Sunday 21 February 2016
Monday 15 February 2016
Some other documents kept from me
In addition to those documents withheld I mentioned in the previous post. When I refer to documents kept from me, they were given to my lawyer who worked for the Crown, rather than me. She was given these documents that would have had me acquitted, but refused to show me them or give them to me, and refused to act upon what instruction I did give her from what I did know. It have taken me 7 years to get these documents with the assistance of the Law Society, but there are still documents she has refused to give me. Many are missing. As the information was available at the time of trial, but new to me, the Crown Law Office do not count it as new information in which to open a coroners inquest, so the truth can be revealed.-----------------------
Retained document from Tauranga hospital that shows the forehead abrasion on Melissa was on one side only. This drawing was done by Dr B and clearly shows the abrasion only on the left side.
-----------------------
However the same doctor told CYFS:
--------------------
Dr J, Tauranga hospital specialist paediatrician documented it was on both sides of the forehead, that is despite him sitting beside Melissa all the way to Starship hospital in the ambulance. Of course it would definitely be inflicted deliberate injury in that case. He also said it at trial. Dr K crown specialist paediatrician, at trial said both doctors at Tauranga hospital said this.
However in his written police statement, this is what he said:
DOCUMENT EG 2 Tauranga hospital
Document shows that the Crown prosecutor had a conflict of interest with a doctor that had previously treated Melissa at Tauranga hospital, also two admissions at that hospital shortly before Melissa was placed with me, that I have never received documentation for.
-----------------------
However the same doctor told CYFS:
--------------------
Dr J, Tauranga hospital specialist paediatrician documented it was on both sides of the forehead, that is despite him sitting beside Melissa all the way to Starship hospital in the ambulance. Of course it would definitely be inflicted deliberate injury in that case. He also said it at trial. Dr K crown specialist paediatrician, at trial said both doctors at Tauranga hospital said this.
However in his written police statement, this is what he said:
DOCUMENT EG 2 Tauranga hospital
Document shows that the Crown prosecutor had a conflict of interest with a doctor that had previously treated Melissa at Tauranga hospital, also two admissions at that hospital shortly before Melissa was placed with me, that I have never received documentation for.
refusal of treatment excuses
Melissa was denied immediate surgery that would have enabled her a full recovery. The excuses were based upon Melissa supposedly being so ill that her prognosis was extremely poor. This was judged mainly by her low GCS and alleged "no response to mannitol". Melissa had begun to gain more consciousness in hospital as a result of the drugs given to her. She was withdrawing her arm and fighting intubation. In a hospital document kept from me it stated they had to make her GCS lower with the help of pancuronium, in order to give her the CT scan. Mannitol is a drug given to "reduce acutely raised intracranial pressure until more definitive treatment can be applied" (Wikipedia). Ambulance staff gave Melissa Mannitol when she had a GSC of 3. At the hospital her GCS improved to 5, according to Dr H, the anaethetist who intubated Melissa which is why they then administerd pancuronium. According to him in a Taruanga Hospital document that was kept from me: :
In one of the documents kept from me, Dr J, Tauranga hospital specialist paediatrician, stated they were following the option of no treatment and denial of transfer. He said at trial:
Rescue helicopters are there to transport people too critically ill to travel any other way, or who need rapid emergency surgery to save their life. So what is with the excuse that Melissa was too critical to go by helicopter about, but money???? How can aggression of treatment be denied because Melissa was a foster child? Doctors make an oath to treat ALL people within all means they can. Why should a foster child be denied that? Also I happen to have a friend who was a westpac rescue helicopter pilot and he has done transfers in much windier conditions then the gently breeze we had that day.
In Dr S, crown forensic neuropathologist's statement she said:
However she did not say that at trial, rather:
The CT result document that was kept from me shows the haemorrhage was only 1.5mm deep, not 9, as Dr S and Dr K both said at trial. It was 9mm long. So pretty small, considering I supposedly used such massive violence as Dr K crown specialist paediatrician, told the jury I did. This document was also kept from me, as the CT scan picked up the earlier accidental haemorrhage in exactly the same spot that proved this was a re-bleed, hence the catastrophic result of a minor fall.
The fact that the swelling was mild shows Melissa was definitely responding to the Mannitol and that the injured parts of her brain were more a result of not being operated on soon enough to relieve the pressure of the haemorrhage. In regard to that haemorrhage Dr K said at trial:
But if one sees the CT result document that was kept from me, it says the haemorrhage was only 1.5mm deep. Extreme violence perhaps would make it 9mm deep which is why Dr K would say this, but for Melissa to respond so tragically with such a small fall and haemorrhage would suggest there was something else going on; related to her megacephalophy, prior accidental haemorrhage re-bleed and the fact that "all her blood vessels were susceptible to bleeding", as Dr B said in his statements, but not at trial.
Mannitol is contraindicated during active cerebral haemorrhage, so if an improvement in GSC from 3-5 is termed non-response by hospital staff, this would indicate that Melissa's haemorrhage was ongoing. This was significant in that it meant the retinal haemorrhages Melissa had in one eye were progressive also and also that I had sought medical assistance very quickly, contrary to what the crown made out and changed my statements to. It was said at trial that the haemorrhage was not ongoing, so I would have caused the retinal haemorrhages only by an act of extremely violent shaking. Melissa was tagged for denial of treatment the moment I told a social worker who asked me for full details on what I did to try and get a response when Melissa collapsed in my arms, that I had gently shaken her. The Crown twisted this around to say I was hiding that from doctors and authorities until the social worker asked, as I that was all that really happened, and this is what Tauranga hospital staff assumed too obviously. The fact is it had absolutely nothing to do with what made Melissa comatose, so was of no priority at all for me to tell anyone, and not on my mind in the least until recalling the things I did to try and get a response from Melissa. She got the head injury from falling from her standing height and hitting her head. Shaking a child who is in the sitting position with hands either side of their head, trying to get a response from them after collapsing in my arms, is NOT shaken baby. The evidence proved there was no neck or cervical cord injury of any sort whatsover. And yet Dr K showed a video of a much younger baby doll being shaken extremely violently held under the arms and the head being thrown back and forth repeatedly and violently. Melissa's head did not move back and forth at all, but this is why Dr K HAD to have cervical cord injury accepted as a fact at trial; and which the judge happily obliged with.
"more then one reason gives excuses"
In one of the documents kept from me, Dr J, Tauranga hospital specialist paediatrician, stated they were following the option of no treatment and denial of transfer. He said at trial:
Rescue helicopters are there to transport people too critically ill to travel any other way, or who need rapid emergency surgery to save their life. So what is with the excuse that Melissa was too critical to go by helicopter about, but money???? How can aggression of treatment be denied because Melissa was a foster child? Doctors make an oath to treat ALL people within all means they can. Why should a foster child be denied that? Also I happen to have a friend who was a westpac rescue helicopter pilot and he has done transfers in much windier conditions then the gently breeze we had that day.
In Dr S, crown forensic neuropathologist's statement she said:
However she did not say that at trial, rather:
The CT result document that was kept from me shows the haemorrhage was only 1.5mm deep, not 9, as Dr S and Dr K both said at trial. It was 9mm long. So pretty small, considering I supposedly used such massive violence as Dr K crown specialist paediatrician, told the jury I did. This document was also kept from me, as the CT scan picked up the earlier accidental haemorrhage in exactly the same spot that proved this was a re-bleed, hence the catastrophic result of a minor fall.
The fact that the swelling was mild shows Melissa was definitely responding to the Mannitol and that the injured parts of her brain were more a result of not being operated on soon enough to relieve the pressure of the haemorrhage. In regard to that haemorrhage Dr K said at trial:
But if one sees the CT result document that was kept from me, it says the haemorrhage was only 1.5mm deep. Extreme violence perhaps would make it 9mm deep which is why Dr K would say this, but for Melissa to respond so tragically with such a small fall and haemorrhage would suggest there was something else going on; related to her megacephalophy, prior accidental haemorrhage re-bleed and the fact that "all her blood vessels were susceptible to bleeding", as Dr B said in his statements, but not at trial.
Mannitol is contraindicated during active cerebral haemorrhage, so if an improvement in GSC from 3-5 is termed non-response by hospital staff, this would indicate that Melissa's haemorrhage was ongoing. This was significant in that it meant the retinal haemorrhages Melissa had in one eye were progressive also and also that I had sought medical assistance very quickly, contrary to what the crown made out and changed my statements to. It was said at trial that the haemorrhage was not ongoing, so I would have caused the retinal haemorrhages only by an act of extremely violent shaking. Melissa was tagged for denial of treatment the moment I told a social worker who asked me for full details on what I did to try and get a response when Melissa collapsed in my arms, that I had gently shaken her. The Crown twisted this around to say I was hiding that from doctors and authorities until the social worker asked, as I that was all that really happened, and this is what Tauranga hospital staff assumed too obviously. The fact is it had absolutely nothing to do with what made Melissa comatose, so was of no priority at all for me to tell anyone, and not on my mind in the least until recalling the things I did to try and get a response from Melissa. She got the head injury from falling from her standing height and hitting her head. Shaking a child who is in the sitting position with hands either side of their head, trying to get a response from them after collapsing in my arms, is NOT shaken baby. The evidence proved there was no neck or cervical cord injury of any sort whatsover. And yet Dr K showed a video of a much younger baby doll being shaken extremely violently held under the arms and the head being thrown back and forth repeatedly and violently. Melissa's head did not move back and forth at all, but this is why Dr K HAD to have cervical cord injury accepted as a fact at trial; and which the judge happily obliged with.
"more then one reason gives excuses"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)