Jesse Vinaccia: Australia: Major Development: He has been allowed to appeal his child homicide conviction after lawyers question baby shaking evidence," the Guardian (Reporter Nino Bucci) reports..."Jesse Vinaccia was found guilty of child homicide and sentenced to eight and a half years’ jail in 2019, in part because of evidence about so-called “shaken baby syndrome”. His case is one of three before the Victorian court of appeal involving men convicted after experts or scientists gave evidence that a “triad” of injuries found in the alleged victims could have only been inflicted by shaking or deliberate violent force....Tuesday, lawyers for Vinaccia succeeded in an application to have an appeal against his child homicide conviction considered on multiple grounds. Primarily what they will argue is the lack of scientific validation of a method used to diagnose the “triad” of injuries in infants : bleeding in the brain, the brain swelling and retinal haemorrhage. Vinaccia’s lawyer, Richard Edney, argued in court that not only is there no scientific validation, but there is controversy about its validity as a diagnostic method."

PASSAGE OF THE DAY: "Edney said it was for the court to determine whether two other appeals lodged against convictions based on similar evidence – including evidence given by the same experts – should be joined with the Vinaccia appeal. Joby Rowe, who was found guilty of child homicide over the death of his three-month-old daughter, and Jesse Thomas Harvey, who was found guilty of recklessly causing serious injury to his seven-week-old son, have also submitted applications to appeal their convictions before the court. The court of appeal is yet to decide if these cases will be joined to the Vinaccia matter. The court’s president, Justice Chris Maxwell, said it had agreed to hear the Vinaccia appeal as the submissions made by Edney about new expert evidence deserved to be tested. Edney argued during a previous appeal hearing that “the evidence is so cogent, plausible and probable that it would, if admitted ... establish that effectively, an innocent person has been convicted, or there has been a substantial miscarriage of justice”.

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

STORY: "Victorian man allowed to appeal child homicide conviction after lawyers question baby shaking evidence" by Reporter Nino Bucci, published by The Guardian on August 17, 2021.

SUB-HEADING: "Jesse Vinaccia was jailed for more than eight years over the death of his girlfriend's son in 2016."

GIST: "A man found guilty of killing his girlfriend’s baby son will be allowed to appeal the conviction, after a Victorian court agreed to hear from forensic experts who he says contradict evidence given during his trial.

Jesse Vinaccia was found guilty of child homicide and sentenced to eight and a half years’ jail in 2019, in part because of evidence about so-called “shaken baby syndrome”.

His case is one of three before the Victorian court of appeal involving men convicted after experts or scientists gave evidence that a “triad” of injuries found in the alleged victims could have only been inflicted by shaking or deliberate violent force.

In January 2016, Vinaccia found three-month-old Kaleb Baylis-Clarke unresponsive in his cot.

Vinaccia, who was 22 at the time, had been caring for the infant for the previous two hours. Kaleb died a week later in hospital.

Edney said it was for the court to determine whether two other appeals lodged against convictions based on similar evidence – including evidence given by the same experts – should be joined with the Vinaccia appeal.

Joby Rowe, who was found guilty of child homicide over the death of his three-month-old daughter, and Jesse Thomas Harvey, who was found guilty of recklessly causing serious injury to his seven-week-old son, have also submitted applications to appeal their convictions before the court.

The court of appeal is yet to decide if these cases will be joined to the Vinaccia matter.

The court’s president, Justice Chris Maxwell, said it had agreed to hear the Vinaccia appeal as the submissions made by Edney about new expert evidence deserved to be tested.

Edney argued during a previous appeal hearing that “the evidence is so cogent, plausible and probable that it would, if admitted ... establish that effectively, an innocent person has been convicted, or there has been a substantial miscarriage of justice”.

Christopher Boyce QC, for the prosecution, argued on Tuesday that the application should fail by either finality or futility: Vinaccia had the opportunity to present contradictory expert witnesses during his trial and did not do so, and the expert reports provided by Edney did not address the fundamental strength of the evidence given to the jury.

Boyce also said that given Vinaccia said during his police interview that he had handled Kaleb roughly shortly before he was found unresponsive it was “not a pure triad case”, as these admissions were part of the evidence given at trial.

Boyce said the prosecution would call expert witnesses to give rebuttal evidence during the appeal, which is set to be heard later this year."

The entire story can be read at:

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/aug/17/victorian-man-allowed-to-appeal-child-homicide-conviction-after-lawyersquestion-baby-shaking-evidence

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;

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

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;

Jesse Vinaccia: Australian; Shaking baby syndrome: On-going appeal. Extraordinary Development"...Court has been told that an expert witness gave incorrect evidence in a shaking baby case, 'The Age' (Reporter Chris Vedelago) reports... "One of the state’s top forensic paediatricians has admitted she provided incorrect expert evidence in the child homicide prosecution of Jesse Vinaccia, who was jailed after being convicted in 2019 of shaking his girlfriend’s baby to death. The admission by prosecution expert Joanna Tully came as Vinaccia appealed against his conviction on the basis that shaken baby syndrome is pseudoscience. Vinaccia’s legal team has accused the deputy director of the Victorian Forensic Paediatric Medical Service of giving evidence that was “misleading and contrary to her obligations as an expert witness”. Dr Tully has appeared as an expert witness in multiple criminal prosecutions and child protection matters, and is considered one of the nation’s foremost experts on abusive head trauma/shaken baby syndrome.But in the witness box on Thursday, Dr Tully was accused by barrister Richard Edney of providing “false” evidence at Vinaccia’s first murder trial in 2019 when she testified that she had based her evidence on photographs of retinal bleeding in 3Ѕ-month-old baby Kaleb’s eyes."

PASSAGE OF THE DAY: "Bleeding in the eyes is one of a “triad” of symptoms used by some experts to confirm shaken baby syndrome, although the diagnosis has been increasingly challenged. The controversy centres on the finding that an infant had died as a result of violent shaking by a parent or guardian when an autopsy reveals three internal head injuries: bleeding in the brain, retinal haemorrhage and swelling of the brain. Dr Tully admitted to the court on Thursday that her evidence in 2019 was “incorrect” because no photographs of Kaleb’s eyes existed. The revelation came as Dr Tully took the extraordinary step of seeking to be represented by independent legal counsel at the Court of Appeal proceedings because of what her lawyer called “serious direct allegations made against Dr Tully”. Her application was denied by the court because it was “most unusual for witnesses to be granted separate representation”. Dr Tully appeared on the seventh day of the appeal, where Vinaccia is challenging the scientific basis of shaken baby syndrome, which has been used for more than 50 years to diagnose and prosecute cases of child abuse and homicide."

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

PASSAGE TWO OF THE DAY: "Dr Tully appeared on the seventh day of the appeal, where Vinaccia is challenging the scientific basis of shaken baby syndrome, which has been used for more than 50 years to diagnose and prosecute cases of child abuse and homicide. The court was read an email from Dr Tully to the Victoria Police detective who investigated Vinaccia. In the email, she disclosed the mistake and suggested his defence should be informed. “It has come to my attention that there is an error in my transcript from the recent trial of Jesse Vinaccia. During cross-examination, I stated that I had viewed the images of Kaleb’s retinal examination. This in fact is not correct. No photographic images were taken of Kaleb’s retina ... It does not, however, alter the opinion that I offered in relation to the significance of the findings reported by a consultant ophthalmologist,” she wrote in April 2019. Dr Tully said she believed she had mistaken photographs used in her teaching with a photograph of Kaleb’s eyes. Vinaccia’s first trial ended when the jury was discharged after it was discovered that during deliberations a juror conducted  their own research on the internet about the case and shared the results with colleagues."

STORY:"Expert witness gave incorrect evidence in baby shaking case," court told," by Reporter Chris Vedelago, published by 'The Age' on November 25, 2021.

GIST: "One of the state’s top forensic paediatricians has admitted she provided incorrect expert evidence in the child homicide prosecution of Jesse Vinaccia, who was jailed after being convicted in 2019 of shaking his girlfriend’s baby to death.

The admission by prosecution expert Joanna Tully came as Vinaccia appealed against his conviction on the basis that shaken baby syndrome is pseudoscience.

 Vinaccia’s legal team has accused the deputy director of the Victorian Forensic Paediatric Medical Service of giving evidence that was “misleading and contrary to her obligations as an expert witness”.

Dr Tully has appeared as an expert witness in multiple criminal prosecutions and child protection matters, and is considered one of the nation’s foremost experts on abusive head trauma/shaken baby syndrome.

But in the witness box on Thursday, Dr Tully was accused by barrister Richard Edney of providing “false” evidence at Vinaccia’s first murder trial in 2019 when she testified that she had based her evidence on photographs of retinal bleeding in 3Ѕ-month-old baby Kaleb’s eyes.

Top scientists question basis for Victoria’s baby shaking prosecutions

Bleeding in the eyes is one of a “triad” of symptoms used by some experts to confirm shaken baby syndrome, although the diagnosis has been increasingly challenged. The controversy centres on the finding that an infant had died as a result of violent shaking by a parent or guardian when an autopsy reveals three internal head injuries: bleeding in the brain, retinal haemorrhage and swelling of the brain.

Dr Tully admitted to the court on Thursday that her evidence in 2019 was “incorrect” because no photographs of Kaleb’s eyes existed.

The revelation came as Dr Tully took the extraordinary step of seeking to be represented by independent legal counsel at the Court of Appeal proceedings because of what her lawyer called “serious direct allegations made against Dr Tully”. 

Her application was denied by the court because it was “most unusual for witnesses to be granted separate representation”.

Dr Tully’s email about the error was forwarded by police to the Office of Public Prosecutions on the same day, but it remains unclear what action the OPP took to correct the record ahead of Vinaccia’s second trial in late 2019. The OPP has been contacted for comment.

“At the second trial, were you ever cross-examined about that mistake you made in the first trial?” Mr Edney asked on Thursday.

“I don’t remember,” Dr Tully testified.

“I suggest there was no cross-examination on that topic at all about the mistake. Were you surprised there was no cross-examination about that issue?”

“I didn’t think one way or the other,” Dr Tully said.

Vinaccia was convicted of child homicide in late 2019 and sentenced to 8Ѕ years’ jail.

Shaken baby syndrome on trial: Judges to re-examine homicide conviction

He has appealed his conviction on five different grounds, including challenging the reliability of the scientific evidence underpinning shaken baby syndrome and contending that Kaleb died of an undetected pre-existing medical condition.

One of the cornerstones of the appeal is that Dr Tully “gave evidence that was misleading and contrary to her obligations as an expert witness, and new evidence should be admitted to demonstrate how the evidence of Dr Tully has caused a substantial miscarriage of justice in the applicant’s trial”, according to the notice of appeal.

When questioned on the validity of the science, Dr Tully said she was “simply making a medical diagnosis according to the best medical evidence available.”

“In my view there is not a valid, legitimate debate in relation to the medical diagnosis of abusive head trauma when the process is done as it should be done.”

The appeal continues.""

The entire story can be read at:

https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/expert-witness-gave-incorrect-evidence-in-baby-shaking-case-court-told-20211117-p599l0.html

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;

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

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;

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

FINAL, FINAL, FINAL WORD: "It is incredibly easy to convict an innocent person, but it's exceedingly difficult to undo such a devastating injustice. 

Jennifer Givens: DirectorL UVA Innocence Project.

Part 2: Shaking baby Syndrome: The International Controversy: Jesse Vinaccia: Kerry Bream and Stephen Cordner weigh up the evidence and the ethics on Croakey Health Media noting that: "The international controversy has received little attention in Australian courts, faced with competing views of the Shaken Baby Syndrome, having been content to accept those held by local paediatric forensic physicians and forensic pathologists."

PUBLISHER'S NOTE: Excellent discussion on the so-called shaken baby syndrome - with an Australian perspective,  published by Croakey Health media. An excerpt on 'The International  Controversy"  follows: 

Harold Levy: Publisher: The Charles Smith Blog; 

—————————————————————————————

PASSAGE OF THE DAY;  "Vinaccia's case epitomizes the difficulties that courts have faced with competing scientific evidence. The two judges who shared the majority opinion that Vinaccia's appeal must fail appeared to see their role in part as  choosing between the evidence given by three local experts and the new evidence  - not heard at the original trial -  give by three Swedish experts. The judges wrote: "Even if the evidence of the Scandinavian witnesses   represents  a respectable body of scientific opinion, which we doubt, it would do no more than stand against another respectable body of scientific opinion in the form of the evidence of…(three local expert witnesses.) As reported by Bachelard, a Swedish expert described the findings of these judges as "embarrassing."

———————————————————

PASSAGE TWO OF THE DAY:  "The third judge - who interestingly has a background in science - in her   minority opinion took a different view of the competing evidence. She held that if the jury had been exposed to the new (Swedish) evidence, including new evidence about a possible alternative diagnosis, their confidence in the case presented by the prosecution was likely to have been undermined to the extent that they could not have concluded guilt beyond reasonable doubt. This judge would have acquitted Jesse Vinaccia."

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

GIST: "The international controversy has received little attention in Australian courts,  faced with  competing views of the Shaken Baby Syndrome, having been content to accept those held by local paediatric forensic physicians and forensic pathologists.This was most evident in a decision in Victoria in the case of Jesse Vinaccia, In 2016, Vinaccia was the carer for a 16-week-old baby boy whose death was attributed to violent shaking - the physical findings were those of the triad alone.

There were no bruises, abrasions or fractures, The alleged shaking was not witnessed and was denied by Vinaccia,  In 2019, he was tried, found guilty of child homicide, and sentenced to  eight and a half years imprisonment, He appealed the findings to the Victoria Court of Appeal where in 2022 the case was heard by three judges.

The judges were presented with two competing views of the :triad."  the prosecution presented the  pro- "shaking with or without impact: views if the staff of the Victorian Paediatric Forensic Medical Service with some supporting evidence  from the Victoria Institute of Forensic Medicine.

The defence called Swedish experts to contest the validity of the science behind the  conclusion of shaken baby syndrome based on the "triad" alone. Their evidence was backed by data from the above-imentionnned Swedish  review.

Viaccia's case epitomizes the difficulties that courts have faced with competing scientific evidence. The two judges who shared the majority opinion that Vinaccia's appeal must fail appeared to see their role in part as  choosing between the evidence given by three local experts and the new evidence  - not heard at the original trial -  give by three Swedish experts.

The judges wrote: "Even if the evidence of the Scandinavian witnesses   represents  a respectable body of scientific opinion, which we doubt, it would do no more than stand against another respectable body of scientific opinion in the form of the evidence of…(three local expert witnesses.)

As reported by Bachelard, a Swedish expert described the findings of these judges as "embarrassing."

The third judge - who interestingly has a background in science - in her   minority opinion took a different view of the competing evidence.

She held that if the jury had been exposed to the new (Swedish) evidence, including new evidence about a possible alternative diagnosis, their confidence in the case presented by the prosecution was likely to have been undermined to the extent that they could not have concluded guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

This judge would have acquitted Jesse Vinaccia."

The entire article - following the above introductions - is well worth the read, and can be read at:

https://www.croakey.org/weighing-up-the-evidence-and-ethics-on-shaken-baby-syndrome/

—————————————————————

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;

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

Jesse Harvey: Australia: Bulletin: 'Shaken' Baby (labelled 'inflicted head trauma' Case: Major (Unwelcome) Decision: His conviction over the “forceful shaking” of his seven-week old son — leaving him severely disabled — has been upheld, news.com.au (Reporter Liam Beatty) reports…"Harvey returned before the Court of Appeal on Tuesday, where a panel of three judges rejected his attempt to overturn the conviction after conducting their own “independent assessment of the evidence”. Harvey had argued the jury could not have excluded the possibility his son’s injuries were caused by an earlier, unknown incident of trauma, pre-existing medical conditions or “unknown causes”. He challenged the expert testimony of forensic paediatrician Dr Jo Tully, who opined the injuries were caused by inflicted head trauma."

PUBLISHER'S  NOTE: This decision (The Jesse Harvey case) must be studied in the context of two other  related Australian  'shaken baby' cases, which I have been following on this Blog: Jesse Venaccia and Joby Rowe. By way of background from previous (bolded)  posts:   

AUSTRALIA: JESSE VINACCIA:  "One of the state’s top forensic paediatricians has admitted she provided incorrect expert evidence in the child homicide prosecution of Jesse Vinaccia, who was jailed after being convicted in 2019 of shaking his girlfriend’s baby to death. The admission by prosecution expert Joanna Tully came as Vinaccia appealed against his conviction on the basis that shaken baby syndrome is pseudoscience. Vinaccia’s legal team has accused the deputy director of the Victorian Forensic Paediatric Medical Service of giving evidence that was “misleading and contrary to her obligations as an expert witness”. Dr Tully has appeared as an expert witness in multiple criminal prosecutions and child protection matters, and is considered one of the nation’s foremost experts on abusive head trauma/shaken baby syndrome. But in the witness box on Thursday, Dr Tully was accused by barrister Richard Edney of providing “false” evidence at Vinaccia’s first murder trial in 2019 when she testified that she had based her evidence on photographs of retinal bleeding in 3Ѕ-month-old baby Kaleb’s eyes................Dr Tully appeared on the seventh day of the appeal, where Vinaccia is challenging the scientific basis of shaken baby syndrome, which has been used for more than 50 years to diagnose and prosecute cases of child abuse and homicide. The Age: 

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

AUSTRALIA:  JOBY ROWE; JESSE  HARVEY: "The Court of Appeal also heard that two other appeals against convictions for child homicide and assault have been filed by the same lawyers representing Vinaccia. Joby Rowe was found guilty of child homicide in 2018 over the death of his three-month-old daughter, Alanah. “Violent shaking with or without impact on a soft surface” was found to be the cause of death based on her internal injuries, with experts testifying there was no other “reasonable explanation”. Rowe denied mistreating the child. Jesse Harvey was convicted of recklessly causing serious injury to his seven-week-old son, Casey, in 2019. He claimed he did not shake or hit Casey, but said the baby bumped his head on the edge of a couch as Harvey sat down. The medical evidence held the child’s internal injuries were equivalent to a 10-metre fall or high-velocity motor vehicle collision." 

PUBLISHER'S NOTE: "The Vinaccia appeal (above) , along with the Joby Rowe and Jesse Harvey appeals (below)  represent a powerful, head-on attack on the so-called 'shaken baby syndrome.' Following closely in 2022. HL: 

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

PASSAGE OF THE  DAY:  (September 13, 2023) : Jesse Harvey appeal  decision): "Jesse Harvey "During the initial trial, Havey’s defence had suggested Casey’s injuries could have been caused by Mr Scott, which he rejected as a “load of bulls--t”. Handing down their findings, Justices Karin Emerton, Phillip Priest and Maree Kennedy found the verdict was not unsafe or unsatisfactory. “There is nothing to be said about unknown causes,” they wrote. “That submission is purely speculative. It ignores the substantial evidence of Dr Tully about the cause of the combination of injuries identified in Casey."

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

STORY: "Jesse Harvey: Dad’s appeal against ‘shaking’ conviction for son’s injuries rejected:  A father’s conviction over the “forceful shaking” of his seven-week old son — leaving him severely disabled — has been upheld," by Reporter Liam Beatty, published by news.com.au on September 13, 2023. (Liam Beatty is a court reporter with NCA NewsWire. He has previously worked in newsrooms in Victoria and Western Australia.)

———————

STORY: "A court has upheld a father’s conviction for seriously injuring his infant son, finding it “was open” for the jury to find him guilty.

Seven-week-old, Casey, was rushed to the Ballarat Base Hospital in April 2017 where extensive brain injuries were discovered.

He survived but is expected to remain severely disabled and dependent on carers for the rest of his life.

His father, Jesse Harvey, was found guilty two years later by a jury of recklessly causing serious injury to his son in a shaking incident earlier the same day.

He was jailed for eight years in May 2019.

Harvey returned before the Court of Appeal on Tuesday, where a panel of three judges rejected his attempt to overturn the conviction after conducting their own “independent assessment of the evidence”.

Harvey had argued the jury could not have excluded the possibility his son’s injuries were caused by an earlier, unknown incident of trauma, pre-existing medical conditions or “unknown causes”.

He challenged the expert testimony of forensic paediatrician Dr Jo Tully, who opined the injuries were caused by inflicted head trauma.

The court was told Harvey and his son had moved to Ballarat from South Australia just days before the injuries after his relationship with Casey’s mother ended.

The pair moved in with Harvey’s mother, Catherine Scott, and his brother, Peter Scott.'

“We are satisfied that it was open to the jury to be satisfied of guilt.""

The entire story 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. 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/120008354894645705/47049136857587929

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;

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

YET ANOTHER FINAL WORD:

David Hammond, one of Broadwater’s attorneys who sought his exoneration, told the Syracuse Post-Standard, “Sprinkle some junk science onto a faulty identification, and it’s the perfect recipe for a wrongful conviction.”

https://deadline.com/2021/11/alice-sebold-lucky-rape-conviction-overturned-anthony-broadwater-1234880143/

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

Jesse Vinaccia: Australia: Shaken Baby Syndrome. Major Development: "New scientific evidence will be put to the Court of Appeal for a man convicted of killing his girlfriend’s baby son, with his lawyers arguing he is an innocent man who suffered a miscarriage of justice in being found guilty and jailed," The Age (Reporters Adam Cooper and Jesse Vedelago) reports..."Vinaccia’s trial heard he violently shook Kaleb at a Cranbourne West home while the baby’s mother, Erin Baylis-Clarke, was at work. Kaleb died in hospital a week later and medical experts later said his fatal head injuries were consistent with him being shaken. But since Vinaccia’s trial doubts have been raised about the scientific evidence relied on to jail a number of men for shaking babies, which in turn has raised serious questions over whether their convictions were sound."

READ RELATED POST - Top scientists question basis for Victoria’s baby shaking prosecutions - at:

https://smithforensic.blogspot.com/search?q=%22Jesse+vinaccia%22

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

PASSAGE OF THE DAY: "On Monday the Court of Appeal heard Vinaccia was challenging his conviction on a charge of child homicide – an offence similar to manslaughter that applies to victims aged six or under – and that his lawyers intended to bring new evidence before the court.The 28-year-old’s barrister, Richard Edney, confirmed to Court of Appeal president Chris Maxwell that the appeal was primarily directed at the scientific evidence related to autopsy results showing what is referred to as a “triad” of internal head injuries – bleeding in the brain, a retinal haemorrhage and swelling of the brain. It is unclear what the new evidence to be put at Vinaccia’s appeal comprises, but Mr Edney said it clearly showed his client should not have been convicted. “The evidence is so cogent, plausible and probable it would establish an innocent person has been convicted or there has been a substantial miscarriage of justice,” he told Justice Maxwell."

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

PASSAGE TWO OF THE DAY: "Prosecutor Christopher Boyce, QC, will argue the appeals court should not allow the new evidence as it could set a precedent for other cases over the use of expert evidence. However, Mr Boyce also conceded he would want to know if the new evidence would have made any difference in Vinaccia’s case. “If it did and our experts said, ‘Oh goodness, we’ve made a mistake about this,’ then I’d want to know that,” Mr Boyce said. Justice Maxwell expected the legal challenge would chart new territory for the appeals court. “We haven’t had many forensic evidence cases and it’s quite unprecedented to have the concept of conflicting expert opinions which weren’t heard by the trial court,” he said."

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

STORY: "New evidence before appeals court in challenge against baby shaking conviction," by Reporters Adam Cooper and Chris Vedelago, published by The Age on June 21, 2021. (Adam Cooper joined The Age in 2011. Chris Vedelago is an Investigative Reporter for The Age with a special interest in crime and justice.)

GIST:  "New scientific evidence will be put to the Court of Appeal for a man convicted of killing his girlfriend’s baby son, with his lawyers arguing he is an innocent man who suffered a miscarriage of justice in being found guilty and jailed.

Jesse Vinaccia was found guilty of child homicide in 2019 and jailed for 8Ѕ years over the death of Kaleb Baylis-Clarke, who was 17 weeks old when he died in January 2016.

Vinaccia’s trial heard he violently shook Kaleb at a Cranbourne West home while the baby’s mother, Erin Baylis-Clarke, was at work. Kaleb died in hospital a week later and medical experts later said his fatal head injuries were consistent with him being shaken.

But since Vinaccia’s trial doubts have been raised about the scientific evidence relied on to jail a number of men for shaking babies, which in turn has raised serious questions over whether their convictions were sound.

On Monday the Court of Appeal heard Vinaccia was challenging his conviction on a charge of child homicide – an offence similar to manslaughter that applies to victims aged six or under – and that his lawyers intended to bring new evidence before the court.

The 28-year-old’s barrister, Richard Edney, confirmed to Court of Appeal president Chris Maxwell that the appeal was primarily directed at the scientific evidence related to autopsy results showing what is referred to as a “triad” of internal head injuries – bleeding in the brain, a retinal haemorrhage and swelling of the brain.

It is unclear what the new evidence to be put at Vinaccia’s appeal comprises, but Mr Edney said it clearly showed his client should not have been convicted.

“The evidence is so cogent, plausible and probable it would establish an innocent person has been convicted or there has been a substantial miscarriage of justice,” he told Justice Maxwell.

At trial, Vinaccia’s lawyers conceded he shouldn’t have handled Kaleb the way he did but argued his actions did not amount to an unlawful or dangerous act, and that the baby had existing medical problems that made him more vulnerable.

Vinaccia admitted to police that on the night of January 23, 2016, he was “pretty rough” with Kaleb when he lifted him and carried him to his cot, after a Facebook conversation with the baby’s father.

Forensic paediatricians Joanna Tully and Linda Iles gave evidence at the trial that their investigations found Kaleb died from a traumatic head injury consistent with him either being shaken or suffering some sort of blunt trauma. The court heard on Monday there was no suggestion the paediatricians’ evidence was unreliable.

However, in an investigation by The Age this year, Dr Iles and her colleague at the Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine, David Ranson, said the same internal injuries could be caused by other medical conditions.

Two other men jailed in recent years for either child homicide or recklessly causing serious injury, Joby Rowe and Jesse Harvey, have also launched appeals against their convictions on similar grounds to Vinaccia.

In Vinaccia’s appeal, Mr Edney said on Monday: “In light of the new evidence this court ought to look at the matters afresh with the benefits of those expert reports.”

Prosecutor Christopher Boyce, QC, will argue the appeals court should not allow the new evidence as it could set a precedent for other cases over the use of expert evidence. However, Mr Boyce also conceded he would want to know if the new evidence would have made any difference in Vinaccia’s case.

“If it did and our experts said, ‘Oh goodness, we’ve made a mistake about this,’ then I’d want to know that,” Mr Boyce said.

Justice Maxwell expected the legal challenge would chart new territory for the appeals court.

“We haven’t had many forensic evidence cases and it’s quite unprecedented to have the concept of conflicting expert opinions which weren’t heard by the trial court,” he said.

The case will return to court in August. Vinaccia must serve 5½ years before he is eligible for parole, meaning his earliest release date is halfway through 2024.

The entire story can be read at:

https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/new-evidence-before-appeals-court-in-challenge-against-baby-shaking-conviction-20210621-p582ut.html

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;

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

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;

Jesse Vinaccia: Australia: Shaken baby case. Bulletin: Major (Unwelcome Development): Catch-up: Following seasonal break: Victoria's Court of Appeal has refused his fight to overturn the child homicide conviction. (At least there is a dissenting decision in what has become known as this 'junk science appeal. HL)..."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."

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:

https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/judges-refuse-appeal-over-baby-shaking-conviction-20220607-p5arly.html

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

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;

---

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;