PASSAGE ONE OF THE DAY: "Dr. Julia Magaña, a pediatric emergency medicine and child abuse specialist, testified for the prosecution that Elijah’s injuries, including bleeding around the brain, rib fractures and suspected skull fractures, collectively supported a diagnosis of abusive head trauma. Asked whether abuse was the only explanation for the injuries, Magaña responded, “I would say it is the only explanation for the totality of the injuries, yes.”
---------------------------------------------
PASSAGE TWO OF THE DAY: "Her conclusion differed from testimony by Dr. Judy Melinek, a forensic pathologist who appeared Oct. 9 and returned Oct. 23 for additional questioning. During the earlier hearing, Melinek testified that Elijah died from complications of intubation in the setting of pneumonia and prematurity, rather than inflicted trauma. “It would not be a homicide. It’s not even a blunt trauma death. Even though there are some injuries, those injuries did not cause the death, and they’re old,” Melinek testified Oct. 9. Melinek said she would probably classify the death as natural, although an accidental classification could account for complications associated with medical treatment."
--------------------------------------------
PASSAGE THREE OF THE DAY: "The preliminary hearing is scheduled to reconvene Nov. 6 at 9:30 a.m., when attorneys are expected to present arguments before Judge Ellis."
----------------------------------------------
STORY: Forensic pathologists challenge shaken baby diagnosis in Solano County infant death case.' by David M. Greenwald, published in The Davis Vanguard, on October 26, 2026. (David Greenwald is the founder, editor, and executive director of the Davis Vanguard. He founded the Vanguard in 2006.)
FAIRFIELD, Calif. — Conflicting medical opinions about the death of an 11-week-old infant proceeded during an Oct. 23 preliminary hearing in Solano County Superior Court, where a prosecution specialist maintained that the child’s injuries demonstrated abusive head trauma while a defense forensic pathologist testified that the evidence did not support that diagnosis.
The hearing concerned the January 2021 death of Elijah Clay, whose father, the accused, faces a charge of assault on a child causing death.
Judge John B. Ellis is presiding over the proceedings, with Deputy District Attorney Elaine Kuo representing the prosecution and Deputy Public Defender Jeannette Garcia representing the defense.
Dr. Julia Magaña, a pediatric emergency medicine and child abuse specialist, testified for the prosecution that Elijah’s injuries, including bleeding around the brain, rib fractures and suspected skull fractures, collectively supported a diagnosis of abusive head trauma.
Asked whether abuse was the only explanation for the injuries, Magaña responded, “I would say it is the only explanation for the totality of the injuries, yes.”
Her conclusion differed from testimony by Dr. Judy Melinek, a forensic pathologist who appeared Oct. 9 and returned Oct. 23 for additional questioning.
During the earlier hearing, Melinek testified that Elijah died from complications of intubation in the setting of pneumonia and prematurity, rather than inflicted trauma.
“It would not be a homicide. It’s not even a blunt trauma death. Even though there are some injuries, those injuries did not cause the death, and they’re old,” Melinek testified Oct. 9.
Melinek said she would probably classify the death as natural, although an accidental classification could account for complications associated with medical treatment.
Garcia has filed a motion seeking to exclude or limit portions of Magaña’s opinions, challenging the scientific foundation for attributing Elijah’s medical findings to shaking and intentional abuse.
The motion questions whether identifying injuries establishes their mechanism, timing or the identity and mental state of the person responsible.
According to the motion, Magaña previously attributed Elijah’s overall findings to abusive head trauma and physical abuse, describing those conditions as a substantial cause of death because they prompted intubation.
The motion also acknowledges that the court qualified Magaña as an expert in pediatrics and child abuse.
Melinek testified Oct. 9 that Elijah experienced complications during intubation, including a failed initial attempt to place a breathing tube, a slowing heart rate and cardiac arrest.
“I think that the pediatricians have been uniformly consistent on the fact that this child probably should not have been intubated and were it not but for the intubation, he wouldn’t have died when he did,” she testified.
Melinek also identified inflammatory cells in lung tissue that she said supported a diagnosis of early pneumonia.
“You have to look at the actual lung. You can’t just look at an x-ray in shadows of the lung and say there’s no pneumonia when it’s clearly evident on the microscopic slides,” she testified Oct. 9.
Magaña disputed pneumonia as an explanation during the Oct. 23 hearing, saying Elijah lacked the fever, cough and respiratory symptoms she would expect before hospitalization.
According to Garcia’s motion, Magaña previously acknowledged that sudden respiratory failure appeared connected to intubation and that survival without the procedure was possible.
However, the motion states that Magaña maintained Elijah was seriously ill, that intubation met the standard of care and that abusive head trauma prompted the need for treatment.
During additional questioning Oct. 23, Melinek acknowledged that pneumonia alone did not cause Elijah’s death.
“Pneumonia alone did not kill him,” she testified.
She identified acute oxygen deprivation associated with the intubation process as a potential contributing factor.
“In this case, the most reasonable trigger would’ve been the failed intubation,” Melinek said.
Kuo questioned Melinek about her experience performing intubations, establishing that she had performed approximately 10 or slightly more during medical training and residency, mostly involving adults.
Melinek acknowledged that her last intubation occurred more than 25 years ago and that she did not know who performed Elijah’s procedure.
The experts also disagreed about whether bleeding around Elijah’s brain demonstrated a recent traumatic event.
During the Oct. 9 hearing, Melinek acknowledged acute-on-chronic subdural bleeding, meaning recent bleeding associated with an older collection, but disputed treating that finding as proof of separate abusive events.
“So I think it’s an oversimplification to say that it’s new blood. I think that you’ve got older bleeding that’s basically leaking, so fresh blood is coming as a result of the prior bleeding that is in the process of healing,” she testified.
Melinek also described inflammation around blood vessels, clotting in the brain’s drainage system and older hemorrhages undergoing healing.
She testified that Elijah’s brain was not swollen and that she did not identify the fresh bleeding she would expect from a recent traumatic event.
Magaña rejected the suggestion that Elijah’s acute hemorrhages were simply a recurrence of earlier bleeding.
“It is not my opinion that the acute bleed is a re-bleed,” she testified Oct. 23.
Magaña acknowledged that chronic subdural collections can develop fragile blood vessels capable of bleeding again, but maintained that such bleeding generally would not produce Elijah’s severe symptoms.
Dr. Evan Matshes, a forensic pathologist who participated in the original neuropathology review requested by the Solano County Coroner’s Office, previously testified that Elijah’s brain abnormalities were unusually complex.
Matshes testified that some findings could reflect either physical injury or natural disease and cautioned that the neuropathology findings alone could not establish abusive head trauma.
The medical witnesses also disagreed over the significance and timing of Elijah’s fractures.
During the Oct. 9 hearing, Melinek challenged the identification of two skull fractures, describing the right-sided finding as an accessory suture, a developmental variation in the seams between skull bones.
She identified a healing fracture on the left side but said it was an older injury rather than one occurring near death.
“I can give you a ballpark of this is not days old, this is probably weeks old, but that’s the best I can do,” Melinek testified.
She also testified that the rib fractures showed healing and did not explain Elijah’s fatal deterioration.
Melinek discussed possible bone fragility associated with prematurity but acknowledged that the available rib specimens came from fracture sites without a normal rib specimen for comparison.
She said she could not determine whether abnormalities at the edges of those specimens reflected fracture healing or underlying osteopenia, a condition involving reduced bone density.
During cross-examination Oct. 23, Garcia questioned Magaña about the timing of Elijah’s injuries.
Magaña acknowledged that the rib fractures were old and that there were no acute rib fractures.
She agreed that the rib fractures alone did not demonstrate abuse within the 12 hours preceding hospitalization, although she rejected the suggestion that they resulted from childbirth.
Magaña also acknowledged limitations in determining when suspected skull fractures occurred.
“The data on dating it is very poor. We do not have a good way to do that,” she testified.
She said evidence of healing suggested some injuries were not acute and acknowledged that she could not determine who had been caring for Elijah when the older injuries occurred.
Earlier testimony from pediatric specialist Dr. John Galaznik addressed whether prematurity and intrauterine growth restriction could have contributed to bone fragility.
Galaznik also questioned the circumstances surrounding Elijah’s intubation and subsequent cardiac arrest.
Magaña disputed explanations attributing the injuries to birth-related conditions, prematurity or other medical causes.
She also rejected sickle cell trait as an explanation for the intracranial bleeding.
Melinek had identified sickle cell trait as a possible contributing condition during oxygen deprivation, while acknowledging that sickling can also occur after death.
The scientific foundation for abusive head trauma diagnoses was another subject of questioning.
During the Oct. 9 hearing, Melinek criticized research used to support shaken baby syndrome and abusive head trauma diagnoses, arguing that some studies relied on cases classified as abuse using the same medical findings the studies sought to validate.
“So they were put in the abuse group because they checked off a bunch of boxes, and then the study says checking off a bunch of boxes means that they’re abused. That’s what’s circular about it,” she testified.
Under cross-examination, Melinek acknowledged that violent shaking can cause fatal head trauma.
“So are you asking me whether you can violently shake somebody to death? Yes, you can,” she testified.
During the Oct. 23 hearing, Melinek criticized some of the studies discussed by Magaña as outdated.
Magaña defended her reliance on medical literature and maintained that her conclusions were based on the combined clinical, imaging and laboratory findings.
Melinek reiterated that the available evidence did not support an abusive head trauma diagnosis.
“There’s insufficient medical evidence to support a diagnosis of abusive head trauma in Elijah Clay for this case,” she testified.
The preliminary hearing is scheduled to reconvene Nov. 6 at 9:30 a.m., when attorneys are expected to present arguments before Judge Ellis."
The entire story can be read at:
PUBLISHER'S NOTE: I am monitoring this case/issue/resource. Keep your eye on the Charles Smith Blog for reports on developments. 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. Please send any comments or information on other cases and issues of interest to the readers of this blog to: hlevy15@gmail.com. Harold Levy: Publisher: The Charles Smith Blog. FINAL WORD: (Applicable to all of our wrongful conviction cases): "Whenever there is a wrongful conviction, it exposes errors in our criminal legal system, and we hope that this case — and lessons from it — can prevent future injustices."Lawyer Radha Natarajan: Executive Director: New England Innocence Project; FINAL, FINAL WORD: "Since its inception, the Innocence Project has pushed the criminal legal system to confront and correct the laws and policies that cause and contribute to wrongful convictions. They never shied away from the hard cases — the ones involving eyewitness identifications, confessions, and bite marks. Instead, in the course of presenting scientific evidence of innocence, they've exposed the unreliability of evidence that was, for centuries, deemed untouchable." So true;
'I kind of chuckled... I'm not going to plead guilty to something I didn't do,' he told AL.com."
