QUOTE OF THE DAY: "“This mother had her baby uplifted at 10 weeks old and her child is now six. The removal of her child and her subsequent conviction is based on medical evidence that we can now prove is flawed. “There is growing concern internationally among medical and legal experts about the misdiagnosis or the over-diagnosis of child abuse, and New Zealand is no exception.” Reid adds that these concerns include that rare and severe illnesses are being wrongly assessed as child abuse, particularly around the diagnosis of abusive head trauma. But, Reid says, it goes far beyond one individual case: “All over the world the question is being asked: if medical experts are so vehemently arguing over this shaken baby syndrome/abusive head trauma diagnosis, how can a lay jury decide on a case?”
---------------------------------------------------------
PASSAGE ONE OF THE DAY: "This new evidence, procured by Newsroom’s investigations editor Melanie Reid from four international medical experts, casts serious doubt over Zita’s conviction – evidence Newsroom journalists have submitted to the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC). Reid, along with de Bres, made the submission on behalf of the mother to the CCRC. Set up in 2020, the CCRC reviews cases in which there is a potential miscarriage of justice or unsafe conviction and can refer them back to the Court of Appeal. “It is not usual for us as journalists to be making submissions to the CCRC, but in this case I felt like we had no choice,” says Reid."
—————————————————————————————
PASSAGE TWO OF THE DAY: "In the course of making Fractured, Reid and her team secured the high-resolution 3D CT scans, x-rays, birth records and foetal heart monitoring tracings of the child at the centre of the case. Next they engaged some of the world’s top-end medical specialists, experts in genetics, neurosurgery, obstetrics and neuropathology from Canada, Norway, the Netherlands and the United States. One of those, Professor Gerald Pals, an internationally renowned biochemist and geneticist from Amsterdam, challenges the initial diagnosis and argues that what was identified as a skull fracture is actually a congenital condition known as an accessory suture. He also highlights the multiple stages of healing rib fractures, some possibly prenatal (occurred in the womb) or caused by birth trauma, indicate a brittle bone condition. This aligns with a report from another of the experts, Professor Roland Auer, a Canadian professor of pathology and laboratory medicine. “The very number of fractures indicates a systemic problem with a skeleton. The number doesn’t indicate more abuse. The number indicates a systemic problem. The reasoning is wrong that more fractures – more abuse. More fractures – more likely to be metabolic,” Auer says."
------------------------------------------------------
STORY: "Minister urged to halt mum’s deportation in wake of new evidence," by Investigative reporter Bonnie Sumner, published by Newsbreak, on February 11, 2025. (Bonnie Sumner is part of the Newsroom Investigates reporting team);
SUB-HEADING: "The young immigrant woman at the centre of Newsroom’s latest podcast investigation, Fractured, has lost her final appeal to the Immigration and Protection Tribunal for asylum and will be deported to India by the end of the month unless Associate Minister for Immigration, Chris Penk, intervenes."
GIST: "A lineup of prominent figures have joined the call to halt the deportation of a mother convicted of inflicting injuries on her baby, as fears grow she could be another victim of a medical diagnosis now being labelled ‘junk science’.
"(Under New Zealand law, it is standard practice for people convicted of serious criminal offences to be deported to their country of origin after a prison term, however the minister has the power to cancel or suspend liability for deportation at any time.)
Three years ago, the woman, who was living in Auckland, was convicted of intentionally hurting her infant daughter. At her sentencing, the judge described the medical evidence as “overwhelming”.
During her three-week trial, four doctors from Starship Hospital told the jury the injuries her newborn baby had suffered were non-accidental and ‘abusive head trauma’, the rebranded term that replaced ‘shaken baby syndrome’.
No expert medical witnesses appeared for the mother’s defence. She was found guilty and sent to prison for two years and seven months. She has always maintained she did not, and would not ever, hurt her daughter.
The woman, who we call Zita, now has the support of former human rights and race relations commissioner, Joris de Bres, former chief human rights commissioner Rosslyn Noonan, and shadow immigration spokesperson Phil Twyford, who are all urging the minister to step in and stop her deportation until new evidence can be assessed by the authorities.
This new evidence, procured by Newsroom’s investigations editor Melanie Reid from four international medical experts, casts serious doubt over Zita’s conviction – evidence Newsroom journalists have submitted to the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC).
Reid, along with de Bres, made the submission on behalf of the mother to the CCRC.
Set up in 2020, the CCRC reviews cases in which there is a potential miscarriage of justice or unsafe conviction and can refer them back to the Court of Appeal.
“It is not usual for us as journalists to be making submissions to the CCRC, but in this case I felt like we had no choice,” says Reid.
“This mother had her baby uplifted at 10 weeks old and her child is now six. The removal of her child and her subsequent conviction is based on medical evidence that we can now prove is flawed.
“There is growing concern internationally among medical and legal experts about the misdiagnosis or the over-diagnosis of child abuse, and New Zealand is no exception.”
Reid adds that these concerns include that rare and severe illnesses are being wrongly assessed as child abuse, particularly around the diagnosis of abusive head trauma.
But, Reid says, it goes far beyond one individual case: “All over the world the question is being asked: if medical experts are so vehemently arguing over this shaken baby syndrome/abusive head trauma diagnosis, how can a lay jury decide on a case?”
Lawyer and MP on board
Following the submission to the CCRC, Reid enlisted Christchurch-based criminal barrister Kerry Cook – known for handling the first case ever referred back to the courts by the CCRC involving the miscarriage of justice of a 15-year-old who was convicted and imprisoned as an adult, and, more recently, as part of the legal team representing convicted Sounds murderer Scott Watson in his appeal.
Cook has written to Chris Penk to ask he halt the mother’s deportation until the CCRC has had a chance to review the new evidence.
“Given the compelling nature of the evidence that is now before the CCRC, it is likely that Zita’s convictions will be referred to the Court of Appeal,” says Cook.
Shadow immigration spokesperson Phil Twyford has also weighed in, calling for the Government to lift the deportation order and allow her to remain in New Zealand while the CCRC considers her request for an appeal.
“It is clear to me the new medical evidence casts doubt on the evidence relied on to convict Zita, and the safety of those convictions. I believe it makes for a compelling request to the CCRC that it should consider her case and send it to the Court of Appeal.
“There is a great deal at stake for this family who have been through a living hell already. Further, if Zita was wrongfully convicted of these crimes, it would be a terrible miscarriage of justice. If Zita is deported now, it will make it very difficult for her to properly and effectively see through the appeal to the CCRC. Her chances of getting justice would be compromised. You have the ability to intervene at this point by lifting the deportation order and allowing the process to run its course.
“I believe it is the right thing to do.”
In a distressing twist to this case, the mother’s impending deportation comes at the same time she has finally been granted some face-to-face access to her now six-year-old daughter after years of separation.
Joris de Bres, who has been advocating on the family’s behalf, argues Zita’s deportation would contravene the International Convention on the Rights of the Child, to which New Zealand is a signatory, and further victimise her daughter. In his submission to Minister Penk, de Bres also implores him to halt Zita’s deportation based on the impact on her child.
“… it is in the best interests of her child to do so. I note that as the minister responsible you have an obligation under Article 3(1) of the 1989 Convention on the Rights of the Child to have regard to the best interests of a child affected by a deportation decision. Article 3 requires that a best interests consideration is a mandatory one and is not discretionary. Further, the best interests of the child are a primary consideration and must be afforded substantial weight.”
Penk’s office replied to say that, given the urgency of this situation, the minister will be making a decision within the next two weeks, or the end of February “at the latest”.
Left in NZ without parents
If Zita is deported, it will also impact her husband’s ability to stay in the country.
The girl’s father, who we call Ravi, has not been convicted of any crimes, yet is still fighting to regain custody of his daughter since she was uplifted from hospital as a 10-week-old by Oranga Tamariki.
The girl lived in three different non-kin foster placements before she was finally moved to live with her aunt 18 months ago.
Because Ravi’s visa is secondary to his wife’s, he is also under threat of deportation, while Oranga Tamariki has secured a court order to keep the little girl in New Zealand, where she would remain without her parents under the care of the state.
De Bres has strongly criticised the situation, calling the decision to deport the mother “desperately sad and desperately wrong”.
“If the system cannot flex to allow somebody to have access to justice, to have their case really considered on the basis of strong, powerful, new evidence, then are we a humane society? Really, I just think this is a cruel thing to do to someone.”
De Bres and other advocates have highlighted the inconsistency of the legal system: while Oranga Tamariki has finally allowed the mother to see her daughter again, she is simultaneously being forced out of the country.
Anatomy of a nightmare
For more than a year, Newsroom has been conducting an extensive investigation for DELVE podcast Fractured into the case of a baby brought to Auckland’s Starship Hospital as an eight-week-old.
The baby’s parents took her to their doctor after she began crying loudly and having seizures. She was transferred to the hospital emergency room with suspected meningitis.
Despite no outward signs of trauma such as marks or bruising, a full body scan revealed multiple fractures, subdural bleeding and a retinal haemorrhage.
Blood tests taken at the hospital showed the baby had severely low vitamin D and low calcium.
The paediatrician from Starship Hospital’s child abuse unit, Te Puaruruhau, who diagnosed the baby’s injuries as non-accidental, did so less than 24 hours after the baby had been admitted to hospital, and since that moment every authority has fallen in behind that diagnosis.
The baby’s mother, a young Indian immigrant, was charged with intentionally hurting her infant daughter.
During her three-week trial, four doctors from Starship Hospital told the jury the injuries her newborn baby had suffered were non-accidental and “highly concerning for abusive head trauma”.
(As a result of serious challenges to the science behind ‘shaken baby syndrome’, in 2009 The American Academy of Pediatrics rebranded it as ‘abusive head trauma’.)
No expert medical witnesses appeared for the mother’s defence. She was found guilty and at her sentencing, Judge Ema Aitken described the medical evidence as “overwhelming”.
(Judge Aitken has recently been the subject of her own controversy, when in November last year she and her husband, intensive care specialist and star of TV programme Middlemore, Dr David Galler, allegedly gate-crashed a private NZ First event and yelled at attendees. A Judicial Conduct Panel has since been established to inquire into and report on the alleged conduct of Judge Aitken.)
Zita was sentenced two years and seven months in prison.
In the course of making Fractured, Reid and her team secured the high-resolution 3D CT scans, x-rays, birth records and foetal heart monitoring tracings of the child at the centre of the case.
Next they engaged some of the world’s top-end medical specialists, experts in genetics, neurosurgery, obstetrics and neuropathology from Canada, Norway, the Netherlands and the United States.
One of those, Professor Gerald Pals, an internationally renowned biochemist and geneticist from Amsterdam, challenges the initial diagnosis and argues that what was identified as a skull fracture is actually a congenital condition known as an accessory suture. He also highlights the multiple stages of healing rib fractures, some possibly prenatal (occurred in the womb) or caused by birth trauma, indicate a brittle bone condition.
This aligns with a report from another of the experts, Professor Roland Auer, a Canadian professor of pathology and laboratory medicine.
“The very number of fractures indicates a systemic problem with a skeleton. The number doesn’t indicate more abuse. The number indicates a systemic problem. The reasoning is wrong that more fractures – more abuse. More fractures – more likely to be metabolic,” Auer says.
Serious questions are now being asked about the safety of Zita’s convictions in light of the four international expert medical reports commissioned by the Newsroom investigations unit, and the mounting evidence from overseas that abusive head trauma/shaken baby syndrome could be ‘junk science’.
Fractured has been investigating not only this case but also a broader pattern of questionable abusive head trauma diagnoses in New Zealand hospitals.
Reid and her team have looked at five other similar cases in New Zealand, three of which have been overturned in court.
In one of those a couple had their 14-week-old daughter removed from them by Oranga Tamariki when doctors discovered the girl had a fractured skull, limbs and six broken ribs.
The parents argued in court the injuries were caused by rickets, the condition created by low vitamin D that leads to weakened bones.
After two years fighting through the courts the couple were given back custody of their child and awarded legal costs of $60,000.
Eight doctors debated in the Family Court whether it was abuse or a vitamin D deficiency that had caused the fractures. In the end, the couple successfully appealed by providing evidence from another case in the UK in which two parents were cleared of killing their four-month-old son, who had rickets from an undiagnosed vitamin D deficiency.
In a more recent local case, a North Island father was charged with manslaughter over the death of his 11-month-old son. The father said the boy had fallen and hit his head while he was out of the room, however a doctor from Starship’s Te Puaruruhau child abuse unit said in court the boy’s injury was “extremely more likely” to be one that was inflicted on him.
The jury was unable to reach a verdict and the Crown elected not to proceed with a retrial, so the charge was dismissed. It transpired police and the Crown had not disclosed crucial evidence from a witness that supported the father’s case, and the man was eventually awarded $175,000 in costs, with the judges saying: “… there was no evidence that the baby’s injuries were inflicted as a consequence of an assault. On the contrary, all other evidence suggested he was a devoted father and that he did not injure his son.”
“The judge [in the man’s criminal trial] criticised the approach taken by the Crown for presenting the case to the jury on the basis of impermissible reasoning and for its failure to adduce evidence that supported the defence case.”
In another case, a father is currently in prison awaiting an appeal on his convictions for injuring his young son, a charge he continues to deny.
Reid says the implications of Zita’s case are far-reaching.
“If this has happened in Zita’s case, the big question is how many other cases has this happened in? It has all the hallmarks of a systemic problem,” Reid says.
“There is also a wider legal question as to whether it is appropriate for the same doctors who diagnose child abuse to be appearing as expert medical witnesses in court trials, as happened in Zita’s case.”
International evidence
The shaken baby syndrome hypothesis was first touted in the 1970s by British neurosurgeon Dr Arthur Norman Guthkelch, and then promulgated by paediatric radiologist John Caffey.
However, Guthkelch later acknowledged birth injuries, minor accidents and natural disease processes could also cause the symptoms attributed to shaken baby syndrome/abusive head trauma, calling them “simply hypotheses, not proven medical or scientific facts”.
The question of whether doctors should be the ones determining child abuse, rather than exclusively diagnosing medical symptoms, is also being raised overseas as cases involving miscarriages of justice grow.
(One US radiologist has described the practice as like using an x-ray of a patient’s lungs to not only diagnose pneumonia, but to also determine how they contracted the infection.)
This issue has been bubbling away for years in the United States, where it is estimated hundreds of parents and caregivers are facing prison terms based on a flawed shaken baby syndrome diagnosis.
A US judge in one case who described shaken baby syndrome/abusive head trauma as “junk science”, said “no study has ever validated the hypothesis that shaking a child can cause the triad of symptoms” associated with the syndrome. That finding was later upheld by an appellate court.
A special bonus episode of season one of podcast investigation series Fractured, called ‘Death Row’, features the case of US man Robert Roberson, who was set to become the first person in the US to be executed on the basis of a shaken baby syndrome diagnosis, until a last-minute reprieve by the Texas Supreme Court.
Roberson’s defence argued his chronically ill daughter’s cause of death was in fact pneumonia, aggravated by doctors prescribing improper medication.
Since 1992, at least 34 people in the US have been exonerated in cases related to shaken baby syndrome/abusive head trauma.
Just last week in Canada, the Toronto Star published a multi-page feature on lawsuits filed by parents in 10 separate cases. These parents sought medical treatment for their babies but instead found themselves under suspicion, turning their lives upside down.
They are all fighting to clear their names, claiming they were wrongly accused of abuse due to flawed assessments by child maltreatment specialists.
“Judges and medical experts have voiced concerns about the reliability of opinions rooted in the controversial discipline of child maltreatment paediatrics, raising troubling questions about the weight Canada’s justice and child protection systems place on this kind of evidence,” the article says.
In a special bonus episode of Fractured titled ‘The Syndrome’, released today on Newsroom’s podcast channel DELVE, it is revealed the three US doctors who have been vocal advocates for this diagnosis are the same three who were strong promoters of now-debunked satanic ritual abuse theory of the 1980s and 1990s.
Academic articles that call into question the validity of this diagnosis are also being published.
One of those, ‘Feigned Consensus: Usurping the Law in Shaken Baby Syndrome/Abusive Head Trauma Prosecutions’, authored by four law professors, two physicians and a physicist, says that under traditional principles of evidence law, doctors should not be making diagnoses of abuse in court.
“Child abuse paediatricians claim, on the basis of a few non-specific medical findings supported by a weak and methodologically flawed research base, to be able to ‘diagnose’ child abuse, and thereby to provide all of the evidence necessary to satisfy all of the legal elements for criminal prosecution (or removal of children from their parents),” it states.
They say physicians should instead be focused on “identifying specific symptoms or medical findings”.
In 2014 the Swedish government commissioned a two-year scientific study on shaken baby syndrome/abusive head trauma, which concluded the evidence base for it was “insufficient”, “unreliable” and based on “circular reasoning and not scientific criteria”.
More recently, a 2023 paper published in the peer-reviewed International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health asserts that unless rib fractures are accompanied by bruising or pain, they are more likely to have been caused by vitamin D deficiency or birth trauma.
Health NZ replies
The barrister now representing Zita, Kerry Cook, describes miscarriages of justice as “pernicious”.
“They undermine the integrity of the justice system and call into question the results. Society does not function well if it cannot trust the justice system. As such, correcting miscarriages of justice is of the utmost importance. I am hopeful that you, the associate minister, with a background in the law, will give a significant amount of weight to this fact and recognise the importance of allowing Zita to properly participate in this process. It is, after all, only a matter of timing.”
Newsroom has repeatedly asked for an interview with Starship Hospital representatives; however the Health New Zealand communications department declined, saying: “It would not be appropriate for Health New Zealand to comment on a specific case which involved Starship clinicians giving evidence in a criminal proceeding”.
We replied to Health NZ: “The criminal proceedings are in the past. They resulted in a conviction and a jail sentence which has now be served. What we are looking at is new information that has arisen from our own research. There would be nothing inappropriate about the doctors commenting on that. In the interests of balance and multiple viewpoints we would like you to ask the doctors to please reconsider our request.”
The communications person responded: “Thanks for getting in touch, however we reiterate that it would not be appropriate for Health NZ to comment on this case.”
The invitation remains open.
Listeners can follow the investigation on Newsroom’s podcast channel DELVE, where season 1 of Fractured is available to listen to now, with season 2 due to launch shortly. A special bonus episode is out today for listeners on the situation in the US, titled The Syndrome.
Read part one, part two and part three of our series written to accompany the podcast."
The entire story cannot be be read at:
https://newsroom.co.nz/2025/02/11/minister-urged-to-halt-mums-deportation-in-wake-of-new-evidence/
PUBLISHER'S NOTE: I am monitoring this case/issue/resource. 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.
SEE BREAKDOWN OF SOME OF THE ON-GOING INTERNATIONAL CASES (OUTSIDE OF THE CONTINENTAL USA) THAT I AM FOLLOWING ON THIS BLOG, AT THE LINK BELOW: HL:
https://www.blogger.com/blog/post/edit/120008354894645705/4704913685758792985
———————————————————————————————
FINAL WORD: (Applicable to all of our wrongful conviction cases): "Whenever there is a wrongful conviction, it exposes errors in our criminal legal system, and we hope that this case — and lessons from it — can prevent future injustices."
Lawyer Radha Natarajan:
Executive Director: New England Innocence Project;
—————————————————————————————————
FINAL, FINAL WORD: "Since its inception, the Innocence Project has pushed the criminal legal system to confront and correct the laws and policies that cause and contribute to wrongful convictions. They never shied away from the hard cases — the ones involving eyewitness identifications, confessions, and bite marks. Instead, in the course of presenting scientific evidence of innocence, they've exposed the unreliability of evidence that was, for centuries, deemed untouchable." So true!
Christina Swarns: Executive Director: The Innocence Project;
