Prep for murder 5

Melissa had fixed and dilated pupils when the opthamologist gave her eye drops. This was when the neurologist did his assessment, as well as when she was under paralytics and sedatives to keep her GSC low. He determined that Melissa was neurologically basically dead and gone of course. However, one of her eyes was functioning as it should when these eye drops wore off and research shows that there is favorable outcome with recovery when at least one eye is responding. Defence was never given a drugs chart for the day of the 07/03/2006, the day prior to Melissa's planned murder, but once again, notes began to record her eyes as fixed and dilated. It would seem the drops were reapplied prior to Melissa's parents being able to be with her. They most certainly have something to hide by not giving defence the drug chart of that day and refusing me it now, although I am entitled to it.

Prep for murder 4

This is part of a document the hospital sent CYFS straight after Melissa's operation, well before any neurological tests were completed as to prognosis. Melissa was to be kept alive, not to help her, but to run tests on her, gathering evidence.

Prep for murder 1

The use of Dexamethasone is strongly advised against in the case of traumatic head injury. "Corticosteroids increased short and long-term mortality in adults with traumatic head injury".--------------------- However, if the patient is not accustomed to morphine, this drug enhances the effects of the morphine. Melissa was taken off morphine straight after surgery so she would not get tolerant of small doses. Prior to being denied morphine, she was on 20 micrograms/kg/h. The Dexamethasone was given to her a few hours before her morphine overdose. The overdose rate was 2 milligrams! This is 100x the rate of the previous dose at the time of surgery for therapeutic purpose.------------------------------------------- As can be seen in the first picture Dr Tavey Dorofaeef, paediatric registrar, changed his mind about leaving a paper trail as he went to put the date in. It would totally seem he realised the death certificate would have time of death on it at this stage, and decided not to record the time for the lethal dose. However, the effect is clearly seen in Melissa's vitals graph.

Prep for murder 2

Fluid restriction to 30-40 mls/hr at 1250am of the 7th. This dehydration would concentrate the morphine overdose and make it work much more effectively. The urine output 6h before morphine overdose shows how very dehydrated they made Melissa.

Prep for murder 3

The Codman monitor measures intracranial pressure (ICP) in the head. It was inserted at surgery. As seen in the first picture, the staff were concerned that initially the readings were quite low. When the readings began to increase, showing improvement in Melissa at 0600 on the 06/01/2006, the monitor was removed. This ensured there would not be any recordings of improvement. Of course if the pressure rose too high it would also be concerning and would give them more motivation to make Melissa's parents agree to murder her, so what other reason would they remove it except that given she was shown to be improving and "very stable", that the pressure would not increase to a concerning level and they knew that.------------------------ When a person is critically injured or neglected by doctors to become critical, loved ones and media announce if there is hope that the person is "critical, but stable". That "but" means a huge amount of hope to loved ones and that there is most definitely hope that the person will recover.----------------------- The second to last picture shows how Melissa had improved so much she was trying to breathe independantly of the ventilator.----------------- The last one is what Dr Meadows said to encourage turning off the ventilator and murder of Melissa saying her SEP's (measure neurological function) were "absent and equivacal", but the actual result was absent on the haemorrhage side and 'normal" for her left side.

They think they are more than Melissa

These documents were given to the jury in order to help them decide if I was guilty of murder or manslaughter.----------------------------------------------- Part one, did I apply force to Melissa's head? I applied force to her stomach area in order to get her to sit down for a nappy change. This was an impulsive snapping of rage when she did not sit when I asked her too, but looked as though she was going to then stood back up. I intended she land on her bottom with enough force only that she could not self-correct and remain standing. Her bottom landed at the spot it would have if I had taken her under the arms and sat her backwards with her legs straight. There was not enough force to cause a bruise on her stomach. She inadvertently and totally unintentionally hit her head as she fell over. It could be argued that momentum and the rotational manner of the fall was the acting force upon Melissa's head, but for arguments sake, let's say I am guilty of that one.--------------------------------------------- Part two. Perhaps this is arguable also. I had the intention to cause Melissa to sit down. By no means whatsoever did I intend for her to hit her head. So I can't really answer whether the indirect impact and force on Melissa's head is a result of my intention. So for arguments sake, let's again say I am guilty of this.------------------------------------------------------------ Part three. Was such an act operative and substantial cause of death. Here's where I return a NOT-guilty. Operative yes. Substantial, not by any means in the least. It was the doctors unlawful conduct that led to Melissa's death by deliberate and predetermined neglect and overdose. The police correctly withdrew the original charge of assault when the autopsy showed Melissa's prior accidental subdural haemorrhage, that the second was a re-bleed, that Melissa had megacephaly, that all her blood vessels were found to be vulnerable to bleeding by the surgeon and that virtually all tissue death in the brain was a result of not being operated on urgently enough. There are also two admissions to Tauranga hospital that I was never given documents for that the police know. Also my documentation evidence of the previous accidental head injury. Also scientific research that shows a person is extremely susceptible to a catastrophic effects and re-bleed with little force with a healing subdural. ------------------------------------------------- Therefore, the jury should have found me not guilty of murder or manslaughter.-------------------------------------------------- What I did to Melissa when I pushed her, led to her death. It did not cause it. Drs J, K, Gabriel Nuthall and Tavey Dorofaeef saw to that. One made a call immediately that Melissa was solely "shaken baby" and would die immediately so there was no need to treat her and she could just be left on the gurney to die. Dr K backed up that doctor immediately and hastily and added that it was extremely violent shaking. (He told CYFS a number of very unprofessional lies off the top of his head, and the media in circulation of jury selection, just before trial). Then Dr Nuthall went on to plan her death, which was followed through by Dr Dorofaeff. Dr K was the trial expert who went all out to support the incorrect diagnosis. The judge accepted his lies as 'fact' for sentencing although they were obviously against the evidence, so that Dr K could then use incorrect and made up injuries as ‘statistics’ for shaken baby. Doctors have an oath to each other first and foremost. They will close ranks and protect each other to the grave. It seems ALL government authorities do so too, the health and disability commissioner, the so-called justice system, coroners, etc. I am considered expendable for their purpose, as was Melissa.------------------------------------

Judge unjust

The bottom three pictures are what the judge told the jury during summing up. He TOLD the jury to ask to see my original video tape again. This tape was filmed when I was not told it was my right to not be filmed and had not been read my bill of rights. It was also the video for the first arrest of assault that was withdrawn with police saying the case was closed and there was no suspicious circumstances; not a statement for my murder charge made after I began probing into Melissa's neglect. For all these reasons therefore, it was inadmissible. I was in deep shock, dissociated, focusing on my poor response to try and get a response from Melissa, and extremely distressed and confused. At the time I was phobic with cameras and intensely fearful of police, and all people for that matter. Judge actually told the jury to disregard the transcripts in case they "lost the wood for the trees", the exact opposite of what the appeal court says he should have instructed if he was low enough to allow them to end the trial on the extremely dramatic derogatory note the Crown started out on. In other words go only by my video and disregard the evidence! The second transcript that was much more accurate, taken when I was emotionally stable and coherent, the jury were led to disregard by the judge. I could fool myself that the judge was being nice making getting an appeal easy, but it doesn't stack up with the other nasty things he did to ensure everything in his power would be stacked against me. This judge now works for the appeal courts. The very courts that wrote up the document in the first picture on how he should have conducted this aspect. How concerning is that?