Wednesday, April 22, 2015

Aisling Brady McCarthy: (Irish nanny case): Motion to dismiss the murder charge denied; Defence also loses motion to exclude certain medical testimony; Trial to begin on May 6. The Irish Times;

STORY: "Judge denies motion to dismiss Irish nanny murder case," by reporter Bill Marcus, published by the Irish Times on April 22, 2015.

SUB-HEADING:  "Co Cavan woman Aisling Brady McCarthy will go on trial on May 6th for murder of infant."

PHOTO CAPTION: "File photograph of court officers accompany Aisling Brady McCarthy, an Irish nanny charged with murder in the death of a one-year-old Massachusetts girl."

GIST: A Middlesex County superior court judge has denied a motion to dismiss murder charges against Aisling Brady McCarthy, a Co Cavan woman accused of the murder of Rehma Sabir, a 12-month-old infant from Cambridge, Massachusetts. In a separate ruling that was not immediately made public, Judge Maureen Hogan also, in part, denied a motion by defense attorneys for Ms McCarthy (36) to exclude certain expert medical testimony. Many of those experts are now expected to testify at trial that Ms McCarthy, a nanny, caused death of Rehma Sabir by shaking her in a way that was not accidental in January 2013.........The judge excluded the testimony of one expert who had studied injuries to the child’s backbone. “It was clear his opinions were influenced by the previous record,” said the judge. Regarding testimony from another expert who said compression fractures of the baby’s vertebra had been consistent with abuse, the judge said: “she will be allowed to testify.” As to the timing of the fractures, the judge ruled: “she has never opined in her report as to the timing.” Another expert will testify that injuries sustained by the infant were “not an accidental injury,” the judge said. Information in a report prepared by another doctor who said “she could visualize the bilateral haemorrhages” would be allowed, the judge said. But testimony will not be allowed from a doctor who found “that the haemorrhaging was non-accidental trauma” and consistent with repetitive force from shaking. The judge said “my reading of the grand justify (testimony was) that it was consistent heavy acceleration and decacceleration injuries and when she was asked if it was one way or (a) second (way) she didn’t conclude one way.”

The entire story can be found at:


Dear Reader. Keep your eye on the Charles Smith Blog. We are following this case.
I have added a search box for content in this blog which now encompasses several thousand posts. The search box is located  near the bottom of the screen just above the list of links. I am confident that this powerful search tool provided by "Blogger" will help our readers and myself get more out of the site.

The Toronto Star, my previous employer for more than twenty incredible years, has put considerable effort into exposing the harm caused by Dr. Charles Smith and his protectors - and into pushing for reform of Ontario's forensic pediatric pathology system. The Star has a "topic" section which focuses on recent stories related to Dr. Charles Smith. It can be found at:

Information on "The Charles Smith Blog Award"- and its nomination process - can be found at:
I look forward to hearing from readers at:
Harold Levy; Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog;