From the May 2002 Idaho Observer:

The American mass vaccination agenda: Beyond medical experimentation into the realm of mass murder, genocide

Boy meets girl. They fall in love, obtain a license from the state to get married and make plans to start a family. When baby day arrives, the expectant mother is rushed to the hospital to give birth. Most parents will forever remember that period between the onset of labor and the moment someone says, “It's a boy,” or, “It's a girl” as the most intensely emotional experience of their lives. During that time we feel powerless and every ounce of love and hope that parents feel for their soon-to-be-born baby is entrusted into the care of their doctor and the attendant nursing staff.

Until recently, very few people questioned their doctors when the nurses took our newborn babies away to be “cleaned up.” That was before we realized that unnecessary medical interventions such as vitamin K and hepatitis B injections are often given at this time. Increasing numbers of parents are experiencing the horror of failing to question “routine” post-natal vaccinations. In fact a local coroner is reportedly processing record numbers of infant deaths. He said that these mothers all say the same thing: “My baby was so healthy and vibrant until I took him in for his shots...”

We are also experiencing a shaken baby syndrome (SBS) witch hunt in this country. Violet Harris has looked into six different SBS cases in and around Boise, Idaho and found out that in each case, both malnutrition and vaccines were involved. All parties claim innocence. The prosecutors in all cases refuse to look at the vaccine connection --and the victims, the alleged “shakers”, are being locked up in our state's prisons.

Why is it that suddenly vaccine injury and death is becoming the rule rather than the exception? There are many reasons but the foundation of it appears to be the fact that the human genome is being altered by vaccines. By injecting increasing quantities of foreign (human and animal) RNA and DNA, toxic metals and poisonous chemicals into our bloodstreams, our own genetic structure is changed and those changes are passed onto our children. Already compromised by mutations within ourselves (hence epidemic cancer, auto-immune dysfunction, sociopathic behavior and addiction to pharmaceutical drugs) the current generation of babies are “at risk” from the time they are born. Begin dosing them with vaccines soon after birth and the likelihood of an adverse reaction increases.

If they do not die from the post-natal vaccines; if they don't die from the barrage of some 35 vaccinations recommended by the federal government by age five; if they do not develop physical and mental complications such as multiple sclerosis or autism they may produce children of their own. What type of hope for humanity is there when we have been so altered that our offspring no longer provide viable offspring?

We are no longer mincing words. It is too late for that. As a matter of editorial policy there is no reason to say, Vaccines are linked to sudden infant death, learning disabilities and chronic disease. By using the word linked we journalistically side-step what we know from science and experience to be the cold, hard reality of mass vaccination.

The truth is that vaccines can cause sudden infant death; vaccines can cause learning disabilities; vaccines can cause the infections that lead to the development of chronic diseases. We cannot even begin to describe the extent of what is happening with regard to public health policies mandating “medical experimentation' via vaccinations. It is iatrogenocide.

Fortunately people are waking up to this fact. Anti-vaccination activists all over the world are networking, sharing information and building coalitions.

Vaccination Liberation is the perfect example of this grassroots momentum. According to VacLib president Ingri Cassel, Since the Model State Emergency Health Powers Act has been introduced to state legislatures, people have been contacting us with renewed interest in getting a VacLib chapter going in their respective states.” In fact, VacLib chapters now include Idaho, South Idaho, Wyoming, New Jersey, Florida, and Pennsylvania. States in the process of joining the VacLib network are Alaska, Washington, Montana, Ohio and Louisiana. Once parents realize that the myriad of health problems their children are experiencing can be directly linked to the vaccines they have thus far received, they become angry and want to direct that anger at someone. VacLib national then redirects their energy into sharing this relatively unknown information with their respective communities and, ultimately, the entire state. As more people in each state become members of their state chapters, an effective network is established. This statewide network has the potential to initiate the changes needed in their respective state's laws to allow both philosophical and religious exemptions and, hopefully, overturn state vaccine mandates. If you are interested in joining the VacLib network, call (208) 255-2307

When you think about it, the concept of herd immunity is absurd. Pro-vaccinators desire a 100-percent vaccination rate to protect the “herd” from infectious diseases. If vaccines really “work,” why would the vaccinated be endangered by the unvaccinated? If vaccines really worked, then the unvaccinated could not infect the vaccinated.

The Idaho Observer
P.O. Box 457
Spirit Lake, Idaho 83869
Phone: 208-255-2307
Email: observer@coldreams.com
Web: http://proliberty.com/observer/

The 'experts' who made parents into criminals
Allison Pearson, Evening Standard
30 April 2003
"The greatest medical scandal of our times," is what Dr James Le Fanu calls it. He is referring to Shaken Baby Syndrome. Thousands of parents have been wrongly accused of abusing their children because the medical profession, in its arrogance, has taken a certain set of symptoms to be evidence of severe battering, rather than accepting an explanation that a child may have simply fallen.

Paul and Joanne, a lovely London couple I know, recently lived through the hell of being accused of harming their baby daughter. Taking the baby to casualty after she rolled off a sofa, they found themselves in a Kafkaesque nightmare, with every protestation of innocence treated as further proof of guilt.

"Denial is highly indicative of abuse," says one smug paediatrician cited by Dr Le Fanu. In other words, unless parents confess, they must have done it.

For years, doctors have insisted that severe injuries, such as haemorrhages in the eye, could not be caused by the trivial accidents parents claimed had taken place. The drawback to this position was obvious: no one had ever pushed an infant off the sitting-room sofa in an experiment to see what damage would result.

Instead of proceeding with caution, however, "experts" gave damning evidence of Shaken Baby Syndrome to the Family Court, while bewildered parents, numb with shock and grief, saw their children removed to foster homes. Some of the accused were jailed.

Paul and Joanne were not trusted to take their daughter home. Only the promise that they would never be alone with her - that there would always be a third person present - saved their ninemonthold from being taken to the fearful place we call "care". Any protest was impossible because, if the family went public, the court would seize the child.

In a bitter irony, this family was going through hell in one part of our city at the same time that medical and social services were failing to notice that Victoria Climbie was being tortured in another.

How much easier and more satisfying to torment an innocent middle-class family, who had taken their child to hospital in good faith, than to confront some evil brutes who went to every length to keep the little girl in their charge from proper treatment and diagnosis.

Well, now it has become clear that there is no such thing as Shaken Baby Syndrome. A pathologist has proved that in 18 independently witnessed accidents, trivial falls produced exactly those injuries which were meant to be consistent with violent abuse. And what do we hear from the experts? A thunderous silence. And from the secretive and draconian Family Court? An apologetic cough.

The Shaken Baby Scandal could be the source of some of the most grotesque miscarriages of justice this country has seen. There is an urgent need for a public inquiry. Each case will need to be re-examined. The jailed must be freed.

Then decent, loving people like Paul and Joanne, who live in fear of their toddler falling off her tricycle lest the cuts and bruises be deemed to have a sinister origin, can be taken off the legal blacklist.

At long last, the cries of shaken parents can be heard.
 

TITLE: The Shaken Baby Syndrome. A Clinical, Pathological, and Biomechanical Study

AUTHORS(S): Ann-Christine Duhaime, MD., Thomas A. Gennarelli, MD., Lawrence E. Thibault, ScD., Derek A. Bruce, MD., Susan S. Margulies, MSE., and Randall Wiser, MSE

CITATION: Journal of Neurosurgery, 1987, March, Vol. 66, No. 3

ABSTRACT

Because a history of shaking is often lacking in the so- called "shaken baby syndrome", diagnosis is usually based on a constellation of clinical and radiographic findings. Forty-eight cases of infants and young children with this diagnosis seen between 1978 and 1985 at the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia were reviewed. All patients had a presenting history thought to be suspicious for child abuse, and either retinal hemorrhages with subdural or subarachnoid hemorrhages or a computerized tomography scan showing subdural or subarachnoid hemorrhages with interhemispheric blood. The physical examination and presence of associated trauma were analyzed; autopsy findings for the 13 fatalities were reviewed. All fatal cases had signs of blunt impact to the head, although in more than half of them these findings were noted only at autopsy. All deaths were associated with uncontrollably increased intracranial pressure.

Models of 1-month old infants with various neck and skull parameters were instrumental with accelerometers and shaken and impacted against padded or unpadded surfaces. Angular accelerations for shakes were smaller than those for impacts by a factor of 50. All shakes fell below injury thresholds established for subhuman primates scaled for the same brain mass, while impacts spanned concussion, subdural hematoma, and diffuse axonal injury ranges. It was concluded that severe head injuries commonly diagnosed as shaking injuries require impact to occur and that shaking alone in an otherwise normal baby is unlikely to cause the shaken baby syndrome.
 

Feb. 8-14, 2002

STICKS AND BONES

Alice and Miguel Velasquez couldn't explain the bump on their daughter's rib cage to themselves or to their doctor. How, then, could they explain it to Alexandria's Child Protective Services?

by
Sarah Godfrey


On Feb. 3, 2000, Alice and Miguel Velasquez took their daughter Liliana for a routine well-baby visit at the National Naval Medical Center in Bethesda. They were concerned about a lump on the left side of their 4-month-old's rib cage.

Alice, 22, an Army medical-lab technician, had discovered a slight protrusion while handling Liliana a few days earlier. The lump was not visible to the eye but could be felt by running a hand across the child's ribs. She thought of calling Liliana's pediatrician, but the child didn't seem to be in pain when the spot was touched.

Alice's husband, Miguel, 30, a flooring contractor from El Salvador, wasn't home at the time, so she called her grandmother in Indiana to ask for advice. "Liliana is just fine," the older woman assured her. When Miguel returned, he also felt the lump. Unconvinced that it was nothing, he told his wife that they should definitely show it to the doctor when Liliana went for her checkup.

When the couple brought the lump to the attention of the intern who examined Liliana, they say, he dismissed their worries at first. "He said it was probably a calcium deposit, and that she appeared happy and healthy," says Alice. Still, she pressed him. With a history of spinal disorders such as scoliosis and spina bifida in her family, Alice wanted to be sure that the bump wasn't an early indicator of one. "I was hoping if an X-ray caught the signs early, that it could be corrected."

When the couple persisted in their concern, the intern brought in staff pediatrician Dr. Paul Reed, who consented to X-rays for Liliana. Radiologist Donald Flemming performed the X-rays and detected five rib fractures in various stages of healing, as well as three additional suspected rib fractures.

The extent of the baby's injuries prompted Reed to immediately contact Capt. Barbara Craig, a doctor and the director of the Armed Forces Center for Child Protection, as well as Child Protective Services (CPS) in Alexandria, Va., where the Velasquezes were living. Social workers immediately came to the hospital to interview Miguel and Alice.

Liliana was transferred from Bethesda and kept overnight at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center. The next evening, after the social workers obtained a court order, Liliana was taken into city custody and placed in a foster home.

The Velasquezes claim they had no idea what had happened to cause their daughter's injuries, and were adamant that they had done nothing to cause them. They never imagined that for the next year and a half they would be faced with the impossible task of convincing the city that their daughter's injuries were caused by a rare bone disease they had never even heard of.

Nor could the Velasquezes foresee that another family's experience with Alexandria social services would affect their battle to regain custody of their daughter after the disease was identified. Alice and Miguel had no idea that they would be seen as an opportunity for a city agency under scrutiny to redeem itself.

"While we were going through all of this, the Katelyn Frazier case happened," says Alice. "That made everything a lot harder."

Doctors who discover injuries that appear to be nonaccidental in children are required to notify the proper authorities, usually the jurisdiction's child-welfare agency and/or law enforcement officials. Any doctor who fails to make such a report can face steep fines and possibly imprisonment, depending on state statutes.

Once social workers become involved, they, too, must adhere to specific regulations, in their case dictating how they investigate reports of suspected child abuse or neglect. Virginia receives more than 33,000 reports of possible abuse or neglect each year; its city and county social workers are required to investigate each and every one.

The social workers must decide whether long-term intervention is warranted and whether the child should be taken into protective custody. The investigation process includes talking with the parents—and child, if the child is old enough—face to face, making home visits, and checking for past reports of abuse against any adult members of the household. If social workers find that a report of abuse is founded, they devise a long-term foster-care plan with the family and continue to monitor both parents and child. Parents must meet certain conditions before they are able to regain custody. Usually, they are required to take parenting classes and undergo individual therapy. If they are cooperative and complete the requirements, the family can be reunited.

On its Web site, the Virginia Department of Social Services, which oversees local jurisdictions, states its goal as reuniting families: "Even if the child must be temporarily removed for safety, the goal is to return the child to the home as soon as possible."

Miguel and Alice Velasquez agree that in the beginning stages of their involvement with the social safety net, both the military doctors and the Alexandria social workers who placed their daughter in foster care were doing their jobs correctly. "I've worked in a hospital," says Alice. "If I'd found a child with even one rib fracture, I would've acted the same way."

Two high-profile local cases of child abuse, however, have shifted the goals of child-welfare agencies in both Alexandria and the District of Columbia. Area social-service agencies' traditional emphasis on family reunification has come into question following the deaths of two little girls who might still be alive had they not been returned to their birth mothers.

Twenty-three-month-old Brianna Blackmond was killed on Jan. 6, 2000, two weeks after D.C. child-welfare workers restored legal custody to her mother, Charrisise Blackmond. Brianna had been taken away from her mother in June 1998 after a social worker discovered her and seven siblings living in filth and rummaging through trash trying to find food. She was immediately placed in foster care.

The events that led to Brianna's return to her mother were a series of egregious oversights. The social worker handling Brianna's case failed to complete her recommendation that Brianna not be returned in time for a court hearing. While both the social worker and the attorney representing the city were on vacation, a D.C. Superior Court judge approved a motion entered by Charrisise Blackmond's lawyer to return Brianna to her mother—without a hearing. No one made a home visit before the child was returned. Anyone who had would have discovered that Charrisise Blackmond and several of her children were illegal tenants in the public-housing unit inhabited by Angela O'Brien, the woman who would later kill Brianna with a blow to the head.

Three-year-old Katelyn Frazier was fatally injured two days after Christmas 2000 while in the custody of her mother, Pennee Frazier. Their Alexandria apartment was shared with Frazier's boyfriend, Asher Levin, and three siblings. Katelyn had spent the majority of her life in a foster home under the care of Lesley Dodson, who had sought to adopt the child. Dodson's hopes were dashed in September 2000, when a judge decided to return Katelyn to her birth mother. She had been back in her mother's care only three months when she was killed. Levin later confessed to beating the toddler to death.

Unlike the Brianna case, in which a child seemed to fall through the cracks of a beleaguered child welfare system, the Katelyn case received an enormous amount of attention from city social workers—even after the child was reunited with her mother. The Washington Post reported that Katelyn was the subject of more than 15 court hearings to determine her placement, and social workers visited Pennee Frazier's home more than 30 times during the three months she had her daughter back. But somehow they missed what neighbors and friends later reported: Shortly after returning to her mother's apartment, Katelyn began showing bruises and other obvious signs of abuse.

Katelyn's death outraged community members. Residents have demanded that CPS be held accountable for what many believe was a mishandling of the case.

"[Katelyn] was too young to insist that the Alexandria [Department of Human Services] do its job...which was to make sure that whoever was entrusted with the care of this very vulnerable child did the right thing by her," said one angered community resident in an opinion piece published in the Fairfax Journal.

In July 2001, the city announced it would implement changes outlined in a review of Alexandria CPS conducted by the Child Welfare League of America (CWLA). The report, which criticized the department's handling of the Frazier case, offered recommendations to improve the agency's case monitoring.

The city was effective in its damage control until it was discovered that the CWLA's report had been edited, with portions unflattering to CPS removed, before City Manager Phil Sunderland distributed it to city councilmembers in June.

With its social-service agencies under intensified scrutiny, Alexandria was probably the worst possible jurisdiction for a family lobbying for the return of a child.

Sources who work closely with Alexandria CPS say that although de-emphasizing family reunification is not a formal policy reform, they have anecdotal evidence that it's happening all over the city. One source describes the agency as being in "crackdown" mode and says that employees are overcompensating, keeping families apart, because they are "very scared" of making another mistake.

Because of legal constraints, most of the people involved in the removal of Liliana Velasquez from her parents' care were unable to comment on the case for this story. "We have stringent confidentiality rules that apply to social-services work—we can't even acknowledge that we have any case under our care or anything attendant to that. We can actually be charged with a misdemeanor if we do so," explains Meg O'Reagan, director of Alexandria's Department of Human Services. Her department oversees the city's Family Services Division,which includes CPS.

Attorneys George McAndrews, who represents the city, and Russell Hatchell, who represents Liliana's interests in court proceedings, also declined to comment.

"The Frazier case had caused us more problems than we might have had otherwise," says Dorothy Isaacs, an attorney who agreed to represent Alice and Miguel Velasquez pro bono in February 2001. "[The] Alexandria [Department of Human Services] is sensitive right now, and I can't say I blame them. They really screwed up with [the Katelyn Frazier] case."

During their initial interview at the naval hospital, Alice tried to defend her husband to CPS social workers Jackie Lusk and Johnny Simancas. She explained how Miguel cared for their daughter during the day while she was at work. She told them how he drove from their home to her office at the Pentagon and back again twice each day because she hadn't wanted to stop breast-feeding after she returned to work. "Their response to me was 'Whose side are you on?'" says Alice.

"They asked me how much my husband drank and if he had been drinking that night," says Alice. "I told them that we're Mormons—we don't even drink sodas with caffeine."

The Velasquezes were puzzled by the social workers' immediate fingering of Miguel. "My husband couldn't hurt a flea! If anything, he's the one afraid of me! They just had it in their minds from the very beginning that it was him," says Alice.

"I don't even remember the walk from the hospital to the car—I just remember standing in the street and hearing Liliana crying as the car drove away," recalls Alice, crying. "Even after I couldn't see the car any longer, I could still hear her. I sat down on the curb and threw up."

The couple drove home through a snowstorm to an empty apartment. After hours of crying and worrying, they finally fell asleep. Alice would wake up a few hours later: "I heard her cry, and I got up to feed her. But when I went to the crib she wasn't there. I would turn on the lights and look everywhere for her until I realized. This went on for weeks and weeks."

During the course of the investigation, Miguel and Alice were told that if they could provide a reasonable explanation for their daughter's fractures, she would be returned to them. They immediately came up with a list of things that could have possibly happened to cause Liliana's injuries, some of which later came back to haunt them during court proceedings.

Perhaps one of them had rolled on her as she slept in their bed? Or maybe they had pressed on her belly too hard while trying to ease gas and constipation? Maybe her visiting older half-sister had somehow hurt her while they were playing? Miguel offered: "Maybe I hugged her too tight because I love her so much."

Despite their efforts to explain the origin of their daughter's fractures, Miguel was arrested on Feb. 17, 2000, for criminal child abuse and neglect. He says it was his first arrest and that his experience in jail was "very bad": "They just treat you like you're nothing in that place."

The Velasquezes were now faced with not only civil custody hearings and the CPS foster-care requirements but the possibility of a criminal trial as well.

Miguel remained in jail for only a few hours, but after Alice posted bail and he was released, he received the worst blow: Although CPS had granted both Miguel and Alice visitation time with their daughter, as a standard condition of his bond, Miguel was prohibited from seeing Liliana, meaning he could be jailed again if he came into contact with her.

Liliana stayed in foster care for the entire month of February. Alice regained custody of her daughter in March, but Miguel still wasn't allowed to see her. He moved in with his father temporarily, hoping that his court-appointed criminal attorney, Mary McGuire, would soon be able to successfully petition for an amendment to his bond, allowing him to move back home and see his daughter.

But being away from his family proved too much for Miguel to bear. At the beginning of May, he began visiting Liliana and Alice. However, on May 5, someone anonymously tipped off CPS that Miguel was spending time with his daughter. On May 12, Simancas, along with the Fairfax County police, came to the Velasquez home to take away Liliana and arrest Miguel.

Miguel and Alice both describe the scene as something "out of a movie." The cops came into the house in the middle of the night and found Miguel hiding in a bedroom closet. Alice was again left alone. The next morning, for the second time, Alice bailed her husband out of jail.

"We haven't been perfect in this process—it was a mistake," says Alice. "But I knew that if I was in [Miguel's] position and [Miguel] told me that I couldn't see our daughter, that I would hate him. His only crime was missing and wanting to see his daughter."

On May 1, 2000, Miguel was indicted by a City of Alexandria grand jury on the charge of felony child abuse and neglect. The crime typically carries a penalty of two to 10 years' imprisonment. A trial date was set for June.

One evening in February 2000, a few weeks after Liliana was first taken away, Miguel and Alice decided to watch television as a distraction. After a quiet dinner, they sat on the couch and idly flipped through the channels. There was a commercial for the news program 20/20 that mentioned a segment on a disease with a funny name—osteogenesis imperfecta.

A friend at church had mentioned the disease to them just that Sunday. "Have you heard of this?" the friend had asked, handing them some literature on the disease, which is characterized by bones that break easily. The couple decided to watch the prograó. They tuned in at 10 o'clock and learned about the hallmarks of "OI," as it is called—a bluish tint to the whites of the eyes, excessive perspiration, hyperflexibility, and inexplicable bone fractures—sometimes even before a child is born.

Miguel and Alice sat on the couch in silence throughout the entire program, not speaking even to express relief.

"We couldn't believe it—it all made sense. Liliana always sweated a lot and had a bluish tint to her eyes. When she was a baby, Miguel and I would argue about whether her eyes were brown or blue, because the tint was so strong," says Alice. "Even people at church and other family members noticed it. Then there is my family history of spinal problems and my hyperflexibility," she says, bending her elbow back into an impossible position.

"OI is 'brittle-bones' disease," explains Dr. Jay Shapiro of Baltimore's Kennedy Krieger Institute's Osteogenesis Imperfecta Clinic, which treats OI patients from around the world. "It's a disease where people are born with fragile bones—they can have fractures even while in the womb. Most continue to fracture throughout their lives. Some may have only three or four fractures over their lifetime and look fairly normal. Others, with more severe OI, can have growth problems and may be only 3 to 4 feet tall and have many fractures—20, 30, maybe even more."

There are an estimated 20,000 to 50,000 OI sufferers in the United States alone. In its mildest form, the disease may cause the bluish tint to the eyes, brittle teeth, and a slightly triangular face, but these indicators do not necessarily have to be present in a child with OI. Diagnosis is based on a combination of factors, including evaluation by doctors and geneticists, and, if necessary, lab testing. The disease may go undetected for years—or be misdiagnosed as child abuse.

Like OI, child abuse is often characterized by broken bones. Fractures in multiple stages of healing—especially rib fractures—are often present in both children with OI and children who are being battered. And, because these distinguishing characteristics are the same, children with OI are often suspected to be victims of abuse when they are first seen by doctors.

"You have a parent who walks in and presents exactly like someone who abuses their child," says Heller An Shapiro, director of the Osteogenesis Imperfecta Foundation. "They bring in a child with injuries—fractures, bruises, etc.—and when asked how the injuries occurred, say, 'I don't know.' Well, that is exactly how someone who is abusing their child would respond, so they fit the profile. I have empathy for social workers in this sort of situation who are trying to piece together what's going on."

And, Heller An Shapiro notes, the disease is unfamiliar to many doctors and social workers. "We've worked hard to educate doctors, emergency-room personnel, and social workers, but it's not something that people see often, and it is highly unlikely that it would be diagnosed in its mildest form. Most doctors can spot the more severe types of OI, where the child might be in a wheelchair or have visible deformities. But for a child who looks normal and happens to have OI, the disease is rarely identified right away."

Because the disease is indeed rare and most people are unaware of its existence, the Velasquezes had a difficult time getting authorities to take their claims seriously. After seeing the 20/20 segment, Alice gathered all of the information she could find about OI and presented it to caseworker Lusk, who she says blew it off. She also approached Capt. Craig, who she says told her, "Don't believe everything you see on the Internet."

The couple say that even their respective court-appointed civil attorneys didn't seem interested in the information. But McGuire, faced with a desperate client looking at a decade behind bars, finally agreed to push for an OI test for Liliana. In May 2000, a judge granted the test, to be paid for by the court.

Later that month, Liliana was examined by two physicians in the genetics department of Children's Hospital. She was given a painful skin biopsy, involving the removal of a plug of skin from her forearm about the size of a pencil eraser. "I had to hold her while they took the skin sample," says Alice. "She was just screaming and looking at me like 'Mommy, why are you letting them do this to me?' It was terrible."

The skin sample was sent to the University of Washington's Department of Pathology for analysis in its Collagen Diagnostic Laboratory. The doctors at Children's Hospital also decided to give Liliana another complete set of X-rays, to confirm the presence of the previously diagnosed fractures. These new X-rays showed only five rib fractures—the additional three suspected fractures were not confirmed.

The results of the skin test came back in September. Although such test results usually come back in three weeks, the lab had also performed other studies, including DNA work, along with the collagen skin test. Genetic counselor Melanie Pepin, who works at the lab, says that such additional tests are often conducted "especially with the question of nonaccidental injury." The results confirmed what her parents had suspected: Liliana had tested positive for OI Type I, a mild form of the disease.

The city's civil prosecutor attempted to discredit the test as experimental and unreliable, and argued that the diagnosis of OI didn't preclude the possibility that Miguel could have still abused his daughter. Capt. Craig became a key witness in both lines of argument.

Craig declined to comment for this article, citing confidentiality regulations affecting active-duty military personnel, but she has made her opinions on the case apparent throughout court proceedings. In a November 2000 e-mail to Alexandria Assistant Commonwealth's Attorney Roger Canaff, she wrote, "Do I think these parents cannot be trusted? Yes. Do I think Liliana will be further abused in their care? Yes? Can I prove this in court? No. Does she have OI? Maybe—probably....Will a judge or jury buy any of this? They will probably have sympathy on the poor parents who will cry and lie in telling about their ordeal against the mean doctors in the military. The OI, if present, is an extremely mild case and may not have anything to do with her fractures."

The prosecution also pointed out that Liliana had not experienced any new fractures during her year in foster care. Jay Shapiro says that when a child is removed from a home and does not experience new fractures, it often means that the child does not have OI and was being abused.

"Let's say you have someone who brings a child into the ER [with fractures]," Shapiro says. "The ER calls Social Services and the child is taken away. The child has another fracture while on his or her own. Then you have someone who brings a child into ER with many fractures, the child is put in foster home, and the child doesn't fracture again. Usually you can say with some degree of certainty that the first case is OI and the second is child abuse."

Shapiro adds, however, that there are exceptions to the rule. "That type of evaluation is probably good 96 percent of the time. In a couple of cases it may not be so clear. That is the loophole, where you're not 100 percent sure."

"It is true that even if a child has OI there could be real abuse going on," says Heller An Shapiro. "It makes all of the factors difficult to assess—especially in Virginia, where they are so anxious about making a mistake that they may make accusations even when clearly that isn't the case."

"Having OI doesn't mean a child can't be abused, but there is absolutely nothing in Miguel's history that could lead anyone to think he could possibly abuse his child," says Isaacs.

The prosecution also argued that the test for OI can be unreliable. Although the collagen skin test can yield a false negative result, a positive test is foolproof, says Heller An Shapiro: "They got it wrong when they argued about the OI test, calling it experimental. [Liliana] got a positive test. If an OI test is positive, it's positive. The positive success rate is 100 percent. The negative result is less reliable—an 85 to 90 percent success rate. But if someone tests positive, there is no question."

Pepin agrees the test, which has been in use since the early '80s, does not yield positives: "The issue in terms of the test's sensitivity isn't if a positive test confirms OI—a positive result confirms the presence of OI."

In December 2000, Miguel's felony charge was reduced to a misdemeanor in light of the new information pertaining to Liliana's OI. In January 2001, the Alexandria city attorney entered a nolle prosequi in the case—declining to prosecute for lack of evidence—after McGuire was successful in suppressing all of his pre-charge statements. His conversations with Reed, Craig, and even Lusk, prior to his arrest, were thrown out. Miguel says he wasn't read his Miranda rights before talking to doctors and social workers at Bethesda. Even though he wasn't being charged with a crime at the time, Miranda law applies to custodial investigations as well. All criminal charges against him were dismissed.

Miguel and Alice thought their daughter was finally coming home.

But the nolle prosequi in Miguel's criminal case had no bearing on either the civil custody proceedings or CPS's monitoring of the family. Instead of reinstating Liliana, the agency was able to keep her in the foster-care system on a technicality: It sustained an internal administrative finding against the parents—an action that affects civil custody.

McGuire had seen to it that all pertinent OI information went into Miguel's file in the criminal case. The court-appointed civil attorneys representing the couple at the time, however, had not done the same for the civil custody case.

"The administrative finding was sustained because they were supposed to submit the results of the OI test and didn't," says Isaacs. "Alice and Miguel rightfully thought that the OI finding was on record, so they didn't submit the doctors' reports. They said that Johnny Simancas told them that it was in the record. Because the parents were supposed to give additional info and didn't, the [administrative] finding was sustained."

CPS also argued that Miguel and Alice had failed to complete a key requirement of their foster-care plan—admitting their guilt.

"They said that they wanted us to stipulate our roles in her abuse and move beyond a victimization posture. We would have lied and said that we did it in a minute, just to get our child back, but it was a Catch-22," says Alice.

"They wanted us to say we were abusing our baby," says Miguel.

If the Velasquezes had admitted guilt, under the nolle prosequi, the misdemeanor case against Miguel could have been reopened, and the criminal charges could have been reinstated. If new evidence is introduced within one year in a nolle prosequi case, charges can be re-entered.

"In September, when the skin biopsy came back, if they would've apologized, I would've understood," says Alice.

"We want our names cleared," continues Alice. "Even when all of this is over, it will follow us. Whenever Liliana starts a new school, it's something that will be on record, something that everyone will know about. We just want an apology. We want them to admit they were wrong."

The Velasquezes believe that CPS focused on Miguel because of his race. "I think I was targeted because I am a Latino man," he says.

In addition to caring for Liliana, Miguel also has an older daughter, 7-year-old Cassandra, from a previous marriage. While married to his ex-wife, Roxanna Garay, and still living with Cassandra full time, he served as her primary caregiver. Cassandra has congenital heart disease, and Garay has testified that when her daughter's illness was at its most severe and she herself couldn't cope, it was her husband who stepped in and cared for the child.

"Miguel's ex-wife testified that he was a loving father—never abused her or their daughter," says Isaacs. "You know, I handle a lot of divorces, and the glowing testimony of an ex-spouse says a lot."

In a March 2000 hearing, Dr. Reed testified that Miguel had been "very flattened in his affect" and "emotionless" as Reed described Liliana's fractures to him.

"Miguel doesn't know what 'fractures' are," counters Alice. Miguel came to America from El Salvador in 1990, and although he speaks English quite well, she argues, medical terminology isn't something that even most native speakers are very familiar with, let alone someone who is still learning the nuances of the language.

"Miguel has language issues, and Alice isn't a lawyer, so there was some confusion," says Isaacs.

One statement that was brought out repeatedly by prosecutors during hearings was Craig's recollection that Miguel had confessed to lifting Liliana with one hand and "throwing" her to her mother "like a football" during his interview with her the day Liliana was brought to Bethesda.

"It's ridiculous. They don't even have football in Miguel's country—he would've never made that comparison!" says Alice.

Heller An Shapiro says that poor families of color are especially vulnerable to charges of child abuse, because social-service agencies often target such families. "That seems to be the profile that social workers and child-abuse experts have in mind. The other piece to that puzzle is young or inexperienced parents."

"There is no doubt in my mind that it is a class issue, but I wouldn't be surprised by racial motivations, either," says Isaacs. "People who can afford counsel, who are familiar with the legal system, and who know when to keep their mouths closed to avoid incriminating themselves—they're treated differently."

In addition to the agony of being separated from their daughter, Miguel and Alice also faced fears that Liliana was being neglected in her foster home. "[CPS] didn't think we were good parents, but they allowed her to be treated poorly in foster care," says Alice.

According to INOVA Alexandria Hospital records, Liliana was hospitalized seven times while under the care of foster mother Willie Mae Gray. Liliana was seen at INOVA Alexandria on May 26, May 27, July 5, Aug. 3, Nov. 12, Dec. 14, and, finally, on Dec. 19, 2000. Usually, she was brought in for malnutrition and diarrhea. Her parents were not notified by social workers of Liliana's trips to the emergency room.

But Alice had begun to notice worrisome changes in her daughter's demeanor. Whenever Liliana was brought to the CPS offices for visitation, she was always "dirty and exhausted," says her mother. Liliana's long hair was often matted to her head and was falling out in small patches. She usually wasn't dressed properly for the weather, adds Alice.

"She was always dirty. She stunk, had terrible diaper rash to the point of open, bloody lesions. I later found out she had several vaginal infections because she was not being cleaned properly," says Alice.

Alice and Miguel found out that their daughter was a frequent visitor to the emergency room only after she contracted pneumonia in December 2000 and was retained for nine days. A hospital employee told Alice that Liliana was a "frequent" visitor, and urged her to seek out a copy of her daughter's medical file. She was able to obtain the records and was shocked at what she found.

Alice became desperate to transfer her daughter from Gray's care and into another foster home. She frantically tried to contact her court-appointed civil attorney, to no avail: "He wouldn't return my calls."

It was at this point that Alice began contacting the media: "Fox 5, Eyewitness News—everybody but Jerry Springer." She was successful in gaining public attention. Both Channel 9 and the Spanish-language cable channel Univision planned spots profiling the family, which were aired in March 2001. The increase in visibility also brought them to Isaacs, whose firm was recommended to the family by an acquaintance.

"People treated us a lot differently after they found out our story was going to be on TV," says Alice. Liliana was placed in another foster home at the end of February. The family believes that Isaacs' involvement and the media attention they received were instrumental in their daughter's transfer.

Previously, CPS intervened in illnesses and injuries of children in foster care only if a caseworker reported a child as possibly being abused or neglected. But in June 2001, the city announced a "new-eyes approach" that requires investigation into any injuries sustained by a child in foster care. Currently the Velasquezes have physical, but not legal, custody of their daughter. Although she was finally returned to her parents' home in July 2001, the city still effectively has control over all decisions regarding her health, education, and welfare.

The Velasquezes moved to Maryland in late 2001. Alice, who remained on active duty during most of their ordeal, had left the Army that September. Because the couple could no longer pay Alexandria rent without military assistance, the decided to search for an apartment in the more affordable suburbs of Prince George's County. "Of course, that was another whole big issue," says Alice. "They tried to say that we were running away."

Although the Velasquezes moved only 20 minutes from their former home, because they left Virginia, they unknowingly invoked the Interstate Compact to Protect Children (ICPC). This legislation was designed to protect children placed across state lines for foster care and adoption, to ensure that they couldn't slip through the cracks. Under the ICPC, any adopted or foster child remains in the legal custody of the state for six months after any out-of-state move.

After completing all of Alexandria CPS's requirements, Miguel and Alice were devastated to learn that the agency would remain a part of their lives for an additional half-year. The ICPC monitoring period will expire in March, at which time they expect to regain full legal custody of their daughter.

In the meantime, the Velasquezes are attempting to move on with their lives. They are ecstatic to have Liliana back home, and they have a new addition to their family: baby Tahlia, born in October 2001. They are in the process of saving money to have Tahlia tested for OI. Currently, Alice is staying home with both children, and Miguel is supporting the family with contract construction work.

Miguel and Alice must constantly try to protect Liliana from activities that may cause additional fractures, while still trying to ensure that she has as normal a childhood as possible. "We watch her very carefully," says Alice. "We don't let her climb stairs or play on the playground by herself, and we have to watch her when she's around other kids. We also have a list from her doctor of activities she will never be able to do—like horseback riding and gymnastics."

Alice is writing a book about their experiences, not only to help her and her husband process it all, but also so that their daughter will have a record of the ordeal. "I don't want her to hate us. I want her, when she's old enough, to understand exactly what happened—to know how much we love her and that we never gave up on her. We never stopped fighting."

Miguel and Alice communicate with other parents of children with OI who have had similar experiences. At first, they sought out other families and support groups for counsel. Now, they say, they are beginning to give guidance themselves. "It's so incredibly sad. I've done a lot of research on OI, and other families, in almost every single case, have their child taken away, and it is sometimes years before the child is tested," says Alice.

"There was one family where the father served five years in prison before his child tested positive for OI," Alice continues. "After five years in jail, the father is scared to death to touch the kid, the mother is alienated from her husband after spending years wondering if he really did it, and the child doesn't really know his parents. You can't even tell that they're a family anymore. When I think about it, we're one of the lucky ones."

It is easy to see why Alice and Miguel feel lucky, despite their travails, upon seeing Liliana in action. The now-2-year-old girl is beautiful and bright. Although, like many toddlers she is initially reluctant around new people, once she warms up, she is lively. She runs around the house laughing and tries to draw on anything that will stand still. She talks and talks and talks to no one in particular and loves to give demonstrations of her many toys.

While Alice recounts the story of the fight for Liliana, Miguel tries to occupy his daughter in the living room. He plies her with ice cream, Powerpuff Girls cartoons, and games of peek-a-boo. Then he takes her for a quick bath and puts her in pink pajamas. Inevitably, however, the toddler decides she wants to be where the action is.

Liliana comes back into the room, crying with no tears, and climbs into her mother's lap. "Aww, was Daddy trying to make you go to sleep? Oh no, what a mean daddy!" says Alice playfully. Liliana mimics her mother and manages a garbled "mean daddy" of her own. Alice falls over in peals of laughter, stopping only when she notices Miguel grimacing. "Please, Alice," he says. "Don't teach her to say that." CP

Copyright © 2002 Washington Free Weekly Inc.

Mother: Parents being falsely accused
OAS_AD('Middle');

By John Bartlett
john.bartlett@timesnews.com

MEADVILLE — Lisa Mullenax lives under a shadow of suspicion cast by the death of her infant son in September 2002 and the murder charges filed against her husband in a Centre County case. Mullenax, who proclaims her husband's innocence and her own, said parents nationwide are falsely being accused in alleged shaken baby syndrome cases. Mullenax, living at her parent's East Fallowfield Township in Crawford County, would be happy for no more public scrutiny, but she believes her message is too important.

"I am 100 percent convinced of my husband's innocence. Our baby slept in my husband's arms every night," she said. "Physicians are considering only one thing (shaken baby syndrome) and parents are being blamed." She stepped into the news in Crawford County when she appeared in court Aug. 22 to support John Raymond McGee, who along with Heather McNamara is accused of seriously injuring their 2-month-old daughter in March. Mullenax said she wrote the couple to tell them of her research and that there could be many medical reasons for the injuries their child sustained that have nothing to do with child abuse.

"I would never want to advocate for a parent that abused their child," she said. "But before they are deemed guilty, the possible other causes need to be discounted. The tragedy is once a physician sees brain hemorrhages and retinal hemorrhages they jump to a conclusion of shaken baby syndrome." Police and Children and Youth Services then build a case to support that conclusion, she said. There is growing evidence that brain and retinal hemorrhages and associated injuries in infants have many causes, Mullenax said, holding a thick sheaf of papers of reports downloaded from the Internet or obtained directly from researchers.

Mohammed Ali Al-Bayati, a California pathologist and toxicologist retained by Mullenax and her husband, Alejandro Mendez Vargas, to examine their child's medical records, concluded that shaken baby syndrome was not the cause of death. Rather, he concluded the child's death likely resulted from a vitamin K deficiency coupled with several other factors that caused bleeding in the brain, Al-Bayati wrote in his report.

However, Centre County District Attorney Ray Gricar stands by the conclusions reached by the doctors who treated the child, the determination of the county coroner and findings of criminal investigators. Gricar said in September at Vargas' preliminary hearing that he would pursue the death penalty. It was early in the afternoon of Aug. 27, 2002, when Vargas ran to a neighbor's home, carrying the limp body of his and Mullenax's 3-month-old son, Lucas. At the time, Mullenax was at a faculty meeting at the Centre County school where she taught Spanish.

The child was taken to Centre Community Hospital and then flown to Geisinger Medical Center, where he died Sept. 2, 2002. Mullenax said from the moment they arrived at the hospitals, the physicians and staff assumed it was a case of shaken baby syndrome. "We were requesting books to look at the terms they were telling us. We had no idea, we couldn't understand," she said.

Mullenax said in her heart she knew her husband could not be responsible, nor was she. It was not until researching the causes for bleeding in the brain and associated injuries in infants that she learned there were causes other than abuse. The investigation lasted nearly a year. Meanwhile, Mullenax and her husband moved back to Crawford County and in with her parents shortly after their child's death. They were in frequent contact with investigators, and their lawyer asked that if charges were filed, the couple be allowed to turn themselves in.

Instead, on Aug. 11 at about 5:30 p.m., state police, including a SWAT team, surrounded her parents' Hartstown-area home and took Vargas into custody. "I still don't know if I'll be charged," she said. With the help of a friend, Mullenax said she has researched numerous cases in addition to her own and has contacted 17 other people in Pennsylvania that she believes have been falsely accused. "We are not an isolated case," she said. Mullenax said she knows many people probably assume she's simply unable to see or accept the truth of what happened to her child.

"I'm not asking for anyone's sympathy," she said. "I just want the other side presented. I want physicians and others to rule out other possible causes before they accuse parents."

JOHN BARTLETT can be reached at (814) 724-6979,
870-1723 or by e-mail.

Prosecutor grilled by defense in baby-shaking trial

By Greg Moran
UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER

February 4, 2004

A deputy district attorney was called to testify yesterday in a baby-shaking trial in which a defense lawyer contends that he and a fellow prosecutor hid evidence favorable to the defendant. For about 30 minutes, prosecutor David Hendren answered a series of sometimes pointed questions from attorney Christopher Plourd, who is representing Christina Diaz. Diaz, the former operator of a home day-care business in Kensington, is accused in the death of 4-month-old Cooper Kuznitz. Hendren was the initial prosecutor on the case. It was re-assigned at the end of July to Garry Haehnle, who also is expected to be called
as a witness.

Hendren is one of five candidates seeking the Superior Court seat opened by the retirement of Judge Richard Haden. Prosecutors contend the child was shaken violently, causing his brain to swell. The main evidence against Diaz centers on bleeding in the child's eyes, which the prosecution says definitively shows the child was shaken.  Plourd told jurors the child died of other, undetermined causes. He said the baby had no other injuries typically seen in baby-shaking cases. Diaz was also a model day care provider who never harmed the  child, he said.

Hendren was called to testify as part of a hearing held by San Diego Superior Court Judge Robert J. Trentacosta. The jury was in the courtroom.
The hearing involves issues relating to legal discovery, the process in which each side exchanges information about their cases. Plourd filed a motion Monday asking that the case be dismissed because, he said, rules of discovery were violated. He contends that the prosecution hid evidence that by law must be turned over because it could prove his client's innocence.

At issue is evidence from Dr. Alex Levin, who testified for the prosecution last week. Plourd said he never received reports or other information from Levin, a pediatric ophthalmologist, about the case. Plourd said that when he began his questioning of Levin, the doctor produced a thick file of documents and e-mail correspondence between prosecutors, Levin and other doctors about the case. Plourd says the material includes information that could prove his client is not guilty.

Trentacosta is attempting to determine whether there were any violations. He could dismiss the case, eliminate some testimony, find prosecutors in contempt or determine there that was no violation. Plourd wrote a letter to Hendren last March, contending that the prosecutor was not turning over all the information in the case. Hendren testified that he found the letter offensive and that he wrote back asking what it was Plourd was seeking. He said Plourd never replied. Hendren also testified that he had complied with all the discovery rules "to the best of my knowledge."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/medicine/story/0,11381,1136385,00.html
  How I lost two children to the 'lie' of Munchausen's

A mother tells how she was blamed when her son died after being given cisapride

Jamie Doward
Sunday February 1, 2004
The Observer

Karen was allowed to hold her new-born daughter for only 20 minutes before she was taken into care. She has no idea where the child is now. Karen, Birmingham Social Services said, had Munchausen Syndrome By Proxy, the mental illness that causes parents to harm their children in an attempt to draw attention to themselves. Her child had been placed on the 'at risk' register even before she was born in December 1999. Proof that Karen had MSBP was provided by Professor Sir Roy Meadow, the paediatrician who came up with the theory in 1977 and, until he was recently discredited, was regarded as the world authority on the condition. Meadow had studied Karen's files and, although he had never met her, he warned it was likely she would abuse her baby.

Meadow's evidence was based on what had happened to Karen's son, Michael. The child had been born with breathing difficulties and had been taken to hospital on several occasions following serious attacks. Michael died in Birmingham Children's Hospital in January 1999, two days after being admitted because of shakes and a pale complexion. It transpired he had suffered acute brain damage and it was left to his parents to decide to switch off his life-support system. He was four months old.

The one thing that helped the couple cope with the tragedy was the fact that, soon after Michael's death, Karen became pregnant again. 'We didn't have a clue there was a problem until the letter from social services dropped on the doormat,' Karen, 38, said. 'It said the child was to be placed on the "at risk" register. At first I had no idea what they were going on about.' They appealed against the decision but a High Court ruling in October 2001 cleared the way for the child to be adopted. This was despite the fact a judge had consulted a panel of seven expert witnesses, five of whom said they believed Michael had died of natural causes. The remaining two experts - including Meadow - said the most likely cause of death was smothering. The judge sided with the minority.

And here the story would have ended, leaving Karen branded a child abuser and a woman afraid to have any more children. But, following the discrediting of MSBP, paediatricians and psychologists are now having to reinvestigate child abuse claims and Karen's case is just one of many which have raised concerns. Unknown to his parents, Michael suffered from a serious heart condition. This should have meant that doctors ruled out treating him with a number of drugs, including one called cisapride, once commonly used to treat digestive problems but since taken off the market in the US and the UK after it was linked to a number of deaths.

Michael was prescribed a course of cisapride on two occasions. Following the second course his parents took him off it because he wasn't dealing well with the side-effects. Experts say the drug interferes with the cardiac rhythm and has been known to induce a
near-death experience in children, something that could be confused with an attempt to smother them. The drug's makers, Janssen Pharmaceutica, declined to comment last week. But the company acknowledges that the drug shouldn't be prescribed to certain patients.

A statement made by Janssen four years ago read: 'Because of the risk of serious cardiac arrhythmias and death associated with the use of Propulsid (cisapride) in certain patients, Janssen ... has decided to discontinue marketing Propulsid as of 14 July, 2000 ... Propulsid has been associated with serious cardiac arrhythmias.' Karen is now demanding an inquest to establish whether cisapride was responsible for her son's death. 'My son had a hole in the heart. He should never have been given the drug in the first place,' she said. 'On the day that he went into hospital he hadn't eaten anything as he wasn't feeling well. We only found out later that he had been given a dosage of cisapride in hospital shortly before he had died. Why should he be given a digestive drug when he's not eating?'

It is a question that seems to trouble Janssen, too. The company wrote to the West Midlands Centre for Adverse Drug Reaction Reporting to ask whether any doctors who had been treating the baby had filed an adverse reaction report on the drug. Chances are that Janssen may have to file more adverse reaction inquiries in the months to come. Anti-MSBP campaigners in the UK claim there is a clear correlation between the prescription of the drug and false allegations of child abuse - usually those involving smothering. They claim that more than 150 women whose children were taking cisapride were wrongly diagnosed as having MSBP.

One doctor in Australia, Professor Colin Morley, has gone as far as to estimate that in almost every such case he has been involved in, the child was on cisapride. Following the Government's decision to re-examine hundreds of cases involving MSBP, the prescription of cisapride is to undergo acute legal and scientific scrutiny in the courts. But the danger is that cisapride - like MSBP - becomes a catch-all explanation for child abuse; one that blinds all those involved to the real cause. Child psychologists and scientists point out that other drugs and illnesses cause symptoms that can be mistaken for abuse and there is an urgent need for these to be investigated.

Nevertheless, as one doctor put it: 'We don't know the true picture surrounding allegations of child abuse. But what we do know is that there has been a marked decline in the number of cases involving Munchausen's since cisapride was taken off the market.'  Names have been changed for legal reasons

here is an article and, just in case, her lawyer's contact info if someone wants to provide input and info:

Lawyer's contact info:
Christopher John Plourd
Address:  1168 Union St #303, San Diego, CA 92101
Phone Number (619)615-6200
Fax Number (619)615-6204
e-mail dnacjp@flash.net  Email extension is "flash.net"

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/metro/20040127-1329-babytrial.html
Accused woman 'would never hurt child,' lawyer says

SAN DIEGO – A woman accused of causing the shaking death of a 4-month-old Spring Valley boy in her care is a well-loved day care provider
who would never hurt a child, her lawyer said today. Christopher Plourd told a jury that Christina Diaz, 37, was going about her daily routine Dec. 18, 2002, caring for five children, when she noticed Cooper Kuznitz wasn't breathing. "Please hurry," Diaz told a 911 operator. "(My) baby's not breathing right. He's just limp. Please help me."

The infant suffered irreversible brain damage and died Dec. 20.

"Ladies and gentleman, my client did not shake that child," Plourd said in his opening statement. "(She) never hurt any child. Nobody has ever seen her do anything to a child." Plourd disputed prosecutor Garry Haehnle's contention that Diaz was under a lot of stress when the baby died. The baby's parents said their child was fine when they dropped him off at the defendant's home the morning of Dec. 18. Diaz had been watching the infant for about three weeks, Plourd told the jury.

Diaz, who had moved her business from North Park to Kensington, is charged with assault on a child under 8 resulting in death. She faces 25 years to life in prison if convicted. Plourd said Diaz – who has no children of her own – took college classes in child care and has been watching children about 15 years. "She just felt that that was her calling," Plourd told the jury. The attorney said the forensic evidence as to how the baby died will be hotly contested.  Prosecutors said the child suffered massive brain trauma consistent  with being assaulted.  But Plourd said the baby had many medical problems and his death was "unexplainable."  One doctor told police he saw massive bleeding on the frontal lobe of the baby's brain, Plourd said. "It turns out to be a mistake," the attorney said. "Basically, the brain was dead. This child was not shaken."
 

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,8122-927535,00.html

December 11, 2003

Prosecution of mothers for baby deaths ‘will cease’
By Frances Gibb, Legal Editor

THE prosecution of mothers accused of killing their new-born babies is expected to be consigned to legal history in all but the rarest cases after the quashing yesterday of the conviction of Angela Cannings.  Hers is one of three high-profile cases that have forced a review of multiple cot death prosecutions by the Attorney-General.

Sally Clark, a solicitor, won her appeal in January to overturn her 1999 conviction for murdering her two baby sons; and Trupti Patel, a pharmacist, was found not guilty in June of murdering her three babies.

The review has turned up 50 cases of murder, manslaughter or infanticide (not just cot deaths) dating back five to seven years and involving the prosecution pathologist Dr Alan Williams. His non-disclosure of evidence
was crucial in the case of Sally Clark and he was heavily criticised by the Court of Appeal.

But the review, by the police and Crown Prosecution Service, may now be extended to include cases involving Professor Sir Roy Meadow, the paediatrician who was a key prosecution witness in all three cases. He has
now retired.  One of the cases that might be affected is that of Donna Anthony, 30, who is serving two life sentences after being found guilty in 1998 of murdering her 11-month-old daughter Jordan, and son Michael, four months. No evidence of physical injury to the children was found but Professor Meadow said she had probably smothered the babies.

Her legal representative, George Hawks, said: “I am sure that this will give Donna hope, although she has learnt over five and a half years not to raise her hopes too much.”  Her future was in the hands of the Criminal Cases Review Commission, which had the power to refer her case to the Court of Appeal, he said. “Now that
Roy Meadow is no longer being treated like a demi-god, hopefully this will bode well for Donna.”

A spokesman for the CPS said yesterday that no decision had been taken on extending the existing review.

At the trial of Mrs Clark, Professor Meadow told the jury that the chance of two children in such an affluent family dying of cot death was “one in 73 million”. That led the Royal Statistical Society to take the unprecedented step of writing to the Lord Chancellor stating there was “no statistical basis” for the figure.  Crown prosecutors have been sent guidance requesting that all current cases involving either expert be identified and the defence be sent a copy of the Sally Clark judgment.

All three cases highlight the problems in investigating cases where babies die suddenly and unexpectedly. The three mothers protested their innocence but an acquittal can be difficult because juries, experts say, have a revulsion to a mother who may have hurt her child.  Professor Gary Slapper, director of the law programme at the Open University, has argued that cases of sudden infant death could be looked at by a panel of doctors, as in Sweden, not by the police and prosecuting authorities.

He said yesterday: “It is clear that atrocious injustice has been allowed to fall on mothers who are already in deep agony.”Joyce Epstein, director of the Foundation for the Study of Infant Deaths, called for an overhaul of the way sudden baby deaths are investigated. She said: “Many parents are put through a very tough time because of rash unsupported views, quick judgments and incomplete investigations. Evidence should be tested before it reaches any court.”

DA says baby was violently shaken

Father is charged, denies allegations

By John Ellement and Farah Stockman, Globe Staff, 12/2/2003

BROCKTON -- Standing with his back to the wall and his head cast down, Shawn E. Hudson yesterday rocked back and forth on his feet in the kind of rhythmic motion parents often use to soothe a crying child. B