QUOTE OF THE DAY: "I suggest Dr. Squier was a victim of over-arching unfairness, badgering and a 1-dimensional appellate review which diminished protections available for qualified expert witnesses with the audacity to speak about doubtful forensic matters."
DEFINITION OF THE DAY: 'Burking'..."to suppress or get rid of by some indirect maneuver."
PUBLISHER'S NOTE: Dr Michael Bowers views on the treatment meted out to Dr. Squiers by the General Medical Council (GMC) and the appeal judge, are valuable as he is an expert who is not afraid to go against the prevailing medical ideology - and knows what it feels like to be at the other end of a brutal attack by a medical establishment. He has played a leading role in exposing the fallacy of forensic bite-mark matching - and the numerous wrongful convictions it has caused. Besides that, he has a bright, analytical mind - and is not afraid to say what he thinks. Oh yes...'Burking'..."to suppress or get rid of by some indirect maneuver."
Harold Levy; Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog;
POST: "Despite No dishonesty found after UK witchhunt of Waney Squier Burking continues," by Mike Bowers, published by his Blog, CSIDDS: Forensics in Focus, on November 7, 2016. (Dr. Michael Bowers is a long time forensic consultant in the US and international court systems.)
- Shaken Baby Syndrome has little to nothing to support opines about its’ “triad” diagnosis. Its just opinion, over-stated in its proofs and its’ experts can be weak-to-silent about competing differential diagnoses. Surprisingly, being “silent” was one of the few successful charges against Squier confirmed by an appellate arbiter (see more below). The peer articles brought against her have miniscule sample size and, within some, they declare that very fact.
- The “science” is being upheld by the arbiter (Mr. Justice Mitting). He denies this inference and self-absolves himself as being a non-science, just a legal-rules, kinda guy. The Squier inquiry illustrated 6 articles “against” her in the words of her accusers. This reveals SBA as merely a hypothesis. But some MET cops and prosecutors and some physicians (not all trauma specialists) use it as dogma and a settled fact during criminal proceedings. That’s OK for Mr Mitting (sympathy to the arbiter, as despite his magic cloak of legalisms, he fell into a serious of their conceptual traps).
- The arbiter’s myopic line-by-line of Waney’s testimony review ultimately confirmed her ‘testifying’ outside her expertise. He ignored her repeated statements clearly qualifying her “opinion” to other experts in other medical and dynamic force “specialties.” Mitting uses common interpretive legal logic to absolve her of most of the burking and repetitive complaints but refused to use it for the following critical points.
B. While undergoing cross-examination, there is no rule of law saying the expert has to verbally footnote ‘ibid’ or ‘op cit’ to previous statements contained in her direct examination.The arbiter’s ruling offers a differing expectation and his lecturing on expert’s veracity is specious and misplaces legal logic.
C. The arbiter said such “silence” is misleading to the judge and jury. I say her body of testimony in each SBS case the Met Police objected to contains statements of her disagreement and agreement material to answer and dismiss the complaint in her favor. All are clearly referenced in other portions of her testimony. Repetitive cross examination about each treatise is “badgering” and should have been ruled as such by Mr. Mitting. Try the adjectival terms “inconsequential” or “meaningless” to these lines of questioning.
D.The arbiter failed to exorcise the entire proceedings by failing to link the GMC’s misuse of due process and common law tenets allowed to Squier:
In one example, the GMC used Squier accepting counsel for advise as an indicia of her “dishonest” and guilt. This is abhorrent to justice. This accusation and its later being considered ‘founded’ by the GMC surely tainted the entire process and undoubtedly chilled her responses during the hearing and later appeal.
Conclusion: I suggest Dr. Squier was a victim of over-arching unfairness, badgering and a 1-dimensional appellate review which diminished protections available for qualified expert witnesses with the audacity to speak about doubtful forensic matters.
The entire post can be found at: