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?

Obstructive authority 5, Health and Disability Commissioner

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.

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"