PASSAGE OF THE DAY: "During Vinaccia’s 2019 trial, the prosecution argued Kaleb’s “triad” of injuries indicated abuse while Vinaccia’s lawyers said the baby may have been handled in a rough manner but had not been shaken. More recently, Vinaccia had largely sought to overturn his conviction on the basis that the diagnostic tool was “junk science”, calling in evidence from three expert witnesses based in Sweden and Norway who questioned the science behind using specific injuries – such as bleeding in the eyes – to determine shaken baby syndrome.But on Tuesday, the Court of Appeal ruled Vinaccia’s original defence team did not challenge the “triad” of injuries as a diagnostic tool for determining shaken baby syndrome, or offer an alternative cause of death during his trial.Both Forrest and Emerton also refused to accept the expert evidence as being “new” – grounds which are needed to file an appeal – and found it would not have led to an acquittal if presented during his trial. Those two judges also backed the “triad” as a diagnostic tool, saying it had “very high probative value”. “The applicant mischaracterises the longstanding, established body of scientific literature underlying this evidence as ‘junk science’; for the reasons we have given in detail ... it is nothing of the sort,” they wrote. Walker, in her dissenting opinion, said while she made no finding on the reliability or admissibility of the triad, the uncertainty caused by the new evidence and baby Kaleb’s pre-existing illness meant the jury should have acquitted Vinaccia. “Ultimately, when the new evidence is considered, this is a case where the applicant’s guilt has not been proved beyond a reasonable doubt,” she wrote."
-------------------------------------------------------------
STORY: "Judges refuse appeal over baby shaking conviction," by Erin Pearson and Chris Vedelago, published by 'The Age' on June 7, 2022.
GIST: "The Court of Appeal has refused baby killer Jesse Vinaccia’s fight to overturn his child homicide conviction.
Lawyers for Vinaccia, who was convicted in 2019 of shaking his girlfriend’s baby to death and jailed for 8Ѕ years, had argued shaken baby syndrome was pseudoscience and that a pre-existing medical condition could have accounted for 16-week-old Kaleb Baylis-Clarke’s death.
But on Tuesday, two out of three judges refused the application for leave to appeal the conviction.
Justice Terry Forrest and Justice Karin Emerton refused to admit new evidence that challenged the scientific basis of baby shaking and found it would not have led to Vinaccia’s acquittal if the evidence had been heard during the trial.
The third judge, Justice Kristen Walker, disagreed in a dissenting opinion and said the new evidence meant a jury could not conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that Vinaccia was responsible for killing the child.
The Court of Appeal heard eight days of complex, highly technical medical and scientific evidence from international and local experts last year as lawyers for Vinaccia argued he was the victim of a miscarriage of justice.
He was convicted of child homicide in June 2019 after the death of Kaleb in January 2016.
Vinaccia had been caring for Kaleb while his mother was working when the baby boy was found unresponsive in his cot on January 23. Kaleb later died in hospital.
In the weeks leading up to his death, Kaleb had been hospitalised and it was noted his head was abnormally large.
The Court of Appeal noted that while Kaleb showed no external injuries, a medical examination determined he had what is known as a “triad” of injuries used to diagnose shaken baby syndrome: bleeding to the brain and to the eyes, and brain swelling.
The scientific basis of shaken baby syndrome has been used for more than 50 years to diagnose and prosecute child abuse and homicides.
Controversy though surrounds the diagnostic tool, with some scientists saying the same symptoms can be the result of non-violent medical causes such as genetic conditions, infections and bleeding disorders.
During Vinaccia’s 2019 trial, the prosecution argued Kaleb’s “triad” of injuries indicated abuse while Vinaccia’s lawyers said the baby may have been handled in a rough manner but had not been shaken.
More recently, Vinaccia had largely sought to overturn his conviction on the basis that the diagnostic tool was “junk science”, calling in evidence from three expert witnesses based in Sweden and Norway who questioned the science behind using specific injuries – such as bleeding in the eyes – to determine shaken baby syndrome.
But on Tuesday, the Court of Appeal ruled Vinaccia’s original defence team did not challenge the “triad” of injuries as a diagnostic tool for determining shaken baby syndrome, or offer an alternative cause of death during his trial.
Both Forrest and Emerton also refused to accept the expert evidence as being “new” – grounds which are needed to file an appeal – and found it would not have led to an acquittal if presented during his trial.
Those two judges also backed the “triad” as a diagnostic tool, saying it had “very high probative value”.
“The applicant mischaracterises the longstanding, established body of scientific literature underlying this evidence as ‘junk science’; for the reasons we have given in detail ... it is nothing of the sort,” they wrote.
Walker, in her dissenting opinion, said while she made no finding on the reliability or admissibility of the triad, the uncertainty caused by the new evidence and baby Kaleb’s pre-existing illness meant the jury should have acquitted Vinaccia.
“Ultimately, when the new evidence is considered, this is a case where the applicant’s guilt has not been proved beyond a reasonable doubt,” she wrote."
---------------------------------------------------
The entire story can be read at:
-----------------------------------------------------
PUBLISHER'S NOTE: I am monitoring this case/issue. Keep your eye on the Charles Smith Blog for reports on developments. 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/charlessmith. Information on "The Charles Smith Blog Award"- and its nomination process - can be found at: http://smithforensic.blogspot.com/2011/05/charles-smith-blog-award-nominations.html Please send any comments or information on other cases and issues of interest to the readers of this blog to: hlevy15@gmail.com. Harold Levy: Publisher: The Charles Smith Blog;
