They can't even get the obvious basics right!

Does anyone else see something amiss here, or is it just me??? Tauranga doctors who immediately diagnosed "shaken baby" when Melissa was admitted on the 4th January 2006, also happened to say Melissa would die any moment and that was their excuse to neglect her and not give her emergency surgery offered by the Tauranga neurosurgeon. The judge gave them their own way to rule it was 'shaken baby", but isn't saying she died on a day other than that in which she did so, a bit out there? How did I allegedly kill Melissa before she was dead?

perjury of Mr B, neurosurgeon

Mr B committed perjury when he said he did not find macroscopic evidence of the earlier accidental head injury when he operated. Many hospital notes say otherwise. Detective Senior Sergeant T told my lawyer that the assault charge was withdrawn as Mr B had removed two clots at surgery of two different ages and that meant little force was required for the re-bleed. My lawyer did nothing with this information come trial. If you can read doctors illegible writing, here's just some of the documented evidence of a prior subdural seen and removed prior to and at surgery. It was not the head injury that was fatal as Dr Gabrielle Nuthall says in the bottom excerpt of course. Hospital neglect and morphine overdose saw to that. I put that one in anyway as it is subdural haemorrhages, plural! Mr B has since threatened me with defamation if I am to publish this, but I thought defamation only related to lies??? I have nothing to lose anyway and couldn't care less what I get charged with for whistleblowing. Oh well, good luck to him. He will be anonymous in my book, as I see him a reluctant player in the game of perjury, he is not responsible for Melissa's misdiagnosis, neglect or death and because I see him as very professional and have empathy that he is caught up on a system that is only about saving face.

Manipulating statistics

Dr K,crown specialist paediatrician has already been slammed in the media by one daring honest judge for saying things are abuse when they aren't. That is just the tip of the iceberg. The system condones the way he dices with lives. I wonder how long this has been going on for and how many children died prior to Melissa and hence, because a doctor refuses to assist them to the full extent; just because they know they can put it down to abuse and scapegoat and nail someone else to the max ability they can? Dr K’s focus is on venge and spite, not children's lives or quality thereof. People don't matter in this country. Even the value of the lives of children is all lip service. People like Dr Gabrielle Nuthall, intensivist, choose not to treat children if she feels assured she can put it down to someone else causing the death and she gets away with it and has the system close rank for her. Dr’s like K then go on to say BS things in court like "because she died it was inflicted" and makes up his own self glorified 'research' based upon children refused treatment and what he wants their death to be, so he can dispute all the honest reputable research out there. I was offered a plea bargain bribe after my second arrest. The police would reduce the charge to manslaughter if I pled guilty and told the courts I only shook Melissa. I did not accept as it was untrue, but that is what the judge gave Dr K anyway. That way Dr K would have free reign and never be held to account to say as he liked of the actual and made up injuries for his ‘research’. At trial he used his own incorrect unscientific ‘research’ to encourage a conviction, such as saying shaken baby cases can have unilateral deep large haemorrhages with only half the brain and only one eye injured. All of which go against logic and other reputable science of shaking. Mark my words, when Dr K retires, so long as an objective, professional, scientific, child loving paediatrician steps into his shoes, NZ's "child abuse" rate will drastically fall, especially of child deaths. In England a well renowned paediatrician was given a little slap on the hand for sending a lot of people to prison he accused of murder when their children died of cot death. But this one paediatrician had it in his head that 'cot death' was made up, no such thing and come hell or high water he was dead set on disputing it and making up his own rules and statistics at the cost of peoples lives. We have our very own one of those right here in NZ's backyard.

Saving face tactics of CYFS, lawyer, crown prosecutor etc and their gagging

When I was first arrested on 4 Jan 2006, CYFS kept me from being with my family for four months (I was not even allowed to hug them goodbye when flown to Wellington from Tauranga police custody and my youngest had never been apart from me and believed it was his fault I didn’t ‘want’ to be with him). I don't hold it against CYFS that immediately they would want me kept from the family until an investigation found I was a good mother to them, but I was bailed to a friend in Wellington who had four children, the eldest 6 years, the youngest 4 months; and they carried on excluding me from being with my children long after their investigation had concluded I was a good parent of them all, there had never been concerns, I had many supporters testifying to that and they had closed their investigation. On the night I pushed Melissa, the police gave me a choice to have the children go into CYFS care and I could be with my husband, or to be released elsewhere and the children could stay with my husband. I chose the latter because I always put my children first and I had plenty of friends in the Tauranga area to go to. When a nasty OHF social worker found out the deal, she told CYFS. That was when CYFS told police that if I’m released the children would be taken from my husband, split up and put in a number of homes regardless. Therefore, it was CYFS who forced the police to arrest me immediately. (This reflects the care and concern CYFS had for my children to not be together and with friends and their father when experiencing major trauma). The police were as reasonable as they could be initially, but were put in a situation of having to tip the scales against me to further put my children first. When the police with-drew that charge it caused CYFS to then allow me home. There was never any follow up from CYFS to see how I was coping, no thought to effect on the household with my return in my emotional state they had put me in or for what I had experienced, never a face to face interview with me. As soon as the police could take the blame if I was to do anything, CYFS were nowhere to be seen or heard. When I was re-arrested in May 2007 I was given a bail condition that I could not look after children under contract. In other words foster children or barnados day care etc; but I was allowed to look after anyone under private arrangement or newspaper adverts etc. Again I feel this was to save face. So how much of a murderous maniac did the Crown prosecutor and police really believe I was? A CYFS national office worker told me that if anything goes through the courts for my wanting access and custody of my son, they would sabotage that. And that is exactly what CYFS have gone on to do. Any case that go through courts they come down on the parent who has had publicity such as mine whether there are valid concerns or not. I was told to make arrangements outside of court if I want custody, but my ex is not reasonable or normal enough for that and wants to maintain his income source. So rather then allow the much better parent who steps up to the plate have custody, they choose to let my son stay in the abusive, negative, neglectful situation I was rescued from when I went to prison. When providing court documents to the judge, they ensured they put in the words “high profile”. I know what instruction that was to the judge. This is exactly like my trial. Only this time instead of everything stacked against me, it is stacked against my son. Again to save face, but this time for CYFS,not doctors. It seems the judge has not even bothered to read my submissions by his totally incorrect statements. All he had to read was the two words “high profile” CYFS wrote. CYFS refused to put anything positive on their submission of course. The entire document was as incriminating as they could make it, given lies accepted as fact against the evidence by judge Lynton Stevens; and lies Dr K told them in addition, that were never presented to anyone else as they were so far out and extreme. A notification of very serious abuse I made to CYFS four years before they acted upon it which they chose to ignore “because of what we have on our file about you” and my contacts to their office a number of times over it were not explained, as they were in my favour and CYFS would lose face, but they gave those contact dates to the court as dates in which notifications had been made to them about ME! They also said a meeting I had with them about how nasty and unprofessional one of their social workers had been and misconduct by CYFS, was my having a meeting “to discuss custody and access”. They refuse to reply to me on providing full explanations to the court on those events and on things that are not the least bit incriminating that they have taken out of context and twisted around, so the judge can read it only as incriminating. You see, authorities to save face have to bring someone down to be victimised. They have to choose to believe all the lies and add to it. In order to save face they have to scapegoat someone else and abuse their power of authority. And useless lawyers and the injustice system condone it all. It is not about children’s wellbeing. It’s about saving face in case the media find out; and my ex and his nasty girlfriend will make sure they do. They get rewarded for being the poor parents who never step up in any relationships and for being nasty; and my son gets to carry on having very low self esteem, unsupported education, no interest in him as a person from that household, introverting to cope with life more and more, the misery of living at that house etc etc. The contributors of what led me to push Melissa, is what CYFS say is fine for my son to stay in. So long as you don’t have media or court action, CYFS let the lousiest parents parent all they like. If New Zealands child abuse rate is as high as unprofessional, unscientific, vengeful, biased people like Dr K wants us all to believe, then CYFS contribute toward that a great deal with their focus and emphasis on saving face. It’s not about children, to Dr K or to CYFS. With CYFS it does not matter what the truth is, just as for the justice system. When Mr Kahui was found innocent of killing his twins, CYFS kept him from his new daughter anyway. It did not matter that his partner had to struggle without his support with a newborn, or that his daughter had her formative years without her father. All that mattered was if the haters in society found out and caused a stir. That’s how it was and is for me too. They refuse to do what’s best for my son because the stirrers in society will make sure the media knows, and New Zealanders pack much more of a drama when they have a seemingly socially condoned excuse to hate upon people, then they do of making authorities do what they are meant to and acknowledging the truth. Children pay the price of saving face tactics the authorities have and the vengeful hate of those in society champing at the chance to spite. I am allowed to have custody and care of anyone else’s children freely and to my hearts content now I am off parole, but I am not permitted to do what’s best for my son because it is going through the family court. There was much more incriminating evidence against the Kahui twins mother then there was the father, but she got to carry on with children and parenting with no restrictions at all, because she wasn’t the subject going through the court public domain. The police will never re-charge a stronger suspect if the initial person charged is exonerated. There is no way they will choose to carry on losing face over revealing the truth and justice. They will let murderers walk free rather then do that. It is all about saving face for them too. They want to look infallible rather then human. That is theirs and CYFS biggest failings. The Crown prosecutor, my trial lawyer and police still do their darndest to save face, with the mysterious disappearance of documents I am entitled to and refusal to provide evidential documents they never gave defence. My trial lawyer moonlights as a lecturer at Lincoln University and the law society are investigating her over a misconduct of other client’s documents. I was given documents of other people’s cases in the 75% of papers she returned to me. The law society refuse to tell me if a box of my missing papers are amongst the ones she sent off to other clients and they didn’t care that the most important documents and CD’s happen to be the ones missing. She will be protected because she gives it to the crown and is a lecturer. Each authority who is meant to do their job and assist truth and justice makes the excuse that everything I seek should have been brought up at trial or that I’ve waited too long to address it. I have been pushing to address it for 2 years and I happened to get a lawyer who gave it to the crown. The 7 years prior to that, the crown had me well and truly gagged and bound. Now I see why. Now I see there was more to it them taking nearly four years to take it to trial, other than just having to make it a tight case based upon lies and sourcing “experts” prepared to perjure. Isn’t it so very handy for the crown that they have bought in a bill under guise of an anti-bullying bill that will force servers to remove material from the web that is deemed upsets another with intent. They will use that bill to gag freedom of speech, to further gag whistle blowers and in time, to probably shut this blog down as they did for my Topix one when it was not yet legal for them to do so. They say it doesn’t matter if the person is wronged and putting the truth on the web. This Bill is to give the government more power to gag people.

Bla bla two faced talk of judge Stevens

(Trial 690) Judge Stevens: "Inferences are simply conclusions drawn from other proven facts. It must be logical and rational. It must never be speculation or guess work. If in relation to any aspect of the case, the evidence would support two conclusions of similar weight, then to choose between them would be to guess and you should not do that". It turned out that the jury did exactly what instructed not to do, but due to my lawyers fault more than their own. (Although my benefit of the doubt runs thin when you read all the defence evidence that was actually presented in court by crown and defence experts alike. It would seem a lot of coin tossing still went on). And this is exactly what Judge Stevens did deliberately. The irony thing again! So what can you ‘infer’ given all the factual evidence as it really is? I know first hand now, how easily our justice system puts innocent people in prison. It makes me thankful I am guilty of assault, as I can commit much easier to trying to make the most of this. I don’t have to waste energy beating at stone walls designed to maintain convictions to save face, come hell or high water. I can see how frustrated they must get at lack of evidence to convict child abusers. I can see the majority of the time they get it correct. I can make excuses for all they did wrong in order to get me convicted, by putting it down to frustration and them being so intuitive they believed I was guilty. However, I can not accept the truth of what actually happened, not being accepted. I owe Melissa, her family, other children of New Zealand and God, that much at least.

co-operating with hate against yourself

I think most people respect the police and would co-operate with their interviews, but when you are suspected it is definitely the wrong thing to do. The police used my co-operation to arrest me immediately when I was in a state of shock, then fed the information to Dr K so he could pick and choose what he was going to make up, elaborate on and inflate, to go me to the best of his ability. A few things Dr K has made up are in relation to ideas he got from others, but also my saying I shook Melissa gently (first said at Tauranga hospital hence the immediate decision to write Melissa off) was what made him decide very early on, that he had firm ground to declare it was ‘solely shaken baby’ and to make all other ‘facts’ support this.

When all the lies are taken out

The prior accidental head injury consisted of: a small subdural, pons beading in the upper brainstem (covered up by the crown neuropathologist, accepted as fact by the judge), “one cervical cord root with an area of abnormal fibers of unknown significance” and a bruise left rear (covered up). The recent head injury: large subdural re-bleed; (T,420,Tl 436) lower brainstem medulla beading, minor trauma; (T, 422), corpus collosum beading; bruising front left; small contact subdural front left (both covered up). Secondary to injury and not being operated on in time, was spinal cord ischemia determined by Dr R defense neuropathologist four additional tests, and widespread brain cell death caused by ischemia. Judge Stevens remarked to me at sentencing that he hoped I had read Melissa’s fathers victim impact statement, as he thought it extremely fair and balanced. In particular he hoped I had read “to this day I still do not really know how or why Melissa received such serious injuries. These have never been truthfully explained by the accused in my view, and this only makes it worse for me not knowing exactly how Melissa’s final few hours of meaningful life unfolded. It would certainly help if I knew what had really happened on the day in question”. Judge Stevens then did all he could to cover up the truth and not let Melissa’s loved ones have the ‘facts’. Incidentally, I was refused the opportunity to read any impact statements by my lawyer despite my repeated requests to do so. Making these lies ‘fact’ covered up evidence of a prior head injury Melissa accidentally sustained fifteen days earlier, that made her very susceptible to a catastrophic head injury with little force. It also enabled the Crown prosecutor to make out there were multiple impact sites in order to make out the event was extremely violent, deliberate and prolonged. They also said “the lethal consequences of shaking babies and striking babies is often enough publicized”. What I did was neither of these and I still would never have guessed that Melissa could hit her head, for what I did, but she did and the impact was significant due to a high degree of rotation. But what it enabled the most, was Drs K, J, Gabriel Nuthall and Tavey Dorofaeef to get away with picking and choosing whom they decide is worthy of treatment and life, and to then have no accountability whatsoever. My entire trial was generally based upon lies, twisting innocent things around to appear guilty, circumstantial evidence, inferences, guesses, crown biased judge….. and Mr HJ would just keep saying to the jury “What do you make of that”. The jury wasn’t meant to make things of nothing and imagine. But I wonder what they would all think when they read this blog or my book. Dr M, defense specialist pediatrician (Trial, 566): “If in the face of the obvious, you say that the obvious does not exist, well fine”.