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 Detective Senior Sergeant T told my lawyer that the assault charge was withdrawn as Mr B had removed two clots at surgery of two different ages and that meant little force was required for the re-bleed.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):