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radiologist’s report of the CT done at Tauranga (that was not disclosed to defence prior to the assault charge being withdrawn) detected a prior subdural haemorrhage.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.

Dr K’s prognosis of no hope

Dr K,crown specialist paediatrician said in his statement under oath that one of Melissa's pupils was small and responding to light on the 5th of January only and that after that (page 15) that "her pupils remained fixed and dilated"; and yet there is a nursing note on 8/1/06 at 0700 hours, three hours before Melissa was taken off life support that says "left pupil remains dilated and fixed and the right pupil is smaller and reactive". Medical research has shown that outcome is most often favourable if one eye is still reacting to light. He also said under oath that the SEP results showed absent potential on the right side and questionable potential on the left side, but the result of the 6/1/06 states: "A well defined potential is recorded over the left hemisphere with a normal latency for age. The response over the right hemisphere is absent" and on the 7/1/06 states "there remains a clearly defined response over the left hemisphere with normal central conduction time. The response remains absent over the right hemisphere". There are hospital notes dated 6/1/06 by the neurologist, who suggests that the response of the SEP on the 6/1 in regard to the right hemisphere could be because Melissa was cooled at the time. Dr K (T3) said that at Tauranga "it was clear at once that Melissa's prognosis was likely to be very poor, and she was likely to die". This is totally untrue from what I have seen on the internet of subdural haemorrhages, which is all Melissa had. He is making excuses for them taking nine hours to get her into surgery and 11 hours to get the subdural haemorrhage removed that led to a poor prognosis. How does it make you feel to know your lives and your loved ones lives are entrusted into the care of medical experts such as this?

Marked to die

The quote below is from a government authority document that was withheld from me twice I asked for it, but given over accidentally in one request. It was written up very shortly after Melissa's surgery, i.e. the morning of the 5th. “Staff nurse looking after Melissa stated that she had surgery and an opening in her skull has been left to release pressure. The hospital is still completing tests on her and the machine that is assisting her will continue to be on until the tests are completed. She may survive up to a few days”. “What do you make of that” as Mr HJ, crown prosecutor would say if he was talking to the jury and discussing the hospital document (T17) that has a comment about a person who must be contacted if Melissa dies. The person who wrote up the note then changed the ‘if’ to “when”. This was two days before life support was turned off and prior to any brain function tests. Even then, they went on to do brain function tests when Melissa was hypothermic, sedated and paralysed by drugs. Like I said because so many sheep don’t face the wolves, they get complacent. It had been decided immediately that Melissa was to die. No tests were done on Melissa’s prognosis or brain injury at this stage, not that the hopeful signs and her showing good brain function were considered later on anyway. The tests referred to were only of the gathering ‘evidence’ type. You see people like to ridicule me for what I say and know. It was obvious to me well before I discovered this document, that Melissa’s fate was to die the moment she was admitted to Tauranga hospital, and I had openly voiced that prior to receiving this document. I am ridiculed because I see it and say it how it is. Of course the authorities don’t want the public to regard anything I have to say. They have to save face and are criminal themselves. I am now thinking that the condoning and closing rank of this is much more extensive then I have given it credit for. Even a staff nurse quite blasé like, says how Melissa will be euthanized as though that is what is expected of all children coming in that Dr K, crown specialist paediatrician has decided is “solely shaken baby” or abuse. There was a lot of concern in Melissa’s notes that she would survive, hence the haste to turn off life support as soon as the ‘evidence’ was gathered. Melissa fought for her life supported temporarily only by a machine. She was destined to die the moment I called an ambulance. When life support was turned off she fought even harder, but at that stage required breathing support. She fought on and on until her parents were put under intense pressure to have to leave by government authorities, and the task had to be over with. At that point morphine was approved for administration. Within one minute after many hours of Melissa being very much alive and fighting, Melissa happened to pass away ‘peacefully’. The notes were very careful to repeatedly say morphine was never administered of course. That in itself is circumstantial evidence it was, hiding guilt. I can tell you having been suffocated by a trustworthy boy in blue and drowning at the age of seven, that it is by no means peaceful to not be able to breathe and fighting for air. And Melissa was already fighting for her life. (But it will never be confirmed Melissa was overdosed with morphine because they refuse to hold a coroners inquest for her and the Health and disability commissioner refuse to investigate it, despite my telling them I have new evidence for it and my having done most of their job for them already). The same authority has written “Melissa gave up her fight for life”. She did not ever give that up. Those she was trusting to help her had written her off immediately because they put it down to extremely violent ‘solely shaken baby’ and diagnosed every tiny innocent mark on her as abuse and refused to acknowledge that a low level fall could cause such a subdural haemorrhage and a few retinal haemorrhages in one eye. Isn’t it ironical! The judge told me I abused my position of trust to keep Melissa safe and protect her. So what do we trust doctors, nurses, judges, coroners, lawyers, and health and disability commissioner to do? I victimized Melissa by pushing her. Drs victimized her by refusing her treatment that would have enabled her full recovery and choosing to let her die. The others refuse to give Melissa and other children justice by closing ranks, protecting the doctors, and enforcing scapegoating of me to continue instead. Hence, condoning their conduct and giving free reign for them to continue as always. It would seem I am to be the only one with freedom of having chosen to stand in the truth, the only one with a conscience. There are so many ironies in this case.

All about money and saving face

It's all about money. I don’t think it’s only that three very wrong paediatricians and an intensivist will lose face and are my co-offenders, or that the crown is very two-faced that children’s lives matter, or that Dr K, crown specialist paediatrician wants to ram his obsessive theories down all Drs throats and look godly right and manipulate statistics. It was about the cost of Melissa’s transport and treatment for taxpayers as well initially. Now I think it’s about what compensation Melissa’s family should get from them as well. Tauranga hospital staff refused to request a helicopter for Melissa because of the expense. Only when she fought on past the time they estimated she would survive, did they commit to sending her to Starship, by then her prognosis was severely compromised. The focus was on cost of treatment and rehab, rather then on saving her life, as my hospital notes state; but the excuse of it being too windy to fly the helicopter was given to the jury. I know helicopters fly in much windier conditions then was the 4th of Jan 06. I think part of the reason they stalled sending her to Starship was that they wanted the CIB to arrive and detain me first and it took them five hours to get to the hospital. Despite Melissa being responsive and improving after her eventual operation, having previously been deemed unworthy of emergency transport and operation at Tauranga; it was considered it would be a drain to the economy in her recovery and prolonged life-support expense, so she was disposed of. It's always about money and saving face. In some cases, that is first and foremost over a child’s life even.

Protected murderers

I do have a lot of people listening to me and believing me especially those with inside knowledge, and I feel their support strongly. However, how is that going to prevent this happening over and over again? Melissa was a gorgeous girl who loved life. No-one fought with her or for her to keep it, but someone ought to do what's right by her now for all the other young children in the future who will be disregarded by Drs out there. I victimised Melissa by pushing her and causing a subdural haemorrhage. A common injury overcome with immediate surgery. Despite what the crown said and the judge ruled as fact, an ambulance was called immediately as soon as I realised the extent of Melissa’s injury. The autopsy and ambulance notes show how immediately they had got there. I did all I could at the hospital trying to get them to treat Melissa. They ignored me and treated me like an absolute piece of crap from the onslaught, but I did all I could. Dr J, Tauranga hospital specialist paediatrician, immediately misdiagnosed solely 'shaken baby' and said Melissa would die before she got to Starship anyway, so they left her laying there untreated. He victimised Melissa by refusing treatment until it was too late for her and by turning down a neurosurgeons offer to do immediate surgery in Tauranga because he wasn’t allowing her transfer. This treatment would have allowed her a full recovery. She needn't have died and would be a normal healthy ten year old loving life now. Dr Gabrielle Nuthall, intensivist at Starship, planned and prepared for Melissa’s death very early on, and flicked off life support when SEPS showed Melissa had improved. Dr Tavey Dorofaeef, paediatric registrar administered a lethal dose of morphine or authorised that to be done by a nurse. Dr K crown specialist paediatrician also immediately diagnosed shaken baby upon Melissa’s arrival at Starship, adding that it was extremely violent shaken baby. He has an obsession for shaken baby and a vengeful un-objective, unprofessional, unscientific mindset. He makes up his own “research”, particularly in relation to shaken baby, and totally disregards the rest of the worlds advanced literature on the subject. He took it upon himself to be the “frontline” worker who would convict at all cost and in so doing prevent a coroners inquest and protect Dr J, Nuthall and Dorofaeff. The doctors deliberately and pre-determinedly hated upon Melissa a heck of a lot more then my one-of impulsive act that I will hold against myself forever more

Misdiagnosis upon admission to Tauranga hospital

Despite my telling Tauranga hospital staff that Melissa had had a low level fall and hit her head and the impact mark and CT scan supporting that, and despite her age which makes shaking to the extent of coma virtually impossible; because she had retinal haemorrhages in one eye her diagnosis was immediately put down to “severe shaken baby syndrome” seemingly by Dr J, Tauranga hospital specialist paediatrician. It was his opinion that Melissa would inevitably die very shortly, so there was no point in wasting money on an emergency transfer for an emergency craniotomy to relieve the subdural haemorrhage pressure. For some reason he turned down the neurosurgeons offer to do emergency burr hole surgery to relieve the pressure when the neurosurgeon realised they would not prioritise transfer. Five hours later, with Melissa defying his prognosis he finally decided to transfer her to Starship by road, the slowest possible means by which to do so. By then widespread ischemia or tissue death due to blood circulation being cut off for too long had already occurred. It was not until eleven hours later that Melissa finally had an emergency craniotomy. I think Dr J is a man of high integrity and was indecisive about not allowing Melissa treatment, but half-heartedly believed or doubted himself because of propaganda said of retinal haemorrhages and ‘shaken baby’ by doctors such as Dr K crown specialist paediatrician. Dr K played a crucial part in ensuring I was convicted of shaken baby.

Friends post 3, on Topix

It's amazing what people could learn from Karen, if they actually bothered to listen. She is definitely not what the Crown, the criminal haters, nasty social workers etc in society, want to have people believe. I am proud to be her friend and she gets a lot of support and makes friends very easily, wherever she goes, from very reasonable lovely people..

Friends post 4, on Topix

I think the police are overworked rather then lazy. Karen does not hold their misconduct against them. As she sees it they knew she was guilty, but were frustrated in the lack of evidence to prove it. The majority of police were honest and professional in her case. She has actually received a lot of support from various police officers. However, it has made her understand totally how 100% innocent people are convicted and she is annoyed at what some people in society fall for, in their haste to put nastiness out there and show their true colors. For her personally, she is angry that the system was not only about conviction at all cost, which she doesn't mind, as she is guilty of assault; but that the system closes rank, so that Drs, social workers, ESR scientist V etc, get away with what they did, with no accountability whatsoever and that total lies about what happened to Melissa and surrounding her death are told to the public and ruled as fact, in order to cover up the wrong they have said and done.

Friends post 5, on Topix

Karen never intended to play 'innocent' or a 'victim' as Melissa’s mum has said. She was in deep shock and stunned when she happened to make up a lie to the police that matched the evidence, as it was all but, what happened. She couldn't believe the effect herself in that state, with what she actually did. Very early on she told people the truth and said she wanted it brought up. She was strongly encouraged by two people who gave no thought as to the effect this would have on Karen’s conscience, not to say anything. Karen is an extremely honest person. To cope with this, she put all her focus on everything the Crown did wrong. They made it very easy for her to do so. This case is definitely totally fabricated to hide the truth, and she should not have been found guilty on their story; but she does not mind that she was found guilty, as she inadvertently and unintentionally made Melissa hit her head and she has borne deep guilt all her life over many things she blamed herself for, but shouldn't have. So she does not care that she was convicted. I guess she still has the psychological issue of getting her mind locked on things though, as she now understands totally how innocent people get sent to prison and that 100% innocent things can be turned around on a dime to appear 100% guilty and criminal. She also knows the government authorities are no better then actual perpetrators with how low they stoop and the corruption they cover up and she is very determined to have the truth exposed.

gagging on Topix.com

I had been blogging the incompetence of the NZ 'justice" system and those who we are meant to trust on http://www.topix.com/forum/world/new-zealand/TF5VOH4CPVVL2VCCF/p12 but the authorities are keenly gagging what the public should know about this case and stopped me posting on Topix.