"Prosecutors said Burridge must have been responsible for that later injury and, by inference, was much more likely to have inflicted earlier fractures to Rees' ribs.
Yesterday, Mr Blaxland said new evidence from a top histopathologist – an expert in the microscopic examination of tissues – casts doubt on the prosecution case.
The evidence suggests the freshest of the fractures could indeed have been caused by attempts to resuscitate the little boy, either in hospital or when Burridge "panicked" and tried to save his son, he said.
There was no evidence he had caused the earlier injuries, leaving the well-known "triad" of "shaken baby syndrome" injuries – eye damage, brain dysfunction syndrome and blood on the brain – as the only material suggesting guilt."
THE HERALD;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"A DAD serving a life sentence for the murder of his baby son has appeared in court again – this time in a Court of Appeal bid to clear his name," the Herald story published earlier today unde the heading, "Verdict on baby's death is 'unsafe', says father's appeal team," begins.
"Former soldier Michael Burridge, aged 30, of Tavistock, has always denied shaking eight-week-old Rees to death and is now fighting his conviction in front of senior judges at the London court," the story continues.
"His legal team, headed by one of the country's top barristers, Henry Blaxland QC, say "absolutely critical" new medical evidence renders the Plymouth Crown Court jury's verdict "unsafe".
The prosecution case at the trial alleged that Burridge had killed Rees at his Tavistock home by viciously shaking him while the baby's mother, Donna, was out shopping.
The allegation was founded on a number of injuries which little Rees was found to have suffered before his September 2006 death, including fractures to several of his ribs.
At the trial in March 2008, prosecution evidence said the newest of the rib fractures would have required "considerable force", beyond that used in CPR techniques, to inflict.
Prosecutors said Burridge must have been responsible for that later injury and, by inference, was much more likely to have inflicted earlier fractures to Rees' ribs.
Yesterday, Mr Blaxland said new evidence from a top histopathologist – an expert in the microscopic examination of tissues – casts doubt on the prosecution case.
The evidence suggests the freshest of the fractures could indeed have been caused by attempts to resuscitate the little boy, either in hospital or when Burridge "panicked" and tried to save his son, he said.
There was no evidence he had caused the earlier injuries, leaving the well-known "triad" of "shaken baby syndrome" injuries – eye damage, brain dysfunction syndrome and blood on the brain – as the only material suggesting guilt.
Mr Blaxland urged Lord Justice Leveson, Mr Justice Irwin and Mr Justice Holroyde to rule the new evidence makes the jury's verdict "unsafe" and to overturn the conviction.
"It is our submission that, if the jury had had the fresh evidence which we anticipate Professor Malcolm is able to give, they may have concluded that they could not be sure that the appellant was responsible for the fracturing of the 30th of September," he said.
"There was no evidence that he was responsible for any of the earlier rib fractures.
"If the jury could not be sure that he was responsible for the fracturing on the 30th, what that left against him was the 'triad'.
"The triad, it is agreed, is a strong pointer to non-accidental head injury, but it is not diagnostic of it.
"It is my submission that this evidence alone, the rib evidence, is sufficient to render the conviction unsafe".
The QC said that, after receiving an original report ruling out CPR as a cause of the rib fracture, the defence team at the trial should have sought the opinion of another histopathologist.
Lord Justice Leveson said that would mean every defence solicitor having to check every expert opinion they received which was adverse to a defendant.
Lawyers for the Crown, led by William Boyce QC, are contesting Burridge's attempt to clear his name in the appeal, which is expected to continue all week."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The story can be found at:
http://www.thisisplymouth.co.uk/news/Verdict-baby-s-death-unsafe-says-appeal-team/article-2745784-detail/article.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PUBLISHER'S NOTE: 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 accessed at:
http://www.thestar.com/topic/charlessmith
For a breakdown of some of the cases, issues and controversies this Blog is currently following, please turn to:
http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=120008354894645705&postID=8369513443994476774
Harold Levy: Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog; hlevy15@gmail.com;
