Shaken Baby Syndrome - Panorama tonight

[Kathyis6incheshigh]

Panorama programme

Looks interesting.

Even IF the science behind the medical evidence was right - how can they know when the damage was done?

e.g. how could they tell, beyond any reasonable doubt, that it happened while in the childminder's care?

I don't understand how that woman was convicted based on the info that has been made public

The foreman of the jury which convicted her spoke to the BBC & raised some good points

here

I agree Upwind. I always wondered that about the Louise Woodward case too (ie how did they know when the damage was done, even if it was caused as they said).

The lack of anyone who actually saw her do any of this stuff just seems like such a crucial gap, especially when all the character witnesses are saying she never lost her temper.

Blimey.

I think this is really telling regarding the day

"I am a parent of one of the children who was in Keran?s care on the day this happened. I arrived shortly after the ambulance had left after receiving a call from Keran, who was extremely distressed and told me Mauve had had a fit, she had called an ambulance and asked me to come and pick up my son. When I arrived my son was happily playing, if Keran had done anything to Maeve on that day my son would have been able to tell me as he was 3 almost 4 years old, he wouldn?t have been happily playing if he?d witness Keran shaking Maeve he would have been upset and would have told me what happened. When we left he told me Maeve wasn?t well and an ambulance came."

taken from this site www.carers4carers.co.uk/fromcare.html

I havent watched the program, I have taped it on Sky and will be watching later.

It's very shocking. I knew that childminder was innocent (it was so bloody obvious at the time that there was no evidence against her) but that the whole theory of Shaken Baby Syndrome is being thrown into doubt is a real shock. It's been around for almost 40 years and hundreds of women have been convicted of killing their babies due to it. It's a shock to find that scientists who have actually tested theory are finding it "flawed", when it's been presented to us as a fact.

i was shocked that a fall off the sofa can cause more damage than a shake. My kids have all fallen off the sofa (apart from Ds2)

I don;t know whether she was guilty or not, but I understand that there isn't any real evidence against her

have to admit shaking a robust older baby would be physically taxing. I can barely lift ds2 off the floor let alone shake him violently... And he is light for 11 mths. Interesting. What always struck me about keran Henderson and I have no factual basis for this, is that had she done anything she would have admitted it.
Science and doctors and experts... Sheesh. Transient indeed.

The sofa bit was scary indeed. Although - it was interesting that they showed the child falling from a standing position - most babies tend to be sitting or rolling when they fall - and obviously a baby of 4 or 5 months say definately wouldn't be standing.
Watching the amount of force you apparently need to use when shaking a baby was interesting too - as the theory goes that the carer just 'snaps' - it looked to me like you had to shake the baby too hard and for too long for that to be the case - just 'snapping' would be too quick a reaction to cause any damage.
Regarding the case highlighted - I found the evidence of the other mothers very compelling, in any case - it was the plausibility of the shaken baby theory that convicted her - and that's not proof beyond reasonable doubt - it's a theory.

I wasn't able to watch it

The Norwegian scientist's test was, IMO a bit odd. he said that you could definately kill a child by shaking it vigourously, however, he shook it realy hard, and for what seemd like a good couple of minutes. As DH said, if you are doing that in a fit of temper, then it's going to be a couple of quick shakes, not standing there for minutes. A bit like Noerthen Lurkers comments is what I'm trying to say.

Also the baby that the norwegian was shaking looked to be a newborn ,while the little girl who died looked much older and alot more robust.
The thing that i wondered about ,was how long does the effect of a fall/head injury take to become symptomatic? I have nursed adults with head injuries who have taken literally hours to exhibit clinical signs/reducing GCS , so is it not possible that the little girl was injured before being left at the childminders and that the fit keran saw was as a result of this ? I am in no way saying the parents deliberately harmed thier child either .

That occurred to me jwfmt - that if the fit the child suffered had occurred a few hours later, it would be her mother who would be in prison now.

One of the things which came up, was that in each case of SBS, it was always the carer (usually the mother) who was in charge of the baby when the child lost consciousness. It crossed my mind that as more young children are sent to nursery and/ or childminders, we can expect to see more incidences of claims of SBS brought against CM's and nursery workers. It's going to be very difficult to make people believe that someone with no emotional connection to a child becomes overcome with such passion that they shake a child vigorously for 2 whole minutes in that mental way.

I haven't seen the programme (damn dh and his 'let's unplug the TV for a week' experiment) but there have been concerns about the validity of shaken baby syndrome for years. Haven't previous convictions been overturned?

And then there are a whole heap of cases beyond shaken baby syndrome where women have been (wrongly) convicted of killing children based on disputed medical evidence - Sally Clark (RIP), Angela Cannings etc. etc. Let alone all the poor women whose babies have been forcibly adopted.

We really do need a major public inquiry into the use of medical evidence by the police and the courts and the competence and training of 'experts'.

echo Edam.

This isn't the first time and look at the discrediting of Roy Meadows and David Southhall, with cot death and MSBP.

I'm not going to say much on this as it's such a terribly sensitive area but I echo Edam's public inquiry call and add my voice to those doubting SBS. I'm glad it's been outed in this way. There are so many questions.

The CPS seem happy to bring cases where the only thing that stands against the accused is a theory which whilst fitting the facts as an explanation is not an explanation beyond all doubt. In this particular case I seem to rememember that the shaken baby theory doesn't even fit the facts very well as poor little Maeve had no other signs of abuse.
And yet - if the shaken baby theory is wrong then what is happening to these children - and why does it happen to them when there is only one adult present???

I think 'only one adult present' is a fallacy - we are only aware of those cases that go to court. Presumably they would (almost) all be 'one adult present'.

Yes - I was thinking of cases in court.

Is it not just that cases where more than one adult is present never get to court precisely becasue there are witnesses. The problem for the people who are on thier own is that there are no other wtinesses - therefore if there is or was another reason, it is never explored, as it is assumed that they must have been at fault.

There was a programme a couple of years ago about a case with a very young premature baby where the father was sent to prison. He said the baby went unconscious while feeding. No other signs of abuse etc. A pediatrician interviewed said that sometimes when tiny babies are feeding they forget to breathe and this can trigger a blood clot to the brain which is interpreted as evidence of shaking.

(That was the programme where the police involved in bringing the case were very annoyed about this pediatrician not keeping her mouth shut because all they cared about was getting a successful prosecution, not finding out what happened, and they described her as 'unhelpful' )

Kathy, When Dd1 was in SCBU she used to stop breathing when feeding, it was scary. Poor man

Yes if a baby suddenly gets a fit in the company of 10 adults (or at nursery when 3 or 4 adults are looking after him/ her) even our CPS is not going to accuse all the adults in the room of killing the child.

And the thing about being a mother or a childcarer is that inevitably you're going to be with the child alone a lot. If you have a situation where you have to prove your innocence and provide an alibi for all the time you've spent with your baby, you simply are not going to be able to do it. Unless we all fit CCTV in our homes permanently of course.

Bella - I remember a friend saying that after one of the cot death cases - think it was Sally Clark - she said it had just struck her that if that happened to her - how would you prove it wasn't you - you just can't.