Showing posts with label miah. Show all posts
Showing posts with label miah. Show all posts

Friday, July 31, 2009

THE FATIMA MIAH CASE: A MORE DETAILED ACCOUNT; 24 DASH.COM; SHE WAS ORIGINALLY CHARGED WITH MURDER FOLLOWING DEATH OF HER SON;



"ALL THE EXPERTS AGREED, OR WERE PREPARED TO CONCEDE, THAT THERE HAD BEEN CASES IN THE PAST IN WHICH THE "TRIAD" OF INJURIES HAD BEEN CAUSED BY ACCIDENTS.

THEY WERE ALSO UNABLE TO EXCLUDE THE MOTHER'S ACCOUNT THAT THE INJURIES WERE CAUSED BY A "SHORT FALL".

THE JUDGE SAID THAT, SINCE THERE WAS A "FUNDAMENTAL CONFLICT OF EXPERT OPINION" ON THE CAUSE OF DEATH AND NO "CLEAR EVIDENCE" TO BACK ONE SIDE OR THE OTHER, HE WOULD HAVE TO DIRECT THE JURY TO ENTER A NOT GUILTY VERDICT."

REPORTER HANNAH WOODERSON; 24DASH.COM;

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

"A young mother accused of shaking her eight-month-old son to death walked free from court today after a judge threw out a manslaughter charge against her," reporter Hannah Wooderson's story began, under the heading, "Mother cleared of shaking baby to death."

"The case of Fatima Miah could have implications for similar prosecutions up and down the country, the Old Bailey heard," the story, published on Wednesday July 29, 2009, continued;

"Miah, 27, who has faced two trials over the allegation since her baby Anas died in May 2007, told police that he collapsed after falling off the sofa.

"She has been described in court as a "caring, dutiful wife and a loving mother".

Today Judge Timothy Pontius ordered jurors formally to clear her after he was asked to make a ruling on the conflicting evidence of medical experts about the cause of the child's death.

He said: "It is my firm view that - unusually - there is no evidence upon which this jury could find, to the extent they feel sure, that the expert opinion supporting the prosecution allegation of non-accidental death is to be preferred."

Edward Brown QC, prosecuting, said: "This case has been brought to the attention of the very highest level of the Crown Prosecution Service and we have to consider the nature of the ruling.

"We will have also to decide whether the ruling has any general application because there are cases up and down the country either pending or being heard or which have been heard."

Some lawyers believe the case may have implications for the whole basis upon which scientific evidence is used in "baby-shaking" cases.

Miah, who spent six weeks in custody after her initial arrest but has since been on bail, was hugged by her junior defence barrister, Nerida Harford-Bell, in the dock after the judge made the ruling.

The part-time dentist's receptionist, of White City, west London, was originally charged with murder after the death of her son.

The court heard that at the time her husband Mohammed, 32, was working long hours at KFC in Shepherd's Bush and was unable to help her much but in court she denied that she was under pressure.

On the day Anas died an ambulance was called to the flat and he was found on the floor, not breathing, and his heart stopped for 40 minutes.

Miah faced her first trial at the Old Bailey in November last year but the murder charge was thrown out by a judge and jurors were unable to agree their verdict on the charge of manslaughter.

She denied prosecution claims that she had shaken the boy in a fit of temper, leaving him with the brain injury from which he died.

The mother faced a second trial this year but after hearing both the prosecution and the defence case that the judge decided to throw it out.

At the heart of the case was the presence of a "triad" of three specific injuries: subdural haemorrhage (bleeding on the brain), retinal haemorrhage (bleeding in the eye), and encephalopathy (swelling of brain tissue).

This "triad" would normally be used to provide "a strong pointer towards a conclusion that those injuries were not accidentally caused".

The judge said that there was evidence that all three of these injuries had been brought on by "trauma of some kind" and the prosecution argued that having all three together proved "non-accidental death".

But defence experts said that the subdural haemorrhage was unlikely to have been caused by shaking and one said it may have been the result of a loss of oxygen caused by choking on vomit.

All the experts agreed, or were prepared to concede, that there had been cases in the past in which the "triad" of injuries had been caused by accidents.

They were also unable to exclude the mother's account that the injuries were caused by a "short fall".

The judge said that, since there was a "fundamental conflict of expert opinion" on the cause of death and no "clear evidence" to back one side or the other, he would have to direct the jury to enter a not guilty verdict.

There was no evidence of external injuries and the mother had no previous convictions or history of abuse.

"Indeed, the character evidence, from witnesses called both for the defence and prosecution, is positive, describing her as a caring, dutiful wife and a loving mother," said the judge.

He said it would be impossible to rely on "inconsistency" in her account of what happened as proof that she had tried to allay suspicion of what happened, given her "obvious and understandable distress at the time".

Some lawyers believe the judge's ruling called into question the reliance on the "triad" of injuries to prove baby-shaking cases.

A man on the jury nodded when the judge explained the reasons for his decision and said he hoped that they agreed, while two female jurors waved goodbye to Miah as they filed out of court.

The judge told them: "This case is one of particular difficulty, as such cases always are. We read about them.

"In recent years there have been cases of baby-shaking and infant deaths which have hit the headlines. They are never straightforward and they are never easy.

"There is no evidence which could prove the strength of support necessary to enable you to conclude so that you are sure of it that Anas's death was non-accidental and specifically that the defendant shook him."

He said that, while there was some evidence which may make them "suspicious", it could not be enough.

Miah declined to comment when asked for her reaction outside court."


The article can be found at:

http://24dash.com/news/Communities/2009-07-29-Mother-cleared-of-shaking-baby-to-death

Harold Levy...hlevy15@gmail.com;

Thursday, July 30, 2009

THE FATIMAH MIAH CASE: BBC NEWS TELLS US THIS WAS HER SECOND TRIAL;


""IT IS MY FIRM VIEW THAT - UNUSUALLY - THERE IS NO EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THIS JURY COULD FIND, TO THE EXTENT THEY FEEL SURE, THAT THE EXPERT OPINION SUPPORTING THE PROSECUTION ALLEGATION OF NON-ACCIDENTAL DEATH IS TO BE PREFERRED," SAID JUDGE TIMOTHY PONTIUS."

BBC NEWS: 29 JULY, 2009;

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

"A mother accused of shaking her eight-month-old baby son to death in west London has been cleared due to "conflicting medical evidence," the BBC News story began, under the heading, "Mother acquitted of killing baby."

"The 27-year-old, who was acquitted of manslaughter, denied she had shaken her son in fit of temper which left him with a brain injury in May 2007," the story continues;

"She was described as a "loving mother" at the Old Bailey.

The judge ordered jurors to clear her after he was asked to make a ruling on conflicting medical experts.

"It is my firm view that - unusually - there is no evidence upon which this jury could find, to the extent they feel sure, that the expert opinion supporting the prosecution allegation of non-accidental death is to be preferred," said Judge Timothy Pontius.

'Triad of injuries'

The woman, who has faced two trials over the allegation, told police that her son had collapsed after falling off the sofa.

At the heart of the case was the presence of a "triad" of three specific injuries: bleeding on the brain, bleeding in the eye and swelling of brain tissue.

This "triad" would normally be used to provide a strong indication that injuries inflicted were not caused accidentally.

The judge said there was evidence that all three of these injuries had been brought on by "trauma of some kind" and the prosecution argued that having all three together proved "non-accidental death".

But defence experts said that the bleeding of the brain was unlikely to have been caused by shaking and one said it may have been the result of a loss of oxygen caused by choking on vomit.

All the experts also agreed, or were prepared to concede, that there had been cases in the past in which the "triad" of injuries had been caused by accidents."

The story can be found at:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/london/8175279.stm

Harold Levy...hlevy15@gmail.com;

Wednesday, July 29, 2009

THE FATIMA MIAH CASE; ANOTHER BRITISH WOMAN FREED AFTER "EXPERT" SHAKEN-BABY SYNDROME EVIDENCE TROUBLES COURT; CALLED "LANDMARK" CASE;


"EDWARD BROWN QC, PROSECUTING, SAID THE RULING WOULD HAVE IMPLICATIONS FOR MANY OTHER SIMILAR CASES, AND THE SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE USED IN SHAKEN BABY PROSECUTIONS.

"THIS CASE HAS BEEN BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE VERY HIGHEST LEVEL OF THE CROWN PROSECUTION SERVICE AND WE HAVE TO CONSIDER THE NATURE OF THE RULING. WE WILL HAVE ALSO TO DECIDE WHETHER THE RULING HAS ANY GENERAL APPLICATION BECAUSE THERE ARE CASES UP AND DOWN THE COUNTRY EITHER PENDING OR BEING HEARD OR WHICH HAVE BEEN HEARD," HE SAID."

REPORTER ROSEMARY BENNETT; THE TIMES ONLINE; JULY 29. 2009;

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

The Times Online July 29 reported earlier today that Fatima Miah, a mother accused of shaking her baby son to death, had been freed after a judge ordered jurors not to convict her of manslaughter because the expert evidence was too divided.

"A young mother accused of shaking her baby son to death has walked free from court after a judge ordered jurors to clear her of manslaughter," the story by Social Affairs Correspondent Rosemary Bennett, begins.

"The judge said expert evidence was too divided for the jury to come to a conclusion as he threw out the charge," the story continues, under the heading, "Mother free in landmark baby shaking case."

"Legal experts said his decision would have serious implications for similar prosecutions up and down the country.

Although most medical experts still stand firmly behind Shaken Baby Syndrome, a minority of sceptical scientists fear that it is wrong, mistaking symptoms found in innocent accidents with deliberate killing.

Fatima Miah, 27, has faced two trials over the allegation that she shook her eight-month-old baby, Anas, to death in May 2007. She has always maintained he collapsed after falling off the sofa.

Judge Timothy Pontius said that, since there was a fundamental conflict of expert opinion on the cause of death, and no clear evidence to back one side or the other, he would have to direct the jury to enter a not guilty verdict.

"It is my firm view that - unusually - there is no evidence upon which this jury could find, to the extent they feel sure, that the expert opinion supporting the prosecution allegation of non-accidental death is to be preferred," he said.

Edward Brown QC, prosecuting, said the ruling would have implications for many other similar cases, and the scientific evidence used in shaken baby prosecutions.

"This case has been brought to the attention of the very highest level of the Crown Prosecution Service and we have to consider the nature of the ruling. We will have also to decide whether the ruling has any general application because there are cases up and down the country either pending or being heard or which have been heard," he said.

Ms Miah spent six weeks in custody after her initial arrest but has since been on bail. She had been described in court as a caring, dutiful wife and a loving mother.

The part-time dentist's receptionist from west London denied prosecution claims that she had shaken the boy in a fit of temper, leaving him with the brain injury from which he died.

Shaken Baby Syndrome came to prominence over a decade ago during the trial of Louise Woodward, the au pair who was found guilty of shaking baby Matthew Eappen to death. A series of reports said it was being under-diagnosed with up to 100 babies a year affected.

Most recently a child minder Keran Henderson, was jailed for the manslaughter of Maeve Sheppard, a baby in her care who a jury concluded had been shaken to death. Earlier this year, she left prison and is on probation having served half her sentence. She has always maintained her innocence.

(THE CHARLES SMITH BLOG PUBLISHER'S NOTE: THIS STORY DOES NOT MENTION THAT KERAN HENDERSON WAS RECENTLY FREED - HAVING SERVED HALF OF HER SENTENCE - PENDING AN APPEAL TO BE HEARD LATER THIS YEARS;THIS FALL. AFTER HER CONVICTION THE JURY FOREMAN AND ONE OTHER JURY TOOK THE EXTRAORDINARY STEP OF PUBLICLY QUESTIONING THE VERDICT - AND THE "EXPERT" EVIDENCE CALLED BY THE PROSECUTION; HAROLD LEVY;)

At the heart of the case was the presence of three specific injuries. They were subdural haemorrhage, or bleeding on the brain, retinal haemorrhage or bleeding in the eye, and encephalopathy or swelling of brain tissue.

This triad of injuries would normally be used to provide a strong pointer that those injuries were not accidentally.

But defence experts said that the subdural haemorrhage was unlikely to have been caused by shaking and one said it may have been the result of a loss of oxygen caused by choking on vomit.

All the experts agreed, or were prepared to concede, that there had been cases in the past in which the triad of injuries had been caused by accidents. They were also unable to exclude the mothers account that the injuries were caused by a short fall.

New research due to be peer-reviewed this summer from biomechanics in the US will suggest bangs on the head from a fall are far more dangerous to infants than shaking. Researchers at the Wayne State University in Detroit used crash-test dummies and real corpses - including dead infants - to help them reach their conclusions.

Ms Miah left the court without making any comment. Two female jurers waved her goodbye after the decision and she was hugged by her junior defence barrister.


The story can be found at:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/london/8175279.stm

Harold Levy...hlevy15@gmail.com;