STUART BAILEY CASE: PART (3): PROSECUTION'S EXPERT WAS EVER SO CERTAIN "SHAKEN-BABY SYNDROME" PROVED HIS GUILT; CHARGE DROPPED DURING TRIAL;

"DR RITTY SAID SCANS SHOWED THE BABY HAD SUFFERED BLEEDING ON THE BRAIN FROM TINY TEARS. THESE THEN LED TO IT BEING STARVED OF OXYGEN CAUSING FURTHER INJURIES.

THE BABY ALSO HAD HAEMORRHAGES ON BOTH RETINAS.

THE THREE TOGETHER, HE SAID, STRONGLY SUGGESTED NON-ACCIDENTAL SHAKING HAD OCCURRED.

HE SAID: "I FELT THAT IT WAS OVERWHELMINGLY PROBABLE THAT SHE HAD NON ACCIDENTAL INJURIES OR SHAKEN BABY SYNDROME."

REPORTER NICK WARD: THE SHEFFIELD TELEGRAPH;
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Background: Stuart Bailey, is another example, of the destruction caused by the British government's blind acceptance of "battered-baby syndrome" dogma. As the Telegraph pointed out in a story published on February, 2009, "A man accused of inflicting severe brain damage on an 11-week-old baby by shaking her has been cleared after a three-year ordeal." In recent months, this Blog has been reporting on other British cases involving the horrors caused to other individuals - such as Suzanne Holdsworth and Keran Henderson - by the failure of the British courts to consider the possibility that the child's death may have been caused by natural causes;

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since we are now aware that the Crown dropped the charge against Stuart Bailey on during the course of the trial on the basis that the "shaken-baby syndrome" thesis on which it was laid had proven untenable, it is worth while examining the evidence given in court by Dr. Christopher Ritty, the medical expert who testified for the prosecution.

Dr. Ritty's evidence at trial was described in a story which ran in the Sheffield Telegraph on February 10, 2009, under the heading: "Shaking led to baby girl's injuries - court."

"A LEADING medical expert told a court that injuries which left an 11-week-old baby severely disabled were caused because she had been shaken," the story, by reporter Nick Ward, began.

"Sheffield Children's Hospital Consultant Paediatric Neurologist Dr Christopher Ritty, who examined the infant several times, revealed a triad of injuries indicated she had been violently shaken," the story continued;

"Dr Ritty said scans showed the baby had suffered bleeding on the brain from tiny tears. These then led to it being starved of oxygen causing further injuries.

The baby also had haemorrhages on both retinas.

The three together, he said, strongly suggested non-accidental shaking had occurred.

He said: "I felt that it was overwhelmingly probable that she had non accidental injuries or shaken baby syndrome."

The doctor explained that the injuries were so severe that if the baby's condition had deteriorated, she would not have been resuscitated.

However, the baby began to recover. But today aged five, she is severely disabled due to her terrible injuries.

The doctor said: "Given the extent of the injuries, the outlook was very poor in terms of recovery. It is beyond reasonable doubt that this had been caused by non accidental injuries."

Stuart Bailey 41, of Key Street, Hoyland Common, Barnsley, has denied charges of cruelty to a person under 16.

Defence counsel, Robert Smith QC, argued the baby's severe brain injuries were caused by the herpes simplex virus.

But Dr Ritty dismissed a viral infection - although he did concede that had he carried out a lumbar-puncture the test would have ruled it out for certain.

Not carrying out the procedure was, he said, "an omission". But he went on to explain that the little girl was so ill that the procedure may have killed her.

The court was previously told that the baby's mum left her in Bailey's care when she ran her mother to bingo.

Bailey bathed the baby but then called her mum asking her to hurry back, because the little girl had "gone all floppy."

She was then rushed to Barnsley Hospital and later transferred to Sheffield Children's Hospital."

We know from the recently released report of the Goudge Inquiry into Ontario's pediatric pathology system, that the evidence of the Crown experts, such as Dr. Ritty, can be extremely influential with the jury.

It is therefore frightening to imagine what little chance Mr. Bailey had of being acquitted - if the charge had not been dropped - after the jurors heard Dr. Ritty's super-confident testimony that it was " overwhelmingly probable" that she (the 11-week old baby) had non-accidental injuries or shaken baby syndrome."

Mr. Bailey deserved much better than that from the British criminal justice system;

Harold Levy...hlevy15@gmail.com;

STUART BAILEY CASE: PART TWO; ANOTHER DISTURBING BRITISH "SHAKEN-BABY SYNDROME" CASE - ANOTHER NEWSPAPER ACCOUNT; THE SHEFFIELD TELEGRAPH;

"MR. BAILEY'S SOLICITOR TIM GAUBERT SAID THE PROSECUTION'S CASE WAS BASED ON A 'TRIAD' OF THREE INJURIES BEING PRESENT IN THE BABY: BRAIN SWELLING AND BRAIN AND RETINAL BLEEDING.

BUT THE COURT HEARD RETINAL HAEMORRHAGES WERE NOT PRESENT WHEN SHE WAS FIRST ADMITTED TO HOSPITAL AND DID NOT DEVELOP UNTIL A DAY LATER.

UNDER CROSS-EXAMINATION CONSULTANT NEUROLOGIST DR CARLOS DE SOUSA, OF GREAT ORMAND STREET HOSPITAL IN LONDON, SAID BECAUSE OF THE DELAYED DEVELOPMENT OF EYE BLEEDS, HE COULD NOT BE SURE THE BABY HAD BEEN SHAKEN.

THE TRIAL WAS HALTED SOON AFTER."

SHEFFIELD TELEGRAPH:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Background: Stuart Bailey, is another example, of the destruction caused by the British government's blind acceptance of "battered-baby syndrome" dogma. As the Telegraph pointed out in a story published on February, 2009, "A man accused of inflicting severe brain damage on an 11-week-old baby by shaking her has been cleared after a three-year ordeal." In recent months, this Blog has been reporting on other British cases involving the horrors caused to other individuals - such as Suzanne Holdsworth and Keran Henderson - by the failure of the British courts to consider the possibility that the child's death may have been caused by natural causes;

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Sheffield Telegraph's report on the dropping of charges against Stuart Bailey in mid-trial - which ran under the heading "Evidence change ends cruelty case" - contains some crucial information on the case.

"THE collapse of a baby shaking trial at Sheffield Crown Court was triggered when the opinon of a medical expert changed, a prosecutor has said," the story, dated February 18, 2009, begins;

"Barbara Petchey, chief prosecutor with the Crown Prosecution Service, said the case against Stuart Bailey was stopped because there was no longer a realistic prospect of conviction," the story continues;

"Stuart Bailey, aged 41, was cleared on Monday of shaking a baby so hard she suffered brain damage.

Ms Petchey said: "During the course of the trial the evidence of one medical expert changed. The CPS reviewed the evidence and decided there was no longer a realistic prospect of conviction.

"Therefore, in accordance with the code for crown prosecutors the case had to be stopped."

Mr Bailey's solicitor Tim Gaubert said the prosecution's case was based on a 'triad' of three injuries being present in the baby: brain swelling and brain and retinal bleeding.

But the court heard retinal haemorrhages were not present when she was first admitted to hospital and did not develop until a day later.

Under cross-examination consultant neurologist Dr Carlos de Sousa, of Great Ormand Street hospital in London, said because of the delayed development of eye bleeds, he could not be sure the baby had been shaken.

The trial was halted soon after.

Mr Bailey, of Key Street, Hoyland Common, who was cleared of child cruelty, was arrested three-and-a-half years ago. Police charged him after a two-year investigation and the case came to court a year-and-a-half later.

Mr Gaubert said: "During that time he had to live with the accusation he shook the baby causing catastrophic injuries.

"That allegation was always vehemently denied by him and he is understandably relieved at the prosecution's decision to offer no further evidence.""

Harold Levy...hlevy15@gmail.com;

STUART BAILEY CASE: PART ONE; ANOTHER DISTURBING BRITISH "SHAKEN BABY CASE'; PROSECUTOR'S DROP CHARGE DURING TRIAL;

"THE PROSECUTION EXPERTS INCLUDED DR CHRISTOPHER RITTY, A CONSULTANT PAEDIATRIC NEUROLOGIST AT THE CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL.

HE SAID: "I FELT THAT IT WAS OVERWHELMINGLY PROBABLE THAT THE GIRL HAD SUFFERED THIS AS A RESULT OF NON-ACCIDENTAL INJURY, SO-CALLED SHAKEN BABY SYNDROME."

OPTHALMIC SURGEON RICHARD GREGSON FROM THE QUEEN'S MEDICAL CENTRE, NOTTINGHAM, SAID "ON THE BALANCE OF PROBABILITIES" HE THOUGHT THE INJURIES WERE CAUSED BY SHAKING BUT ADDED: "NO OPTHALMOLOGIST CAN LOOK AT THIS CHILD'S EYES AND KNOW ABSOLUTELY SURE THAT THIS IS A CASE OF SHAKING."

THE CASE COLLAPSED AFTER DR CARLOS DE SOUZA, A CONSULTANT NEUROLOGIST FROM GREAT ORMOND STREET CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL IN LONDON, SAID THE NOTES SHOWED RETINAL BLEEDING WAS ONLY DISCOVERED BY DOCTORS ON THE FOURTH EXAMINATION OF THE CHILD.

FOR THAT REASON, HE SAID HE WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO SAY THE MOST LIKELY EXPLANATION WAS SHAKING.

AFTER AN ADJOURNMENT, THE PROSECUTION DECIDED NOT TO OFFER ANY MORE EVIDENCE IN THE CASE AND THE JURY FORMALLY ACQUITTED MR BAILEY ON THE ORDERS OF JUDGE MICHAEL MURPHY."

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Background: Stuart Bailey, is another example, of the destruction caused by the British government's blind acceptance of "battered-baby syndrome" dogma. As the Telegraph pointed out in a story published on February, 2009, "A man accused of inflicting severe brain damage on an 11-week-old baby by shaking her has been cleared after a three-year ordeal." In recent months, this Blog has been reporting on other British cases involving the horrors caused to other individuals - such as Suzanne Holdsworth and Keran Henderson - by the failure of the British courts to consider the possibility that the child's death may have been caused by natural causes;

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Supermarket worker Stuart Bailey, 41, was accused by prosecutors of shaking the child with "catastrophic consequences" when she would not stop crying as he gave her a bath," the story, by reporter Aislinn Simpson, began;

"He insisted he had done nothing wrong, with his lawyers saying the case against him was "very seriously flawed" and based on mistakes by doctors," the story continued;

"On Tuesday a judge at Sheffield Crown Court ordered his case to be thrown out after 10 days of prosecution evidence after it emerged that doctors had only found evidence the baby could have been shaken during a later examination.

Doctors also failed to follow NHS protocol by carrying out a lumbar puncture test that would have identified whether the baby had an infection.

Mr Bailey's barrister told the court her injuries, which have left her blind, deaf and severely disabled, could have been caused by an infection.

A blood test was taken but the results were destroyed once Mr Bailey was charged with child cruelty.

The case coincides with fresh doubts being raised about the "triad" of injuries used by doctors to diagnose "shaken baby syndrome" - bleeding on the brain and retinas, swelling of the brain and oxygen deficiency.

A team of researchers led by staff at Bart's and The London NHS Trust looked at 55 babies who died of brain haemorrhages either before birth or shortly afterwards. They concluded the symptoms are common in newborns and could be caused by genetic conditions or by a traumatic birth.

In Mr Bailey's case, the baby was born on May 7, 2005 and suddenly collapsed on July 21, 2005 while in Mr Bailey's care.

Mr Bailey and the mother took the baby by car to Barnsley District Hospital before she was transferred to Sheffield Children's Hospital for specialist treatment. Her ventilator was eventually turned off in the intensive care unit at Sheffield Children's Hospital but unusually, she survived.

Andrew Robertson QC, prosecuting, said the baby's injuries were caused by non-accidental shaking and the baby's head going backwards and forwards. He said "It was a repeated shaking of the baby with force."

The prosecution experts included Dr Christopher Ritty, a consultant paediatric neurologist at the Children's Hospital.

He said: "I felt that it was overwhelmingly probable that the girl had suffered this as a result of non-accidental injury, so-called shaken baby syndrome."

Opthalmic surgeon Richard Gregson from the Queen's Medical Centre, Nottingham, said "on the balance of probabilities" he thought the injuries were caused by shaking but added: "No opthalmologist can look at this child's eyes and know absolutely sure that this is a case of shaking."

The case collapsed after Dr Carlos de Souza, a consultant neurologist from Great Ormond Street Children's Hospital in London, said the notes showed retinal bleeding was only discovered by doctors on the fourth examination of the child.

For that reason, he said he would not be able to say the most likely explanation was shaking.

After an adjournment, the prosecution decided not to offer any more evidence in the case and the jury formally acquitted Mr Bailey on the orders of Judge Michael Murphy.

As Mr Bailey, of Hoyland Common, Barnsley, walked free from court, his solicitor Tim Gaubert said he had lined up seven "eminent doctors" who all had serious concerns about a shaking diagnosis.

He said his client was relieved with the decision, although he was always confident he would be cleared.

He added: "But his relief is tempered by the fact that the child is seriously ill and has lots of health problems.

"She has a very severe brain injury, is blind and cannot feed herself. There are no winners and losers in this case.""

Harold Levy...hlevy15@gmail.com;