Bulletin: Waney Squier; UK. Daily Mail reports: "Renowned brain doctor with 30 years’ experience ‘repeatedly misquoted research to support her views’ when acting as an expert witness in shaken baby death cases; Dr Waney Squier gave advice and evidence in civil and criminal cases; The GMC said she had a 'blinkered' approach which was 'dishonest'; The hearing in Manchester is focusing on six cases she was involved in; In all the cases she said brain damage was not due to inflicted injuries; Her views on shaken baby syndrome were in contrast to most experts "..." Dr Squier, represented by Sir Robert Francis QC, denies misconduct. The barrister told the panel that it was 'important' they avoided the trap of trying to decide the original issues in each case or deciding whose expert opinion was to be preferred. 'That is not the point of these proceedings,' he said. But he said a question the panel would have to answer was whether Dr Squier's opinions had a 'significant effect' upon the various proceedings between 2008 and 2010. In most of the cases, Dr Squier - who was said not to have worked in paediatrics for several decades - was the sole expert instructed on one side of the litigation."

"A doctor stuck to her own theories when acting as an expert witness in several shaken baby death cases, a disciplinary panel heard today. Dr Waney Squier, of John Radcliffe Hospital in Oxford, gave advice and evidence at civil and criminal proceedings. The General Medical Council (GMC) said her 'preconceived and blinkered' approach was 'irresponsible, deliberately misleading and dishonest'. The hearing is focusing on six cases in which the consultant neuropathologist was involved in, including the deaths of four babies and a 19-month-old child. In all of the cases the 67-year-old took the view that brain damage caused was not due to inflicted injuries, a Medical Practioners Tribunal Service panel in Manchester was told. It was said that her views on shaken baby syndrome were in contrast to the opinions of the 'majority of experts' in the field. Opening the case for the GMC, Tom Kark QC said: 'In each of the cases being considered Dr Squier provided a report and gave evidence in court to the effect that the injury received was either non consistent with non-accidental injury, or was more likely to have been caused by other means. 'Far from doing so in an objective and helpful way, as an expert is expected to, Dr Squier, the GMC says, conducted herself in a way that was demonstrative of her clinging to a theory so that in fact her evidence was misleading and biased, and the GMC say that when analysed the evidence demonstrates that she must have known that what she was doing was misleading and thus it was dishonest. 'To act as she did in such serious cases, the GMC says, was to fall far below the standards expected of a doctor providing expert evidence and was likely to bring the reputation of the medical profession into disrepute.'.........Dr Squier, represented by Sir Robert Francis QC, denies misconduct. The barrister told the panel that it was 'important' they avoided the trap of trying to decide the original issues in each case or deciding whose expert opinion was to be preferred. 'That is not the point of these proceedings,' he said. But he said a question the panel would have to answer was whether Dr Squier's opinions had a 'significant effect' upon the various proceedings between 2008 and 2010.  In most of the cases, Dr Squier - who was said not to have worked in paediatrics for several decades - was the sole expert instructed on one side of the litigation. Among the allegations she faces is that she provided expert opinion outside her field of expertise and she failed to discharge her duties as an expert by not working within the limits of her competence, not being objective and unbiased, and not paying due regard to the views of other experts. Her actions and omissions were said to be misleading, irresponsible, deliberately misleading, dishonest and likely to bring the reputation of the medical profession into disrepute. Dr Squier also denies misconduct in relation to an expert witness report she was said to have submitted in April last year to a Court of Appeal civil case involving a child. It is said she failed to disclose to those instructing her, or the court, that there were outstanding disciplinary proceedings against her.  The hearing in Manchester is scheduled to last up to six months."
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3263664/Brain-doctor-misquoted-research-support-views.html