7) Considerable violence was used

7) Considerable violence was used. Most definitely against evidence Judge Stevens was well aware of. Det.Snr.Sgt T (M12) To C, prosecutions barrister 28/4/06 (when withdrawing my assault charge saying there was no suspicious circumstances and no further charges would be laid.) “The pathology has revealed that Melissa Sale had at some stage in the three months preceding the fatal injury received a head injury and brain bleed. The enquiry was unable to date that injury. Unfortunately, the first brain bleed meant that the degree of force required to cause the second and fatal brain bleed was nowhere near as great as that which would have been required to cause the fatal injury in the absence of the earlier bleed”. Mr B, neurosurgeon, (trial 132, 135) no fractures. (Trial 135) I am ‘not qualified to interpret radiologist’s findings’. (When Mr HJ, crown prosecutor tried to get him to say the CT did not show evidence of a prior). The radiologist’s report of the CT done at Tauranga (that was not disclosed to defence prior to the assault charge being withdrawn) detected a prior subdural haemorrhage. It was the radiologist’s with the expertise to conclude this as he correctly did so. Despite this, the judge let Dr K, crown specialist paediatrician be the expert to say it was not. Dr Z, Crown forensic paediatric pathologist, (trial 471): size of haematoma not related to force. (Trial 472): no fractures. (Trial 468) “I think it very unlikely that such an action would cause a unilateral large subdural haemorrhage that was seen in Melissa”. (when giving her opinion to how I shook Melissa to get a response from her when she went comatose) Dr M, defence specialist paediatrician (equal standing to Dr K except that he is professional, objective and scientifically minded). (Trial 538) “pattern of massive subdural bleeding and same sided brain swelling is well recognized to be due to impact from a significant, but not extreme force. It’s a rare but well documented event after a relatively short fall”. (553 Trial) “It is now shown that even short falls can have significant rotational acceleration associated with them”. (In other words the initiating applied force is magnified with such a fall. So a significant applied force can end up being a considerable reactive force. It does not mean the force applied was “considerably violent”). Dr F defense forensic pathologist, (M35) The evidence indicates that there was prior episode of head impact injury and it is not possible to exclude such an injury from having contributed to or predisposed to her fatal subdural haemorrhage. (Trial 485) forces required are the field of a bioengineer. The crown did not have a biomechanical engineer at trial. Dr V defence biomechanical engineer, (trial 581) force to rupture a bridging vein causing a subdural depends upon the nature of the fall. (Trial 586) falls are never totally linear. (Trial 608) if a rotational element is involved, can easily exceed adult limits of risk of bridging vein rupture. (Trial 585) based upon what we know about children, they may be even more susceptible then adults. (Trial 616) a child could have a subdural haematoma and not necessarily have symptoms and if that progresses or re-bleeds, you have this catastrophic event. (Trial 573) short falls can result in subdural haemorrhages, retinal haemorrhaging and death. (Trial 585) “shaking does not result in very large acceleration. The accelerations are in the more benign level. It’s unlikely they’re going to result in subdural haematoma. By this method, it would be chest and neck injury”. This would explain why Dr K crown specialist paediatrician and the judge wanted it accepted as fact that the chest scratch was fresh and Melissa had cervical cord injury. (Judge Stevens saying “that’s simply not on” cut of defence when this expert was on the stand as defence had not given something he began to say to the crown in advance, so Dr K could argue it outside of his area of expertise. Very shortly afterwards Mr HJ, crown prosecutor bought up material defence had never been given and the judge was fine with it) Dr F, defence forensic pathologist, (trial 484) force that resulted in a carpet burn that is on the cheek is enough to have caused a subdural haemorrhage also. (Trial 481) said “the size of the haemorrhage is to some extent dependent upon two things. One is the size of the blood vessel that tears and two how long it takes for the blood to accumulate. So it’s a question of time as well as the size of the vessel. But neither of these relate well to the amount of force involved. So we really don’t know the amount of force involved”. Dr M2 original crown ophthalmologist (trial 157) “It’s highly unlikely that the forces required to produce retinal haemorrhage in a child less than two years of age would be generated by a reasonable person in an attempt to rouse an apparently unconscious child” Dr K, crown specialist paediatrician, significant element of rotation in a complex fall can tear a bridging vein, and the forces can be significant but not extreme if these two conditions apply. Low level falls can result in these injuries, but extreme force was used on Melissa as she had no underlying medical factors that made her susceptible (He often brought up things in court to appear objective then would shoot it down in flames). ((This explains why it was hidden from the jury that Dr B, neurosurgeon said all of Melissa’s blood vessels had a susceptibility to bleed and that Melissa had a prior subdural haemorrhage seen macroscopically and at surgery). Melissa’s head had grown from ‘normal’ size to in the 98th percentile rapidly for unknown reason well before her latest fall. Dr K used a child’s large head of a defence example of an all but identical case, to say that child would have an underlying medical issue that would have made them susceptible, which wasn’t ruled out). No-one knows exactly if a bridging vein was ruptured with the impact. It was assumed as it is a large main blood vessel, and it was a large haemorrhage. Greater force would be required to rupture it than more fragile smaller vessels. The neurosurgeon did not find a source of the bleed. Eliminated as evidence from trial was Mr B’s, neurosurgeon (operation note) finding that “no single obvious bleeding point was identified, but the brain and surrounding dura were inclined to bleed”. In other words, it could well be that the blood came from a number of small vessels rather than one large one. Dr S, crown forensic neuropathologist, (Trial 417) “A large haematoma like this is likely to need a largish blood vessel or vessels to be torn to produce the clot”.

6) Disregarded prior head injury

6) Disregarded prior head injury During trial Dr S, crown forensic neuropathologist, changed the pons beading primary injury to ischemia when she became aware it supported exactly the accidental head impact injury I had documented in Melissa’s journal fifteen days prior. She also changed her evidence of it being ‘at least 10 days old’ to ‘up to 10 days old’ to take it out of my documentation time. However, despite her change of evidence, Judge Stevens accepted non ischemic old injury in pons as fact for sentencing. This shows how the judge intentionally went against the evidence from the actual experts in the field to have what Dr K crown specialist paediatrician wanted ruled as ‘fact’. Judge Stevens would have known I could appeal my conviction if the pons injury was not acknowledged for what it was and the truth was already in the juries printed documents and pictures. However, he did not want to acknowledge that both head injuries were the result of impacts and the second injury was a re-bleed with little force required, so he had to disregard this. The crown covered up all the external evidence of an accidental earlier head injury impact as it was very strong for defence; and so they could say a huge amount of force was required; rather than admit Melissa being a “ticking time bomb” (an OHF social workers quote to me) for a large re-bleed from a low force impact. The judge permitted the prior supposedly ‘irrelevant’ accidental head injury at trial because Dr K had a theory he wanted rammed home, that Melissa had been the victim of “at least” two assaults of the same manner. To influence a conviction the crown experts were permitted to say the internal evidence of the prior was a microscopic subdural so very un-influential, when it was actually seen and removed at surgery. They then made up prior cervical cord injury to go with it. When taken out of context with the excluded old bruising found at autopsy on the scalp left rear that occurred 15 days earlier, they made it look like internal head injury with no external evidence of cause; ie, so shaking could be construed and the judge could state this was cause of death at sentencing upon an incorrect basis. When the manipulation had succeeded in getting me convicted, it was then disregarded for sentencing purposes. Dr K used the accidental head injury as an excuse to conclude very early on that “Melissa was the victim of at least two inflicted head injuries”, as he said at trial. Despite saying if there’s a previous bleed the person is susceptible to a re-bleed, he then played down Melissa’s to the point that the jury would accept it had no influence. He also repeatedly connected both as identical in nature by saying both had Cervical cord, brain stem and corpus collosum injury in common. The only thing they had in common was a subdural at the same spot, (right front) and evidence of head impact, 2x bruises (one left front, one left rear) and 2x axonal beadings in different places (pons for the rear accidental impact, corpus collosum for the front inadvertently inflicted impact. Axonal beading is present in tissue that has been jarred or stretched suddenly such as one gets with impact and occurs at particular junctions of brain momentum resistance. Both areas of axonal beading are situated close to where the impact occurred. The haemorrhages were situated contrecoup to the impacts, unfortunately both impacts being in line to cause subdurals at the same spot; an initial and a re-bleed, (the shock wave of the movement of the brain within the skull concluded at the same spot).

5) delay in my dialing 111.

5) 15m delay in my dialing 111. Judge Stevens at sentencing. (807) “I take into account to a limited extent” The crown had to stretch out the ‘delay’ as much as possible as it is a good inference that I would have deliberately shaken or bashed Melissa’s head to delay getting help. They loved being able to say it shows I was only worried about myself and being found out. I was interviewed whilst in shock. Normally people are given the courtesy to not be interviewed whilst in shock, but CYFS put immense pressure on the police to detain me under threat that they would remove the children from my husband if not. Despite their looking for homes to split up my children from each other and my husband immediately, whilst they were also in shock and living experiencing the trauma, they could not find any immediate placements. So the police had to find excuse to arrest me immediately. I estimated at my original interview that it would have been 10-15 minutes before I called an ambulance. When in shock as I was, time goes in slow motion and estimating time is extremely difficult and unreliable, for me I would say impossible. I do not wear watches and was not thinking in a calculated manner to be using one anyway. For my second interview I estimated the time much more accurately as I could compare it to similar episodes whilst I was under such intense shock and because I had time to think straight on how very rapidly I did what I did to get a response from Melissa, was much more like 5 minutes if that. S (in D), Crown neuropathologist, not said at trial: “Injury has not caused severe depression of breathing that the brain suffered damage from lack of oxygen before medical assistance was available”. This was sanitised for trial (Trial 16) “no evidence of universal nerve cell damage in the brain from lack of oxygen due to impaired breathing”. (Trial 422), small, but numerous areas of tissue damage was due to circulation being cut off prior to surgery, not deprivation of oxygen, which is why some parts of the brain were spared of damage. (Trial 66) Dr B upon admission at Tauranga hospital, “decided to intubate then, gurgled breathing”. E, paramedic, (Trial59) “We obviously had good airway at that point, which later required suctioning just to keep her O2 sats up”. (Trial 60): “respirations became irregular” as they approached Tauranga. Melissa deteriorated rapidly, but ambulance staff had arrived well before Melissa was likely to experience respirational hypoxia. I had no watch. I estimated time while in shock due to trauma, when it seems to move very slowly and everything is silent and in slow motion, but I know what I did to try and get a response was done rapidly. (Hence, the scratched nose with the manner I took off her tee to put her in the shower to try and get a response from her). I also took her outside to show her the animals she so loved to try and get her awake. The manner I tried to get a response from unconscious Melissa clearly shows how I was not thinking straight prior to calming down enough to think to call an ambulance. My later statement had my lower estimate of 5 minutes. This was most correct, but it was re-edited to 15 minutes for the jury. I had evidence of coping poorly in similar circumstances and trauma that I had told my lawyer that could have been verified. It was part of the psychological issues I had at the time. This was another refusal of instruction and response by my lawyer.

4) fresh chest scratch

4) That a chest scratch was fresh. Most definitely against evidence Judge Stevens was well aware of. W, paramedic, (trial 10) “old sore on left breast”. E, paramedic, (trial, 59) “small looking older wound on her left”, (trial, 61) “didn’t seem to be fresh, it looked old” “scabby”. Dr J, Tauranga hospital specialist paediatrician, (trial 89) sore could have been several days old. Dr K, Crown specialist paediatrician, (trial 282), thin scab on it. Dr Z, Crown forensic paediatric pathologist, (trial 463), could be several days old, Tauranga photo looks no different to when Dr K saw it (19h later). R, told police in his statement he’d noticed a chest scratch a few days before, but this was not said at trial, nor did my lawyer ask. It had occurred the Sunday before, so was four days old exactly how I explained it occurred very early on. Accidentally! When I went to grab Melissa’s left arm with my left hand when she slipped in the shower and was about to fall face first on the shower door edge. In the close up of the photo it can be faintly seen where two other of my fingers barely scraped also, due to the manner of quickly reaching my hand toward Melissa’s arm as she faced me. I had told my lawyer of the faint evidence of the indentation of two other fingers also, but she refused to do anything about it. There happened to be a very faint chest mark on the right hand side of Melissa’s chest at about the same height and about half the size of the fresher one that was well and truly healed over and pigmented prior to Melissa coming into my care. It was so barely noticeable that Tauranga hospital staff tasked to photograph injuries had not noticed it. Dr K said this mark was ‘identical’ to the fresher one I accidentally inflicted, to say each mark occurred in two episodes of like abuse sessions. By appearance with extreme close up photos the crown used at trial, I can see an old school sore at the end of this old mark. It appears to me as though it would have become an open wound by Melissa scratching it, as she had done with a number of her school sores in my care and as her other healed sores looked. Dr K interpreted them to mean I had used restraints (tied Melissa up) on two occasions, but strong inference was also put upon my injuring her in a grip of shaking twice.

“Facts” against evidence accepted by judge Lynton Stevens to help Drs save face.

The following accepted by “Justice” Stevens, (now promoted to an appeal court judge) as ‘fact’ went against the evidence. He was not aware of a small amount of facts as I instructed my lawyer to bring certain evidence up in court but she refused. I have substantial evidence to prove the following are false. Only a few are listed. 1) That “swelling and soft spots were detected on Melissa’s head” by ambulance staff. Statement one by paramedic W, “I couldn’t detect any swelling or soft spots”. Statement three by paramedic W, “I could not detect any swelling or soft spots”. (Trial, 34) paramedic W: “I couldn’t find any external trauma apart from a minor graze to the cheek”. (Trial 38) paramedic W: “I couldn’t find any external injuries apart from a graze”. (Trial 55) paramedic W: “no visible injuries”, apart from a chest scratch and cheek graze. E the other paramedic had never mentioned there was swelling or soft spots at trial or otherwise. Dr K crown specialist paediatrician, (A48) palpated Melissa’s head as part of his examination said, “no obvious swelling” in the hospital notes, but excluded this from his discharge summary, two police statements and trial. Dr J, Tauranga hospital specialist paediatrician (23/7/07 statement). “There was no scalp swelling”. This was conveniently left out at trial. Although the direct statement that there was no swelling and soft spots on Melissa’s head was conveniently eliminated from trial and my lawyer had refused my instruction to include the paramedics statements, NOR was it said there was. Despite all the evidence that Melissa did not have swelling and soft spots, the crown summary of “facts” said she did. So the judge obviously went by this and chose to ignore all the evidence that said there wasn’t.

Covered up evidence

- Old beading in the pons - Recent contact subdural left front - Recent contact bruise left front - Old contact bruise left rear - Old subdural at exactly the same spot as the recent one and that a chronic and acute subdural clotting was seen macroscopically and removed at surgery. (A49) Dr K, Crown specialist paediatrician, “Melissa has subdural haemorrhages of two different ages, seen by neurosurgeon at surgery” Despite this Dr K said at trial that the CT result could be old and acute, but could also be CSF leakage or acute/hyper acute bleeding. Hyper acute being ongoing after initial acute has clotted, but from same event. It is the radiologist field of expertise to interpret what he saw not Dr K’s, but the radiologist was not a crown witness and the judge let Dr K say this outside of his area of expertise. Melissa did not have CSF leakage, but this was not brought up at trial. Two haemorrhages of two different ages seen macroscopically by CT and at surgery supports Melissa was a ‘ticking time-bomb’ (quote of OHF social worker) of susceptibility of catastrophic effect if she hit her head again. As that would be a substantial cause of death, Dr K said at trial that Mr B, neurosurgeon said the bleeding was still occurring at operation and he had to stop it. Mr B has only ever documented the opposite and said so at trial. Mr B did not have Dr K’s hearsay put to him at trial. Defence was never given evidence to the contrary, despite it being evidence the Crown would have fully and co-operatively handed over. Dr S, crown forensic neuropathologist found blood of two different age clots with her investigation. - Melissa’s luminal mark hidden by ESR and police, and perjury committed against it by V, ESR scientist. - Evidential printout of luminal mark. - Mr B, neurosurgeon, (11/1/06 operation note and briefs), “no single obvious bleeding point was identified, but the brain and surrounding dura were inclined to bleed”

Lies at trial by Dr K, Crown specialist paediatrician

Lies said by the crowns main witness Dr K at trial to make it shaking, and to say I had done the exact same kind of abuse (shaking) twice. No external injuries. (Despite this the judge said an aggravating factor was all the innocent ‘injuries’ on Melissa’s body, but what Dr K meant was being in denial of impact injury evidence). Bilateral retinal hemorrhages. (They were in the contra eye only). Diffuse Axonal Injury (DAI, common in shaking, but Melissa did not have it) Entire brain swelling (as expected of shaking, was only one side of Melissa’s). Cervical cord injury old and recent. Melissa had neither. That the old injury was exactly like the recent. He also told CYFS additional lies which he touched upon at trial to make out I had basically tortured my victim the whole time she was with me and some of these have been told to my victims family.