POST: "Sweden searches for the truth," by Sue Luttner, published by "On SBS" on January 19, 2015.
GIST: "A recent decision from Sweden’s Supreme Court is changing the landscape for Swedish citizens fighting misguided accusations of infant shaking.........The ruling, from October of 2014, sets aside the June 2012 conviction of a father for presumably shaking one of his twin sons in 2009, with the explanation: It can be concluded that, in general terms, the scientific evidence for the diagnosis of violent shaking has turned out to be uncertain..........In reviewing the father’s appeal, the Supreme Court listened to testimony from two physicians, Prof. Anders Eriksson, a forensics expert and an advisor to the National Board of Health and Welfare, and Prof. Peter Aspelin, a radiologist and a former chair of the Scientific Advisory Council of the Swedish Council on Health Technology Assessment (SBU). Both physicians told the court that the SBU, concerned about the reliability of a shaking diagnosis, has now launched a systematic study of the literature regarding infant shaking, an effort that is expected to take at least two years..........[Dr. Eriksson] based the conclusion in the opinion to the Legal Advisory Council on the fact that O presented three symptoms (a triad) that, if they occur at the same time, have been held, according to the traditional view, to strongly indicate that there has been violent shaking if it is not the case that the child has been subjected to some other form of “high-energy violence” such as a traffic accident or a fall from a high height. The symptoms included in the triad are haemorrhaging under the dura mater, haemorrhaging in the fundus of the eyes and swelling of the brain. However, this diagnosed model has been criticized. The point of the criticism is that the symptoms given can have other causes . . . So it is not possible to say today that the occurrence of the triad means that violent shaking has been proved. Instead, it must be concluded that we do not know; we are in a quagmire. And Dr. Aspelin told the court: The controversy is not about whether it is harmful to shake a child violently. The issue under discussion is with what scientific certainty it can be established how various injuries found in a child have arisen. The claim that the occurrence of the triad is strong evidence that violent shaking has occurred goes back to the late 1960s; however, the medical evidence for it was relatively thin. But the claim became generally accepted and grew into medical truth over several decades, even though the situation in terms of evidence did not change. It is known that a very large share of fundus haemorrhages are not linked to violence and arise in another way. Nor has it been shown that nerve fibers are torn, and that the brain therefore begins to swell, in connection with violent shaking. It can also be asked whether violent shaking can occur without neck injuries arising… To sum up, it can be said that the scientific support for the diagnosis of violent shaking is uncertain.........The RFFR web site, which posted both the original decision and the English translation, also offers links to Swedish news coverage of the topic as well as an English language commentary by pediatric neuropathologist Dr. Waney Squier in Britain and television news coverage out of Dallas, Texas, of a family accused of assault when their daughter’s genetic disorder was misdiagnosed as abuse. A doctor in Sweden reports that since the Supreme Court’s decision, two convicted fathers have been freed on appeal after years in prison and a third has won in court and is now home with his family."
The entire post can be found at:
http://onsbs.com/2015/01/19/sweden-searches-for-the-truth/
See related Wrongful Convictions Blog post by Phil Locke: "Score one for sanity, logic, reason, and science. There has been a recent decision (October, 2014) by the Swedish Supreme Court that calls into question the scientific validity of the classic “triad” SBS diagnosis. According to the triad diagnosis, the symptoms of retinal hemorrhage, subdural hematoma, and diffuse edema of the brain are pathognomonic (exclusively indicative) of violent shaking or abusive head trauma. The “triad” has been the mainstay of SBS prosecutions for decades, but in recent years, has come under increasingly critical scrutiny."
http://wrongfulconvictionsblog.org/2015/01/19/shaken-baby-syndrome-decision-in-sweden/
PUBLISHER'S NOTE:
Dear Reader. Keep your eye on the Charles Smith Blog. We are following this case.
I have added a search box for content in this blog which now encompasses several thousand posts. The search box is located near the bottom of the screen just above the list of links. I am confident that this powerful search tool provided by "Blogger" will help our readers and myself get more out of the site.
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 found at:
http://www.thestar.com/topic/
Information on "The Charles Smith Blog Award"- and its nomination process - can be found at:
http://smithforensic.blogspot.ca/2013/12/the-charles-smith-award-presented-to_28.html
I look forward to hearing from readers at:
hlevy15@gmail.com.
Harold Levy; Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog;
