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):