It is impossible to give evidence and
proof of something that does not exist as anyone but Patrick Kelly and Judge
Stevens accepts. The post-mortem did not
show a thing on the right hand side, but did have indisputable evidence of the
supposed ‘identical’ one on the left hand side. So it is easy to show evidence
is non-existent for the supposed ‘identical’ one on the right hand side, by
contrast.
If you find your mind straying and
switched off at a lot of the complex information below, then you have experienced
a sample of what the jury would have felt.
 |
| 1. Sentencing remarks.jpg
Most definitely against evidence Judge Lynton Stevens was well aware of. It was seemingly made up by Dr David Jones Tauranga hospital specialist paediatrician, to ensure my conviction so he would not be held to account.
|
 |
| 2. Dr K, Starship hospital notes 41 & 49.jpg |
 |
| 3. Dr K, Trial 280.jpg
Patrick Kelly’s excuse at trial for not seeing the forehead ‘marks’ was that it must have been covered in bandages at the time and yet he then immediately went on to describe the scar and site the surgeon had operated at on the right and had it drawn on his recording of his minuscule ‘injury’ nit-picking exercise. It would seem he turned a blind eye to the evidence of impact on the left hand side to support Dr Jones misdiagnosis, but later when he got hospital notes from Dr Jones and the evidence only supported impact, then thought it a good idea to say it was on both sides.
|
 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 4. Dr K, Starship hospital notes 47.jpg
The drawing Patrick Kelly recorded when he could not see grazes on both sides of Melissa’s head because a lot of her head was covered in bandages. LOL
In picture 3 Patrick Kelly also told the jury Dr Jones and Dr B Tauranga hospital emergency medical officer, recorded the abrasions on both sides of the forehead. And yet this is what he said in his police statement.
Patrick Kelly once again tells the jury that ‘doctors’ plural had said there were grazes on both sides of the head.
Dr B drew the diagram of injuries at Tauranga hospital and this clearly shows the forehead and cheek graze being on the left forehead only.
The same day she wrote to CYFS saying these marks were on the right hand side. It would seem that without Melissa or her notes in front of her, she innocently mistook what side it was on. She did not say it was on both sides to CYFS. This doctor was rather melodramatic, but she was not nasty and had no need to save face.
Dr B’s mistaken evidence of the cheek mark on the right in her letter to CYFS was eliminated as evidence; as the left cheek graze was so very blatantly obvious to everyone that it was recorded multiple times and by everyone. But the Crown wanted to make out to the jury that Melissa had more than one impact injury, so of course I would be guilty of slamming her repeatedly. So they kept the forehead mark part of Dr B’s mistake, to fuel their fire.
At trial she correctly said there was an impact mark on the left forehead and cheek only. The Crown prosecutor and my lawyer did not question her at all on her saying they were on the right. Both let Patrick Kelly say it for her, without challenge.
As can be seen by my husband’s evidence, he also mistook the grazing on Melissa’s cheek as being on both sides in his first statement given around midnight of the day, long after a dairy farmer should be in bed sound asleep, and whilst in shock after a traumatic afternoon. However, he did say it correctly in his statement of 11 Jan.
Patrick Kelly had explained away a supposed right side forehead graze ‘seen’ by Dr Jones and Dr B as covered in bandages, but to highlight a cheek graze also on that side would advertise to the jury the blatant lies of them being on that side, especially unsupported with photos and it would also have made my husband look an unreliable witness when they wanted him to say there was a swelling at the back of Melissa’s head for the judge to accept as fact, also against the evidence and non-existent (see BS injury that contributed toward me getting convicted and accepted by judge Lynton Stevens as fact for sentencing No1, swelling and soft spots were detected on Melissa's head).
So the Crown prosecutor did not bring this up with my husband at trial.
This is also why when Dr B wrote to CYFS mistakenly saying the cheek and forehead graze was on the right only, Patrick Kelly exploited that to her saying a forehead graze was on both sides, as it contradicted her medical notes. At trial he said both Dr Jones and Dr B said there were left and right forehead grazes, but eliminated Dr B’s right cheek graze. However, Dr B said only the correct side of both grazes at trial.
My lawyer Rachael Adams did not bring up with my husband or Dr B the mistaken mark on the right cheek, when they gave evidence.
I guess the Crown prosecutor anticipated my lawyer may actually work for me and bring up the mistaken right hand cheek grazes by my husband and Dr B, so they were extremely careful to ensure not a single photo of the right side of Melissa’s face went to the jury or that Dr B and my husband were questioned on their errors.
There are only post-mortem photos that show the right cheek. Of course if the grazes had been on both sides, at any of the earlier photo sessions it would have been very happily captured by doctors and shown to the jury. But as we can see in these photos, no right hand cheek mark!!!!
Dr David Jones on the other hand, the doctor with the most to lose, stuck to his guns that there were right and left side impact marks on Melissa’s forehead. He said he was writing the notes in retrospect, but it was only 2015h (8.15pm of the 4th January 2006), two hours after Melissa’s arrival at Tauranga hospital and one and a quarter hours prior to her finally departing Tauranga hospital for transfer to Starship hospital at 2130h (9.30pm) for surgery, that should have been done immediately at Tauranga hospital.
It was Dr Jones who accompanied Melissa to Starship by ambulance and of course he took notes on the way there. She arrived at Starship at 0115 (1.15am of the 5th January 2006), so that was nearly four hours he sat right beside her, looking at her right forehead, but he did not once correct his notes. Dr Jones arrived back in Tauranga at 0515.
So of course one would not expect retrospect notes at 2015h (8.15pm of the 4th January 2006), but rather when he returned back to Tauranga.
What would have been very evident to Dr Jones at 2015h (8.15pm of the 4th January 2006), in which he would likely have been thinking in retrospect; is that his diagnosis of extremely violent shaken baby was incorrect; his prognosis of her dying any minute so not worth treating was incorrect; that he should not have turned down the neurosurgeons offer to do emergency surgery immediately at Tauranga hospital so Melissa could be operated on within the golden time of three hours that would have ensured her a full recovery; and that due to the consequences of his decision Melissa’s life would be terminated by Starship staff and the evidence would only support impact, as I had told them.
It seems to me that he deliberately schemed what he knew would ensure my conviction, so he could save face.
Dr J has no explanation for there not being a photo. As with a lot of the “evidence”, the Crown just expected the jury to go by their say-so, as there was no evidence of it.
My lawyer asks him if there is a photo in cross examination. Dr Jones twists that around to her telling him there is one.
The judges sidekick who showed contempt of court for all the defence experts, then edited the transcript from “you can take it from me there isn’t”, to “you can take it from me there is” when my lawyer told him there was no photo of the right hand side forehead grazing and told him he could take it from her there were none.
The judge interrupted my lawyers cross examination and did not let her carry on with informing the jury there was no evidence of grazing at the right forehead. Instead he exemplified Dr Jones incorrect statement for him and put it in the record as fact that it was on both sides.
This paramedic did not find the forehead graze with her
“head to toe” check on Melissa, despite specifically “assessing the scalp”. Both paramedics noticed the obvious
graze on Melissa’s left cheek, but there was also the light graze on the left
forehead that went totally un-noticed by them.
|
 |
| 21. Tauranga hospital showing left.jpg |
The nurse at Tauranga hospital tasked
to photograph all injuries, detected the abrasion to the left forehead and
photographed it; she did not detect this on the other side, although one would
think it would have influenced her to check even more thoroughly, having found
one on the left hand side that was obscured a bit by hair and a bit difficult
to see firsthand, as shown by the paramedics not noticing it at all.
This grazing had totally cleared up by
the time autopsy photos were taken.
The
photographer who took photos at the time Patrick Kelly did the extensive
physical ‘injury’ nitpicking assessment the afternoon of the following day,
supposedly did not notice or photograph this nor the supposed identical one on
the right hand side.
A minimum
of three photo shoots were done, none detected a right hand forehead
abrasion. Of sixty or so people who saw
Melissa by the time Patrick Kelly examined her, not a single one supported Dr
Jones ‘error’.
 |
| 22. Dr Z, Trial 464.jpg |
Dr Z, crown forensic paediatric pathologist.
 |
| 23. Dr F Trial 498 & 499.jpg |
Dr F, defence forensic pathologist.
The
pathologists refused to play along at trial when prompted by the crown
prosecutor to comment on this, saying there was no evidence, diagram or
description.
 |
| 24. Mr B, Trial 132.jpg |
Mr. B the neurosurgeon
who operated at the right side forehead said there was no scalp injury. The Crown Prosecutor tried to make it sound
to the jury as though he was only asking for a small area that did not contain
the forehead, so the jury could carry on inferring the right side abrasion was
there, but the surgery covered the entire mid to right of Melissa’s
forehead. A post-mortem photo displays
the craniotomy scar covering this area, but I will not be posting it here. Patrick Kelly’s diagram of the extent of the
scar in picture 4 above, is grossly under exaggerated.
 |
| 25. Starship hospital notes 99.jpg |
The police officer who attended the
post-mortem wrote this. The left rear
contusion supports exactly what I wrote in Melissa’s journal and told
police. I had my back to Melissa putting
the washing out, when her sister called out to me when she saw Melissa trying
to apparently climb on one of the elder children’s pushbikes that was on a side
stand. As I turned I saw Melissa fall
backwards and hit the back of her head on the concrete. Slightly before impact Melissa looked left
toward me. Hence any evidence of this
impact would have been left rear.
Despite finding this at post mortem it
would seemingly never be mentioned again and was not dated by the Dr S, the Crowns forensic neuropathologist, who never
acknowledged its existence in the least, at least not to defence. My guess, because it supported exactly what I
wrote in Melissa’s journal and fully supported the evidence of causing the accidental
contra-coup subdural haemorrhage that re-bled.
The Crown would only follow up ‘evidence’ that would ensure my
conviction and withheld the strongest evidence for defence.
The
left front contusion is of course evidence of the recent impact that would go
on to be examined.
 |
| 26. Dr D, postmortem statement.jpg |
Dr D, the Crown pathologist
who performed the autopsy.
There was no such evidence for the right side!
 |
27. Dr K, Starship hospital notes 109 & Trial 298.jpg |
A small contact subdural at the left
forehead picked up by CT and MRI scans.
These scans did not show such a contact subdural on the right.
Patrick
Kelly wrote himself that the scans showed a small contact subdural at the left
in this hospital note, but at trial he eliminated this evidence and only
mentioned the T2 left frontal lobe hyper intensity (caused by primary injury
impact, not secondary swelling/ischaemia), unsupported by the evidence of the
contact subdural.
There was no evidence of T2 left
frontal lobe hyper intensity showing damage to this area by scans for the
right; but I do not believe the jury realised the importance of this given the
large subdural contra-coup re-bleed injury on the right caused significant
damage to the entire right brain hemisphere due to swelling and ischaemia
because pressure of the subdural haemorrhage was not relieved soon enough.
Patrick Kelly explained away this scan
finding as being caused by shaking, after removal of the evidence of the
contact subdural, but because the significance of the left frontal lobe hyper
intensity as compared to the right hemisphere damage was not explained to the
jury, it was also left open for them to infer this was evidence of impacts to
both sides of Melissa’s head.
A lot of the ‘evidence’ was very open
ended for the jury to guess what they liked.
 |
| 28. Dr D postmortem statement.jpg |
Dr D distinctively defines
three areas of bruising and that the monitor bruising is very separate from the
left frontoparietal (impact) bruising. Further,
that under the impact bruising there is further bruising of the deep scalp that
happens to be in a “rather diffuse pattern”
(carpet pattern, evidence to come in future post).
 |
| 29. Starship hospital notes 83 & 102 And Dr D Statement 3.jpg |
Dr D said the monitor was
midline and drew it on his diagram. The MRI
radiologist also stated the high mid placement of the monitor. As can be seen in the photo 16, the graze is
well away from the top midline of Melissa’s head.
 |
| 30. Dr K, Trial 368.jpg |
To
counteract the evidence of impact, one of Patrick Kelly’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.
The three
pathologists Dr D, original crown pathologist who did the autopsy, 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.
There is
not a comment to be found in any documents that Mr B said he thought the
evidence of impact on the left was caused by the monitor. He obviously accepted
it was not his area of expertise and was professional. With all the evidence it seemed Mr B was very
reluctant to join in with Dr Kelly’s vendetta and attempted to uphold his
integrity, although he did commit perjury on one very crucial point.
Only
Patrick Kelly 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.
 |
31. Dr Z, Trial 465.jpg |
Patrick Kelly went against the evidence
of the actual experts, the three pathologists, by telling the jury the forehead
evidence was caused by the monitor. The actual experts were adamant it was not
and that it supported impact on that side.
As Dr Z said, Mr B and Patrick Kelly did not reflect the scalp to
examine pathologically, as Dr D, the pathologist who performed the autopsy did.
This picture also shows that post
mortem examination found a contact subdural underneath the left forehead abrasion
“large area of bruising with ‘associated blood clot’ that appeared to overlie
this area of pattern abrasion of the left forehead”. There was nothing detected on the right hand
side. I am fairly certain the jury would
not have realised this was a description of a contact subdural; but Patrick
Kelly in another example of perjury went on to say Melissa did not have one.
The jury were shown a photo of what Dr
Z describes of Melissa’s scalp reflected and hanging over her face, to
encourage conviction. I watched the
Crown prosecutor watching the jury to ensure they saw the photo and to see
their reactions; only then did he tell the judge that he “may have accidentally
put in a photo he should not have” (it was previously ruled inadmissible). It is a very disturbing photo and was put in
to provoke emotional disdain and disgust.
I have the photo, but will not be putting it up here.
However, if the jury had known what
they were looking at, the photo shows the contact subdural and evidence of
bruising the pathologists found at the left forehead and the contra-coup
(opposite side due to the brain hitting against the skull that side when
impacted on the opposite side) subdural re-bleed on the right hand side, that
Melissa had the operation for to alleviate pressure of. This was not explained to the jury. They were left to make their own assumptions
with inference it was two impact evidences they were looking at.
 |
| 32. Dr K, Trial 308 & 309.jpg |
Patrick Kelly explains that with impact
in short falls, the young child’s skull is flexible so often deforms rather
than fractures. With a contradiction
after this he says he would usually expect to see both injuries together. In any reputable scientific research, one can
see that most often it will be either or.
Melissa did not have a fracture.
Despite covering up all evidence of the
left side impact and contact subdural himself, Patrick Kelly then very
arrogantly goes on to pretend the side the large contra-coup right side
subdural is, is where there should be a contact subdural. This is shown by his referring to the
evidence of Dr S’s haemosiderin staining that proved the previous accidental
contra-coup subdural haemorrhage that re-bled with the second impact incident,
on the right.
He goes on to elaborate as to why he
put the two together, pretending to consider that many medical experts would
accept that because Melissa had the prior subdural haemorrhage she was very
vulnerable to a catastrophic one with minimal force, as was the case; but he
was merely using it as an opportunity to shred it as anything for defence (or
“setting up a straw man” as my lawyer called this tactic (closing address
p160)) with further perjury of the prior subdural haemorrhage only being seen
microscopically so insignificant.
His other objective apart from his own
ego and to appear objective and reputable, to latter have the jury believe the
two head injuries were done in the same manner by me and “at least twice”.
 |
| 33. Dr K, Trial 365 & 367.jpg |
My lawyer Rachael Adams
stupidly played along with Dr Kelly pushing an impact on both sides, rather
than dispute it, but this made Patrick Kelly then have to contradict what he
said of “Tauranga doctors” finding a right side graze, by saying there was no
evidence of fracture or ‘contusion’ (impact evidence redefined so the jury
would think it was something other than a graze) on the right side. One sees him fumbling over what to say to
this tactic as he then remarks there is impact evidence, but it’s not a contact
subdural.
The impact caused a secondary effect of
a re-bleed of the accidental prior hemorrhage in a totally different
contra-coup place of Melissa’s head, which was at the right, but not at the
forehead! The external impact on the
left caused the internal effect of the subdural re-bleed on the right. Of course there was NOT going to be external damage on the contra-coup side and of
course this was not a contact subdural.
My lawyer said a number of stupid things that contributed toward my
conviction.
 |
| 34. Dr K research.jpg |
Patrick Kelly loves to refer to his own
research, so let’s look at some:
Patrick Kelly et al, in to the 6th year of this
research by the time my case came to trial, concluded that in falls less then
one metre, 49 % of children in the 6-36m age bracket (Melissa was 15m), will
have a subdural haematoma. That’s hardly “on occasion” as he says in picture 27
is it?
If one
wants to argue that all of a sudden there was a rush of subdural haematoma’s
only after my trial, then the scientific integrity of this research is
extremely questionable; or perhaps for some reason the researchers relented to
that which they previously denied.
Of course this ‘research’ as in any
done by Patrick Kelly is very narrow minded and done with an agenda and tunnel
vision. It is very unprofessional and
gives great examples of why Patrick Kelly wanted things ruled as fact that did
not apply, so that he could use it in his ‘research’ to dispute all the
reputable scientific research out there.
It also contains comments outside of
the researchers’ expertise to dispute the objective findings of their own
research and assumes only negative (agenda/vendetta) options to appear
scientific and objective as to why that objective information occurred.
They also quite proudly boast of how
many convictions resulted from some of the cases in which more serious injuries
occurred, to stoke his own opinion that the incidents were inflicted not
accidental, so if anyone says a child with serious injuries was injured
accidentally they were lying. The irony
being that Patrick Kelly coerces police to charge and commits perjury to ensure
convictions.
Patrick Kelly said at trial that
Melissa's injuries he has only ever seen in high speed crashes falls from many
stories and yet his research was on short falls and 4 children died from fall
distances less than 1m. Of course he
then goes on to say all except what he authorises as accidental are inflicted
and the person must be lying; but two of those he accepted as accidental was a
child falling from a stationery car onto concrete and one a parent who fell
over while holding her baby. Hardly a
high speed crash or fall from multi stories is it?
I wonder if the child in those cases
died of hospital neglect rather than the actual impact because doctors are so tunnel
visioned on refusing to accept the facts of a short fall and immediately put it
down to abuse, as Patrick Kelly so advocates.
This is a perfect example of Patrick
Kelly’s two-facedness and statistical manipulation. Whenever anyone hears anything from him
masquerading as science or his so called "research", they really
ought to take it with a pinch of salt, or make that a handful as he likes to
say of all others who are not of his mindset.
 |
| 35. Dr S, Trial 424, 426 & 430.jpg |
Dr S Crown forensic neuropathologist,
explains the mechanism that caused axonal beading at the corpus collosum. My lawyer asked her the cause and she said
there are a number of causes; if my lawyer had made her elaborate in regard to
the other impact evidence found at the left forehead and the swelling that
occurred on the right side, the answer would have been impact caused it. But it was actually Dr Kelly who said the
corpus collosum beading and the subdural haemorrhage support impact, which was
the truth. As with any instance when
Patrick Kelly told the truth, he would go on to contradict and undermine it.
A simpler explanation to the one Dr S
gave the jury is this happens when the brain is jarred, so tissue at the corpus
collosum that bridges the two brain hemispheres is stretched, in this case from
left to right, which is why axonal beading is on the left of the corpus
collosum.
 |
| 36. Dr S, Trial 418.jpg |
Dr S crown forensic neuropathologist only did
the initial step that confirmed the presence of axonal beading in the spinal
cord, but did no further testing to determine if this was due to ischaemia from
not being operated on soon enough OR primary trauma; but concluded it was due
to trauma regardless. She would
obstinately persist with this misconception to support shaken baby.
Dr R’s defence forensic specialist neuropathologist, found through a further three
independent steps of analysis, that each concluded the cervical cord damage was
due to ischaemia.
Dr S also committed perjury on the dating of the previous
accidental subdural haemorrhage to take it out of the date it occurred and I
had journalled, but to the date of the accidental scratch on Melissa’s chest I
did making a grab for her left arm to prevent her from falling face first on
the shower door edge, when she slipped when I was showering her.
She also found axonal beading in the upper brainstem, the
pons, which had occurred as a result of the prior accidental impact when
Melissa pulled the bike over on herself.
However, as this supported the accidental impact, she committed perjury
with this also, telling the jury this actual old injury was secondary ischaemic
damage from the recent impact. She only
did this as late as during trial when she heard a detective read my journal
entry, so her diagram showing this as traumatic injury was presented to the
jury.
Although Dr S covered up this
pons finding, the judge accepted it as fact as an injury for sentencing. This is another medical finding my lawyer
should have brought up in court and not allowed the Crown to cover up,
but…………..
All evidence of Dr S’s misconduct mentioned above, will
be in future posts.
The Crown covered
up all evidence of the prior impact except the subdural it caused, saying it
was only seen microscopically when in reality it was seen by Mr B at surgery
and by CT scan; so that Patrick Kelly would declare it insignificant in
contributing toward the extreme vulnerability of a re-bleed, but unsupported by
impact, so must be from shaking I had done at least twice.
(This is
irrelevant to corpus collosum beading proving an impact on the left, but not on
the right, but is necessary to give a better picture of the unprofessionalism
of Dr S that is to follow).
During summing up the Crown prosecutor told the told the
jury “who are you to accept? Well the
Crown makes the simple point that Dr S has been doing it twice as long as Dr R”
(closing address HJ pg9). He also got
Dr R to
tell the jury how “well regarded” and “of considerable experience” (Dr R Trial
439) he thought of Dr S.
And yet, here is this supposedly objective, professional
neuropathologist of vast experience and well regarded, saying she found no
axonal injury at the corpus collosum.
She knew there was a left hand impact, but chose only to look at the
middle of the corpus collosum to determine if there was any axonal
beading. Had there been beading in the
middle of the corpus collosum, this would have supported shaking of the brain
back and forth. So Dr S set out to find
evidence that would prove the misdiagnosis, as she did with being so pig-headed
to accept the ischemic finding of the cervical cord. It was absolutely
necessary that cervical cord injury be diagnosed a primary injury for
“extremely violent shaken baby”.
After all her vast experience it would seem she did not
think that a left side impact would only produce beading on the left side of
the corpus collosum.
It would seem Dr S’s vast experience has taught her very
well on how to seek, present and support biased subjective evidence for a
specific agenda.
 |
| 37. Dr S Trial 421.jpg |
But surprise surprise, when a defence
neuropathologist is assigned and Dr R requests a sample of the paraffin block
to examine himself, one month before trial Dr S cuts in further toward the side
where the impact occurred and all of a sudden finds axonal beading to the left
of the corpus collosum. Axonal beading was not present on the right hand side,
showing there was no impact on the right hand side.
 |
38. Dr S, Trial 421 & 422.jpg |
Once again her vast experience lets her
down, by concluding immediately that the beading is old and it was Dr R who
knew how to determine if they were or not and dated them to the recent impact.
But
she does stand corrected on this.
 |
| 39. Dr S, Trial. Powerpoint.jpg |
Dr S did not mention the beading was on
the left of the corpus collosum to be recorded on transcript, but her diagram
in her powerpoint clearly shows this.
This image is looking from the back of the head, so showing beading at
the left.
 |
| 40. Dr K, Trial 299.jpg |
Patrick Kelly’s perjury that beading
was in the middle of the corpus collosum.
This being where Dr S found none. Patrick Kelly saying it was in the
middle was to try and insinuate the brain was rocking back and forth, as shaking
would do to cause the stretching of tissue in the middle.
 |
| 41. Dr K, Trial 360.jpg |
Caught out perjurous!! He says the truth that it was on the
left.
 |
| 42. Dr K, Trial 361.jpg |
He realises his mistake and quickly
re-iterates the perjury, but does honestly say the corpus collosum beading and
the subdural support impact.
Interestingly Dr S or Dr R were the actual experts to state the corpus
collosum beading supports the impact, but did not say that and were not asked
it by either lawyer. So Patrick Kelly
acting expert across all fields put his foot in it here.
 |
| 43. Dr K, Trial 308, 325, 303 & 311.jpg |
Prior to telling the jury the corpus
collosum beading supports impact, he committed perjury four times saying it was
old, so the jury would disregard it supported the recent impact.
Do you think the jury understood the
crucial significance of recent axonal beading on the left of the corpus
collosum and noticed how fiercely Patrick Kelly was trying to cover this up, or
any of the other perjury, corruption, vendetta and lies of the trial in this
post, yet alone other areas they had the wool pulled over their eyes? I doubt it very much.
I had nearly four years on bail and
three in prison to realise the importance of this and a lot of other very
complex medical information that should have got me a not guilty verdict that I
believe went straight over the jury members heads. A lot went over my lawyer Rachael Adams head
too, despite my explaining the Crowns tactics to her, what they were covering
up and getting at and my instructing her to act upon them.
I have been out of prison for four
years and am still discovering things very strong for defence, which of course
the Crown experts make a living of and knew were of great significance to cover
up and perjure about. The most crucial
documents are still being withheld from me by the Crown and others supposedly
‘lost’ by Rachael Adams.
The jury had a mere three weeks from
when the information from medical experts began to be given and their verdict,
but absolutely no time to digest anything they were hearing as it was
said. They were not given full
explanations of things of crucial importance and were ordered by judge Stevens
not to look anything up.
With
all the ways Judge Stevens told the jury to disregard evidence and to go by
information that was not evidence (future post), how was the jury to go by
anything other than how much he let Patrick Kelly run the show and undermine
everyone else, playing expert across all fields; plus non-evidential circumstantial
things that were manipulated by the Crown to infer guilt?
To give you an idea of how much the
judge let Patrick Kelly run the show and undermine the actual experts in the
field, the trial transcript for him is 132 pages long. For Dr Z, crown forensic paediatric
pathologist 13 pages, Dr F, defence forensic pathologist 32
pages, Dr
R defence forensic specialist neuropathologist 9 pages, Dr S, crown
forensic neuropathologist, 19 pages and Dr M, (equal
career status to Patrick Kelly) defence specialist paediatrician
32 pages. Isn’t that interesting that
they would so oppress and undermine their own Crown experts?
The irony was that Patrick Kelly had
been the on call paediatritian when Melissa was admitted to Starship and
immediately phoned the police to give a second misdiagnosis of extremely
violent shaken baby, so the police charged me that night. My lawyer told me
that legally he was not permitted to be an expert at trial at all because he
was the lead doctor for Melissa’s care at that time; but she did nothing to
ensure that.
