Iain’s Blog

How’s this for fair?

You win your case and your not guilty at a Criminal Court (beyond reasonable doubt), but still have to fight for your children…now that’s bad enough…although of course someone may have done something and theres just not enough evidence to convict, but children need to be protected.

But here’s the bigger issue how about you get found Not Guilty at the Civil Court (lower burden of proof …if you just look a bit dodgy…only kidding….look ‘really’ dodgy, or whatever it is). You then after being found Not Guilty there have to go to Criminal Court?

WHY??

How can this be right, if you can’t get them on the lower burden of proof…how on earth are you going to get them on the higher one….unless you can hire a load of experts to say what you need them to say of course…………surely that would never happen.

I know…stop calling you Shirley.

Anyway 2 thoughts have worn me out!

Don’t forget its Friday - wear red - support our troops!

Hi,

With the good news that Ben Butler has walked free from the Royal Courts, just one more case to go and then we all wait to hear what has formally been decided for us all.

But the stories still come out of harm to children, the Dad who raped his own daughters for 30 years and the State didn’t do too well etc. We really should get Judges, victims, the State etc together and sort this mess out.

But especially with SBS there needs to be some money spent on research all the millions wasted on experts, police hours, tests done, conferences etc etc on SBS cases is disgusting, if a few hundred thousand to start with was put to one side maybe real research could be done. Like finding how many Non SBS cases actually come into hospital but that actually show the triad symptoms. So then we may find out what - if any, other things cause SBS. 

It needs to be done, we also need to look at if Judges should pull cases before they even get before a jury, if experts can’t agree then the case shouldn’t go on. May even have to record details of the juries deliberations. Stop using majority verdicts unless intimidation is alleged. And many, many more!

Maybe not too much more at the mo to come out as Butler is a family case, they now have to fight on the front too. You see Stoodley, Richards, Risdon etc you can seriously screw up lifes … but for how much longer? We’ll see, we’ll see…

 The investigators need to look at what is said and by whom and avoid Horn & Halo effect. Experts need to be monitored and checked to see if they are who they say they are etc. If they are actually qualified etc.

Just a thought though…

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16678742?itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum&ordinalpos=1

Background: Retinal hemorrhages secondary to birth trauma are part of the differential diagnosis of intraocular

digital imaging. Subjects and methods: Infants were recruited as soon after birth as possible and examined by

Results: Data were analyzed for a total of 53 neonates. The number of infants with retinal hemorrhage was 18

days, respectively. Both these infants were delivered by vacuum delivery. Conclusions: The RetCam 120 provides

I t is well known that retinal hemorrhages occur in

varies from 2.6 to 50%.1,2 This variation appears

after birth. Giles3 demonstrated that the incidence was

hours. Sezen4 found the incidence was only 2.6% after 3 to

1,2,5 The incidence varies with mode of delivery. They

vaginal delivery; and 6.7% by cesarean section.2 These

The severity of the hemorrhages varies considerably.This is an extract from the report, there is more to it and will post links up.