STUART BAILEY CASE: PART TWO; ANOTHER DISTURBING BRITISH "SHAKEN-BABY SYNDROME" CASE - ANOTHER NEWSPAPER ACCOUNT; THE SHEFFIELD TELEGRAPH;

"MR. BAILEY'S SOLICITOR TIM GAUBERT SAID THE PROSECUTION'S CASE WAS BASED ON A 'TRIAD' OF THREE INJURIES BEING PRESENT IN THE BABY: BRAIN SWELLING AND BRAIN AND RETINAL BLEEDING.

BUT THE COURT HEARD RETINAL HAEMORRHAGES WERE NOT PRESENT WHEN SHE WAS FIRST ADMITTED TO HOSPITAL AND DID NOT DEVELOP UNTIL A DAY LATER.

UNDER CROSS-EXAMINATION CONSULTANT NEUROLOGIST DR CARLOS DE SOUSA, OF GREAT ORMAND STREET HOSPITAL IN LONDON, SAID BECAUSE OF THE DELAYED DEVELOPMENT OF EYE BLEEDS, HE COULD NOT BE SURE THE BABY HAD BEEN SHAKEN.

THE TRIAL WAS HALTED SOON AFTER."

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;

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Sheffield Telegraph's report on the dropping of charges against Stuart Bailey in mid-trial - which ran under the heading "Evidence change ends cruelty case" - contains some crucial information on the case.

"THE collapse of a baby shaking trial at Sheffield Crown Court was triggered when the opinon of a medical expert changed, a prosecutor has said," the story, dated February 18, 2009, begins;

"Barbara Petchey, chief prosecutor with the Crown Prosecution Service, said the case against Stuart Bailey was stopped because there was no longer a realistic prospect of conviction," the story continues;

"Stuart Bailey, aged 41, was cleared on Monday of shaking a baby so hard she suffered brain damage.

Ms Petchey said: "During the course of the trial the evidence of one medical expert changed. The CPS reviewed the evidence and decided there was no longer a realistic prospect of conviction.

"Therefore, in accordance with the code for crown prosecutors the case had to be stopped."

Mr Bailey's solicitor Tim Gaubert said the prosecution's case was based on a 'triad' of three injuries being present in the baby: brain swelling and brain and retinal bleeding.

But the court heard retinal haemorrhages were not present when she was first admitted to hospital and did not develop until a day later.

Under cross-examination consultant neurologist Dr Carlos de Sousa, of Great Ormand Street hospital in London, said because of the delayed development of eye bleeds, he could not be sure the baby had been shaken.

The trial was halted soon after.

Mr Bailey, of Key Street, Hoyland Common, who was cleared of child cruelty, was arrested three-and-a-half years ago. Police charged him after a two-year investigation and the case came to court a year-and-a-half later.

Mr Gaubert said: "During that time he had to live with the accusation he shook the baby causing catastrophic injuries.

"That allegation was always vehemently denied by him and he is understandably relieved at the prosecution's decision to offer no further evidence.""

Harold Levy...hlevy15@gmail.com;