"DR RITTY SAID SCANS SHOWED THE BABY HAD SUFFERED BLEEDING ON THE BRAIN FROM TINY TEARS. THESE THEN LED TO IT BEING STARVED OF OXYGEN CAUSING FURTHER INJURIES.
THE BABY ALSO HAD HAEMORRHAGES ON BOTH RETINAS.
THE THREE TOGETHER, HE SAID, STRONGLY SUGGESTED NON-ACCIDENTAL SHAKING HAD OCCURRED.
HE SAID: "I FELT THAT IT WAS OVERWHELMINGLY PROBABLE THAT SHE HAD NON ACCIDENTAL INJURIES OR SHAKEN BABY SYNDROME."
REPORTER NICK WARD: THE SHEFFIELD TELEGRAPH;
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Background: Stuart Bailey, is another example, of the destruction caused by the British government's blind acceptance of "battered-baby syndrome" dogma. As the Telegraph pointed out in a story published on February, 2009, "A man accused of inflicting severe brain damage on an 11-week-old baby by shaking her has been cleared after a three-year ordeal." In recent months, this Blog has been reporting on other British cases involving the horrors caused to other individuals - such as Suzanne Holdsworth and Keran Henderson - by the failure of the British courts to consider the possibility that the child's death may have been caused by natural causes;
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since we are now aware that the Crown dropped the charge against Stuart Bailey on during the course of the trial on the basis that the "shaken-baby syndrome" thesis on which it was laid had proven untenable, it is worth while examining the evidence given in court by Dr. Christopher Ritty, the medical expert who testified for the prosecution.
Dr. Ritty's evidence at trial was described in a story which ran in the Sheffield Telegraph on February 10, 2009, under the heading: "Shaking led to baby girl's injuries - court."
"A LEADING medical expert told a court that injuries which left an 11-week-old baby severely disabled were caused because she had been shaken," the story, by reporter Nick Ward, began.
"Sheffield Children's Hospital Consultant Paediatric Neurologist Dr Christopher Ritty, who examined the infant several times, revealed a triad of injuries indicated she had been violently shaken," the story continued;
"Dr Ritty said scans showed the baby had suffered bleeding on the brain from tiny tears. These then led to it being starved of oxygen causing further injuries.
The baby also had haemorrhages on both retinas.
The three together, he said, strongly suggested non-accidental shaking had occurred.
He said: "I felt that it was overwhelmingly probable that she had non accidental injuries or shaken baby syndrome."
The doctor explained that the injuries were so severe that if the baby's condition had deteriorated, she would not have been resuscitated.
However, the baby began to recover. But today aged five, she is severely disabled due to her terrible injuries.
The doctor said: "Given the extent of the injuries, the outlook was very poor in terms of recovery. It is beyond reasonable doubt that this had been caused by non accidental injuries."
Stuart Bailey 41, of Key Street, Hoyland Common, Barnsley, has denied charges of cruelty to a person under 16.
Defence counsel, Robert Smith QC, argued the baby's severe brain injuries were caused by the herpes simplex virus.
But Dr Ritty dismissed a viral infection - although he did concede that had he carried out a lumbar-puncture the test would have ruled it out for certain.
Not carrying out the procedure was, he said, "an omission". But he went on to explain that the little girl was so ill that the procedure may have killed her.
The court was previously told that the baby's mum left her in Bailey's care when she ran her mother to bingo.
Bailey bathed the baby but then called her mum asking her to hurry back, because the little girl had "gone all floppy."
She was then rushed to Barnsley Hospital and later transferred to Sheffield Children's Hospital."
We know from the recently released report of the Goudge Inquiry into Ontario's pediatric pathology system, that the evidence of the Crown experts, such as Dr. Ritty, can be extremely influential with the jury.
It is therefore frightening to imagine what little chance Mr. Bailey had of being acquitted - if the charge had not been dropped - after the jurors heard Dr. Ritty's super-confident testimony that it was " overwhelmingly probable" that she (the 11-week old baby) had non-accidental injuries or shaken baby syndrome."
Mr. Bailey deserved much better than that from the British criminal justice system;
Harold Levy...hlevy15@gmail.com;
