PUBLISHER'S NOTE: Junk shaken baby syndrome, leading to the wrongful conviction, punishment, destruction of reputation, and punishment of so many innocent parents and caregivers - and all too often leading to the wrongful seizure by the state of other children in the family - is not a an American problem, a Canadian problem or a British problem. It is clearly a wide-spread junk science phenomena that stains justice systems in many countries. Nor is Australia immune, as evidenced by this post by Andrew L Urban, on his highly relevant and insightful Wrongful Convictions Report.
Harold Levy: Publisher: The Charles Smith Blog;
-----------------------------------------------------------
QUOTE OF THE DAY: "“Effective child protection and a fair justice system depend on accurate science, rigorous investigation, and independent scrutiny of expert evidence.” – Kaneal Lindsey;
—————————————————-
SECOND QUOTE OF THE DAY: "“When similar medical findings and expert opinions arise across multiple prosecutions, it is not only a matter of individual cases but of public confidence in the systems interpreting medical evidence.” – Kaneal Lindsey;
—————————————————-
THIRD QUOTE OF THE DAY: "“Where serious criminal allegations rely heavily on specialised medical evidence, all possible medical explanations must be fully explored.”
----------------------------------------
PASSAGE OF THE DAY: "Lion’s Law proposes reforms designed to protect children while strengthening the integrity of the justice system:
- Mandatory peer reviewof paediatric forensic pathology opinions
- Independent multidisciplinary diagnostic panelsfor complex infant injury cases
- Comprehensive review of all medical evidence, including hospital records, scans, pathology results, ambulance notes, and child protection files
- Expanded diagnostic investigation where clinically indicated: blood testing, genetic testing, bone fragility testing, and tissue analysis
- Post-conviction review mechanismsto examine cases where new evidence emerges
———————————————---
PASSAGE TWO OF THE DAY: "The Goudge Inquiry in Canada revealed how systemic weaknesses in forensic pathology oversight can contribute to miscarriages of justice. Recommendations included stronger peer review, independent oversight, and rigorous differential diagnosis—measures Lion’s Law advocates for in Victoria."
POST: "Petition to junk the junk science around Shaken Baby Syndrome," by Andrew L. Urban, published in his Wrongful Conviction Report, on April 6 2026."
GIST: "A petition has been launched urging the Victorian Parliament “to establish an independent inquiry into paediatric forensic pathology practices and the legal frameworks governing expert evidence, particularly in cases involving Shaken Baby Syndrome (SBS) and Abusive Head Trauma (AHT).”
The petition proposes that “This inquiry should ensure that evidence used in criminal and child protection proceedings is scientifically valid, legally robust, independently verified, and fully disclosed, preventing miscarriages of justice caused by incomplete investigation or reliance on unsupported methodologies (“junk science”).” (See our report)
“Lions Law is the proposed legislation,” says Kaneal Lindsay, who launched the petition. “We are in the process of formalizing a not-for-profit structure based in Victoria to address shaken baby / abusive head trauma cases as we are inundated with emails from families almost daily. We hope with the release of our report on Lindsey, Rowe, Harvey and Vinaccia it will be enough to prompt an inquiry or at least fuel discussion around expert evidence in such cases.”
Lion’s Law advocates emphasise that the inquiry is not about revisiting individual verdicts, but about ensuring Victoria’s systems for interpreting complex paediatric medical evidence are scientifically robust, transparent, and accountable.
“Where criminal responsibility depends on specialised medical interpretation, the systems producing that evidence must be beyond reproach. Science before accusation. Evidence before judgement.” says spokeman Kaneal Lindsey.
The following is part of the media release announcing the petition:
Why the Inquiry Is Needed
Analysis of Victorian cases from 2014 to present shows a significant rise in prosecutions, the publicly known matters of Lindsay, Rowe, Vinaccia and Harvey, highlights systemic gaps in forensic pathology practices. In each case, there were alternative medical explanations (“mimics of abuse”) that could account for the injuries observed, yet these were not always fully investigated.Concerns include:
- Limited or incomplete differential diagnosis
- Absence of certain blood tests, genetic testing, or bone fragility investigations.
- Over Reliance on single expert opinions without peer review.
- Limited consideration of ambulance notes, hospital records, scans, and child protection files.
- incomplete or non-compliant reports where no authorities for conclusions or diagnosed medical conditions were absent.
- no consideration for observations or ambulance notes/ documented findings.
Historical cases dating back to 1994 are also referenced in supporting documentation to the proposed inquiry.
“Where serious criminal allegations rely heavily on specialised medical evidence, all possible medical explanations must be fully explored.”
Judicial Concerns About Expert Evidence
Victorian appellate decisions have highlighted risks when expert testimony exceeds recognised qualifications. In DPP vs Lombardo, the Court considered the scope of expert evidence provided by Abuse Paediatrician Dr Geetika Badkar (VFPMS).
The court found that:
- In respect of the opinion evidence of Dr Badkar:
- (a) Dr Badkar is qualified to express an opinion as to the nature and extent of the injuries sustained by MB, and as to the likely or possible mechanism by which those injuries had been caused – such as whether the injuries were the result of blunt force trauma, or acceleration/deceleration forces, or, in the case of the bruising to the neck in combination with the areas of infarction to the brain, strangulation. The opinions of Dr Badkar, as to those issues, are wholly or substantially based on her specialisedknowledge derived from her training, study and experience.
(b) Save in the case of the widespread bruising sustained by MB to his head, neck, abdomen, back, limbs and genital region, Dr Badkar is not qualified to express an opinion as to whether the other injuries, sustained by MB, had been, or might have been, the result of a non-accidental cause. Such an opinion is not based wholly or substantially on Dr Badkar’s specialised knowledge derived from her training, study and experience.
Dr Badkar also served as a key prosecution witness in the Lindsay trial, where alleged injuries were of the same type discussed in Lombardo. In the Lindsay committal proceedings Dr Badkar based her findings on “observations alone” provided no authorities to support her claims and stated that the coagulation that was diagnosed on admission could not produce bruising and bleeding despite a contemporaneous opinion from an ophthalmology fellow within the same report. “These statements simply do not align with medical literature nor literature produced by VFPMS in teaching materials, coagulation particularly DIC is known to produce both bleeding and bruising from the mucous membranes.” – Kaneal Lindsey
The overlap underscores the need for:
- – Clear qualification standards for expert witnesses
- – Mandatory peer review of complex forensic opinions
- – Independent multidisciplinary diagnostic panels
“When similar medical findings and expert opinions arise across multiple prosecutions, it is not only a matter of individual cases but of public confidence in the systems interpreting medical evidence.” – Kaneal Lindsey
International Lessons
The Goudge Inquiry in Canada revealed how systemic weaknesses in forensic pathology oversight can contribute to miscarriages of justice. Recommendations included stronger peer review, independent oversight, and rigorous differential diagnosis—measures Lion’s Law advocates for in Victoria.
Proposed Lion’s Law Safeguards
Lion’s Law proposes reforms designed to protect children while strengthening the integrity of the justice system:
- Mandatory peer reviewof paediatric forensic pathology opinions
- Independent multidisciplinary diagnostic panelsfor complex infant injury cases
- Comprehensive review of all medical evidence, including hospital records, scans, pathology results, ambulance notes, and child protection files
- Expanded diagnostic investigation where clinically indicated: blood testing, genetic testing, bone fragility testing, and tissue analysis
- Post-conviction review mechanismsto examine cases where new evidence emerges
“Effective child protection and a fair justice system depend on accurate science, rigorous investigation, and independent scrutiny of expert evidence.” – Kaneal Lindsey
The entire post can be read at:
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. 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.
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;
