she was being weaned from the ventilator and was breathing 1:1 with the ventilator and coughing strongly when suctioned. She was recorded as all important signs 'very stable', tolerating feeds, breathing herself, slight movement of her right hand to painful stimuli. At 1830 on this day she was reported to be moving her right arm, apparently trying to reach a tube on her left side. At 2100 she is said to be breathing spontaneously and there is concern she may survive their attempt to kill her. Her parents are lied to that if she can't breathe totally on her own she will not be re-intubated because this shows the damage done is not compatible with life. The truth is that this only means she needed more time on the ventilator for the swelling to subside. That is the purpose of life support, to overcome the critical stage until the patient can support their own breathing. At 2130 she was again recorded as having a stable day and breathing up to the ventilator. On the 8th Jan 2006 at 0700 hours, she was reported as having a stable night. Her right pupil was smaller and reactive. She was breathing up and coughing spontaneously. Making lip smacking sucking movements in response to pain. Flexes her arm to her shoulder. Despite all these responses, the ventilator was turned off at 1000 on the 8th. She breathed spontaneously and was coughing. Eventually, nearly five hours later, she was struggling to maintain breathing herself. At this stage she was given a morphine overdose by Dr Tavey Dorofaeef, paediatric registrar. This did not show her injury was incompatible with life. It showed she was not as badly injured as they thought and she just needed more time on the ventilator. It showed she was fighter and wanted to survive, despite their decision not to help her do so for economic and statistical manipulation reasons. As late as the 9 January, Melissa's notes were still showing incorrectly that she had DAI and retinal haemorrhages in both eyes. Dr Dorofaeff was still stating DAI and retinal haemorrhages in both eyes in documents, after Melissa's death. I think this incorrect information led to pressure to turn off life support, despite Melissa's obvious responses, evidence and signs that she was not as badly injured as they claimed. Dr K,crown specialist paediatrician said that Melissa’s movements were probably seizures, but also says in his report the neurologist did an EEg that showed no obvious seizure activity. He also said that after the 6th of January there was no response to stimuli, despite the fact Melissa was off all sedatives and paralysing agents, but on the 7th and 8th right up to three hours before they turned off life support, the nurses reported and documented that Melissa was responding. It didn't matter to them how much Melissa loved life and fought for it. She didn't have a voice. Dr K still seems to insist there is DAI, despite both neuropathologist’s concluding there wasn’t.