It's another Rupert moment!

You see the problem is Rupert, everyone listed on this paper written in 1974, quotes what qualifications/positions they have and you leave out that you are a "consultant" at this time, now why is that given that you never stop bragging about having this qualification and that qualification? Is it because, as I suspect, given that neither Addenbrookes or the Royal London (now Barts) have any record of you being a "consultant" during the time you worked for them, that you weren't actually a consultant?

Come on the Metropolitan Police, us mere mortals would have had our collars felt by now for this sort of thing - just what does a girl have to do these days to get potentially criminal offences looked into?


OK Rupert, which case is this? Did you mislead the courts again hmmmm? Still what's a bit of perjury between cases these days?



Thank you, Professor Risdon, what is your full name please?

A. It is Professor Rupert Anthony Risdon.

Q. And are you a consultant histopathologist, and have been since 1972, is that right?

A. Yes.

Q.

Can you set out for the Jury, please, your relevant qualifications and experience relevant to this case?

The child psych, the courts and a false allegation - any views PACA?

What was it Leveson said about exagerating? Oh and for reference I knew nothing about this until I went onto the GMC events calander.

General Medical Council

Fitness to Practise Panel
Session beginning 03 November 2009
St James’s Buildings, 79 Oxford Street, Manchester, M1 6FQ

New case of impairment by reason of misconduct.

The Panel will inquire into the following allegation against Dr Diana Lorraine Bazeley-White, MB BS 1974 University of London.

“That being registered under the Medical Act 1983

1. Between 9 January 2002 and 24 July 2002 you

a. Were a Consultant Child and Adolescent Psychiatrist employed by the Bristol North NHS Trust and based at the Department of Child and Family Psychiatry, Downend, Bristol,

b. Claimed specialist expertise in the field of child sexual abuse,
c. Were instructed to assist the High Court, in connection with proceedings under the Children’s Act 1989, in which
i. There arose an issue whether A, a five year old girl, had been sexually abused by her father, Mr B,
ii. The Judge directed that an expert be instructed to assist the Court as to the interpretation of the allegations, if any, made by A;
The Taped Interview
2. On 29 May 2002 you conducted and recorded on video tape an interview with A (“the taped interview”)
a. You began the taped interview by play in which you appeared to be teaching A how to respond to repeated approaches by a stranger in a park,

b. No therapeutic need was indicated for the role play described in (a) above,

c. The role play described in (a) above was irrelevant to the issues upon which you were required to report,
d. Your questioning in the taped interview appeared to be intended to convey to A that she was subject to sinister threats,
e. You asked A leading questions suggesting to her that she had been sexually abused,
f. You were not responsive to A in the course of the interview,
g. You used anatomically correct dolls and allowed A to play with them after the interview had concluded,

h. You did not follow the Memorandum of Good Practice on Video Recorded Interviews with Child Witnesses;
3. Your conduct of the taped interview
a. Was inappropriate,
b. Was not in A’s best interests,
c. Provided no helpful evidence upon the issues upon which your expert opinion was sought,
d. Fell below the standards of a competent child psychiatrist claiming expertise in the field of child sexual abuse;
The Report
4. You prepared a report for the court dated 12 June 2002 (“the report”) in which you
a. Stated that in March 2001, A had “spontaneously” demonstrated pulling her pants open and pulling her mouth open to a social worker,
b. Stated that A’s attitude during the taped interview was “highly anxious”,
c. Stated that the manner of A’s denial that she had been touched on her genitals by a big man was not convincing,
d. Concluded, among other things, that on the balance of probabilities, A had been subjected to sexual abuse by her father, Mr B;
5. In relation to your statement set out in 4(a) above
a. You were aware, or ought to have been aware, of a report by Jenny Roxburgh dated 22 May 2001, which stated that
i. On 13 March 2001, a social worker had been invited to witness A confirming allegations that were recorded in written notes made by an adult,

ii. The social worker had expressed the view that there was pressure on A to repeat the allegations to her,

b. There was no foundation for the assertion that A’s actions were “spontaneous”;
6. There was no foundation for your statements as set out at
a. Paragraph 4(b) above,
b. Paragraph 4(c) above;
7. Your conclusion set out in paragraph 4(d) above
a. Did not examine with adequate rigour and weigh up the evidence that was capable of being construed as supporting the contention that A had been subjected to sexual abuse,
b. Did not take any, or any adequate, account of the evidence that A had not been subjected to sexual abuse,
c. Was a conclusion to which no reasonably competent child psychiatrist claiming expertise in the field of child sexual abuse could have come,
d. Was, in the circumstances, unfair;
Evidence given on 23 July 2002
8. You gave evidence before the Judge on 23 July 2002. You
a. Repeated your conclusion that Mr B had subjected A to sexual abuse,
b. Supported your conclusion by relying (amongst other things) upon the “spontaneous gestures” A made to the social worker when she described having her mouth made to open and not liking the taste;
9. Your conclusion as set out at paragraph 8(a) above was inappropriate having regard to the matters set out at paragraph 7 above;
10. Your reference to “spontaneous gestures” as set out at paragraph 8(b) above was inappropriate having regard to the matters set out at paragraph 5 above;
11. When giving evidence you breached your duty to assist the court in that you
a. Did not take a balanced view,
b. Failed to take a range of possibilities into account.

And that by reason of the matters set out above your fitness to practise is impaired because of your misconduct.”

The panel will be chaired by Mr Ralph Bergmann JP LLB

Rupert Risdon has he perverted the course of justice?

264 divided by three = 88 per annum in 2007 - take each of the figures in the official ONS stats for SUDI's and divide by three and at no time does it ever amount to the alleged 200 he implies they do at GOSH in a sworn statement for court.

Imagine you are a jury, or a judge and you sit and listen to the "only dually qualified forensic pathologist" who also claims to have been a full blown Professor up until 2004 (even though I have it officially confirmed several times that he was an emeritus from 1994) and he throws these figures into the mix, you would be led to believe that his expertise was second to none.

Now, you then add to the mix, defence experts who tell the truth, who don't fudge their figures, lie about their qualifications or training, and cannot compete with what Risdon is saying, nor can they compete with the other prosecution experts, who have written their reports based upon Risdon's reports who also believe his rhetoric and elevate his theories to iconic levels, do you think the defence stand a chance? Do you think the jury, as complex as these cases are, and the judge might give more weight to Risdon et al's evidence?

You are the jury readers of this blog, you tell me in the poll I am putting up.

Rupert Anthony Risdon

Rupert, what are you like eh? So, as I thought, the 1516 deaths you looked at were really 0-18, so the reality is your department looked at 514 SUDI's in 10 years (let's face it there is a huge difference between a dead 17 year old and a dead baby isn't there?) and out of those only 94 were forensic and out of those how many were actually babies? How many were infants? Just how many babies did you really see a year? Do the jury or the CPS know that it was actually 0 -18 or are they all still under the illusion it was infants deaths?

Rule of thumb, never salami slice your research, it's a dead give away, ask Davey boy!




Clinicopathological features of paediatric deaths due to myocarditis: an autopsy series

M A Weber1, M T Ashworth1, R A Risdon1, M Malone1, M Burch2, N J Sebire1

1 Department of Paediatric Pathology, Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children, and UCL Institute of Child Health, London, UK

2 Paediatric Cardiology, Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children, and UCL Institute of Child Health, London, UK

Dr N J Sebire, Department of Paediatric Pathology, Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children, Great Ormond Street, London, WC1N 3JH; SebirN@gosh.nhs.uk

Introduction: Myocarditis is a recognised cause of cardiac failure in childhood but the frequency of myocarditis as a cause of sudden unexpected death across the paediatric age range is uncertain.

Methods: A structured review of the results of all autopsies carried out in a single paediatric centre over a 10-year period, including the results of all investigations performed as part of the centre’s policy for the post-mortem investigation of paediatric deaths.

Results:

During the study period there were 1516 autopsies of children aged 0–18 years.

Histologically proven myocarditis was present in 28 cases (1.8%, age range 10 days to 16 years, median age 10 months), of which 16 (57%) presented as sudden death. More than half of all cases (54%) occurred in infants less than 1 year of age, accounting for 2% of infant deaths referred for autopsy, compared with around 5% of childhood deaths over the age of 5 years. In almost 40% of cases there were no macroscopic cardiac abnormalities, the diagnosis being entirely dependent on routine histological examination of the heart, and post-mortem heart weight was normal in the majority of cases. Virus was detected in nine (36%) of the 25 cases in whom virological analyses were performed. The histological features were similar in all cases, with an interstitial inflammatory cell infiltrate, predominantly lymphocytic, with focal myocyte necrosis and interstitial oedema.

Conclusions: Myocarditis is a rare cause of death in infancy and childhood, and the majority of cases present as sudden unexpected deaths, which require routine histological sampling of the heart for its detection.

A field of Poppies for all the Fallen

For the many members of my own family who sacrificed their lives in the name of freedom.

For the many soldiers who died for their beliefs.

For the "boy soldiers" forced into war.

For all the children who have died in a different type of war.

To be cherished forever.

Lord Leveson Expert Winesses and the CSI effect

No, surely not, expert witnesses exagerating .......? Who'd have thought eh!



http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8347410.stm


CSI factor 'hurting crime cases'


Fictional crime series like CSI are making real trials more difficult, a leading judge has warned.

Lord Justice Leveson said witnesses were reluctant to come forward because of the mistaken belief that forensic and expert evidence was paramount.

The judge called it the "CSI problem", a reference to the television drama in which cutting edge forensic skills are used to solve crimes.

He said expert scientific evidence was not the "single silver bullet

Lord Justice Leveson, who is the Senior Presiding Judge for England and Wales, said: "It simply doesn't work like that".

He said there had been a huge increase in the use of expert witnesses, to the extent that they now "abound" in every field of law.

'Universal solution'

He went on: "One problem with this increased use of expert evidence is
that it could be tempting to think that experts are a panacea - a fixer, a
universal solution to the evidence or lack of evidence in a particular case.

"Am I far fetched in wondering whether this view is more attributable in programmes like CSI?", he asked.

"There can be a temptation, certainly in the eyes of the public, to think there can be expert evidence to prove the essential point in a case to the extent that you don't need regular, old fashioned, normal witnesses anymore.

"And I fear that this has an impact on willingness to help the police to pursue their inquiries, 'DNA will do it', or whatever."

Exaggerating their evidence

Speaking at a conference of expert witnesses in London, the judge also hinted that some experts were exaggerating their evidence or straying into subjects in which they did not have specialist knowledge.

BBC social affairs correspondent Danny Shaw said a number of miscarriages of justice have been blamed on mistaken expert evidence.

Last year Barry George was cleared of murdering the BBC TV presenter, Jill Dando, when the Old Bailey ruled that the original trial had put too much weight on ballistic analysis.

Solicitor Sally Clark was eventually cleared of murdering two of her children after it emerged that an expert witness had wrongly interpreted statistics on unexplained childhood deaths.

Rupert Anthony Risdon the questions that must be answered

OK Rupert and friends, let's go shall we. Let's lay out the facts for the world to see.

Above are the figures for the ONS regarding SUDI's including neonatal deaths, which are not technically SUDIs.

Risdon, in sworn evidence states the following:



Over 200 a year a Rupert, really? Let's take the 2007 figures alone shall we. I'm not going to add them up, readers can do it themselves. Even when you include the neonatal deaths into the equation it doesn't add up to over 200 a year and when you remove the neonatal figures, it works out at about 157 deaths a year your unit would see based on your claims that GOSH do a third of all autopsies on SUDI's.

So were you misleading the courts Rupert? Were you "exaggerating" how many autopsies had been undertaken to inflate your "expertise"?

Could this be seen as misleading? Could it have influenced how much the jury relied upon your evidence over others?

Was this dishonest?

Oh and what department were you head of? Because according to GOSH's own records you worked under a head of department in Nephro-Urology until you retired!!!!!

And just what are GOSH doing in not stating you were Emeritus Professor?
Complicit or what!!

Pge 80 on a document dated 2004 GOSH

http://www.ich.ucl.ac.uk/publications/research_review_archive/ich_review_04.pdf

NEPHRO-UROLOGY UNIT

Professor of Nephrology and Head
of Unit

Professor Adrian Woolf MA MD FRCPCH

Professor of Histopathology
Professor Anthony Risdon MD FRCPath DMJ

Emeritus Professors of Paediatric
Nephrology
Professor Michael Dillon FRCP FRCPCH
Professor Martin Barratt FRCP CBE

Honorary Reader in Paediatric
Nephrology
Dr Lesley Rees MD FRCP FRCPCH

Senior Lecturers
Mr Philip Ransley MA MB BChir FRCS (joint
with Guy’s NHS Trust)
Dr Paul Winyard MA PhD MRCP
Honorary Senior Lecturers
Dr Detlef Böckenhauer MD PhD
Mr Peter Cuckow FRCS (joint with The
Middlesex Hospital)
Mr Patrick Duffy MB FRCS
Mr Geoff Koffman MB ChB FRCS (joint

Let's get the Tardis into court, go in as one doctor and come out as another - Dr Who?

Kelly Inman acquitted alleged SBS and fractures

http://www.peterboroughtoday.co.uk/news/Judge-sums-up-in-baby.5789408.jp


Judge sums up in baby Leeya trial

03 November 2009

By ET Staff

JURORS at the trial of a couple accused of murdering their seven-week-old baby were yesterday told by a judge that they had to consider evidence of all her injuries.
Judge Philip Clegg said the jurors had to take into account the opinions of a wide variety of medical experts consulted about the death of Leeya Akinrele

Prosecutors and defence lawyers representing Leeya's father Olusola Akinrele, 34, have all led doctors to give conflicting evidence at Ipswich Crown Court.

The eight-week trial heard how Leeya allegedly had 40 fractures to her body including a broken femur and22 broken ribs.

Paramedics and a doctor tried desperately to resuscitate her after she was found apparently lifeless on December 18, 2006 at her home in Lapwing Drive, Whittlesey.

She died 12 days later when her life support machine was turned off at Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge.

Prosecutors say she also had possible adult bite marks to her face and fingers.

The judge is due to send the jury out to consider its verdict today.

He spent yesterday outlining the opinions of different doctors who have given evidence.

Judge Clegg reminded jurors that there had been disagreement about whether Leeya's brain jury had been caused by a blow to the head or shaking.

He said: "It is important to remember that trauma to the head is not the only
way a child can receive a brain injury.

"Anything that stops a heart
beating or the lungs breathing will produce the same result."

Judge Clegg reminded jurors that retinal bleeding in the eyes-an indication of head trauma or shaking- was not present in Leeya's case.

But he said there had been evidence that such an injury did not happen in the cases of 30 per cent of babies who had died from shaking.

Judge Clegg went on to say how doctors had stated that the amount of force required to cause a fatal injury by shaking was "much more than just rough handling".

He said: "It would be force that any reasonable observer would recognise as being totally inappropriate for a child of six weeks.. the sort of force that would make any reasonable observer say, 'Stop that. You will hurt her.'"

Judge Clegg also pointed out differences between doctors called by Akinrele who believed that Leeya might have been suffering from a brittle bone condition, probably caused by rickets, and others who believed she had been healthy

He added: "It only remains for me to say, 'Do not look at any single injury in isolation. Look at the overall picture'. It is essential."

Akinrele and Leeya's mother Kelly Inman, now, 22, deny murder. He also denies causing or allowing Leeya's death. Inman denies causing Leeya's death.

The trial continues.



Mother cleared of daughter murder
A mother from Cambridgeshire has been found not guilty of murdering her seven-week-old daughter.

Jurors at Ipswich Crown Court heard Leeya Akinrele suffered a skull fracture and bites to her face and hands before she died in December 2006.

Kelly Inman, 22, of Whittlesey, who denied murder, was also cleared of causing or allowing the baby's death.

The jury is yet to reach a verdict on Leeya's father, Olusola Akinrele, 34, who denies murder.

He has also denied causing or allowing his daughter's death.

Brain damage

The court heard Leeya was born on 7 November 2006 and on 18 December paramedics were called to the family home, where she was apparently lifeless.

Leeya died 12 days later when doctors decided that there was no prospect of recovery and switched off her life support machine.

Prosecutors said evidence showed that Leeya had been repeatedly assaulted and suffered brain damage, as well as injuries including a fractured thigh, ribs and fingers.

The jury will continue its deliberations on Thursday.

Nosheen Arshad alleged Shaken Baby

Thank you Open Mind!

OK, far from me to name the conditions or events that can cause bleeds on the brain outside of alleged SBS, however I think I just might!

EDS
Raised Inter Cranial pressure due to lack of oxygen
Several genetic bleeding disorders, still not tested for! They just do the basics

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/beds/bucks/herts/8340622.stm


Order to acquit mother of murder


The jury in the trial of a 25-year-old mother accused of shaking to death her 13-week-old son has been directed by the judge to acquit her of murder.

Nosheen Arshad, of Beechwood Road, Luton, denies the murder and manslaughter of Mohamed Zaid.

Mr Justice Saunders said the jury will still have to decide whether Mrs Arshad is guilty of his manslaughter.

He said prosecution experts had been unable to agree on the degree of force needed to cause the death by shaking.

In order to convict the mother of murder, the jury would have had to have been satisfied that she intended to cause serious harm or death.

Why would I kill him? I was having a very happy life with my family

Nosheen Arshad
Mrs Arshad went into the witness box and denied she had harmed her son in any way.

The baby died on 1 November 2007 having been admitted to hospital on 29 October 2007.

At first it was thought the cause of death was catastrophic heart failure, but during a routine post-mortem examination bleeding to his brain was discovered leading to suspicions about how he died.

Speaking with the assistance of a translator Mrs Arshad said she and her husband moved to a flat in Millfield Road, Luton, shortly after Zaid was born.

"He was a good baby, he was not difficult at all and his health was really good," she said.

She said nothing unusual happened on 29 October.

'Started crying'

Her husband came home in the evening from his shift for a meal break and Zaid was asleep in a baby bouncer.

"When he woke up he started crying. I changed his nappy and put him down on the sofa and he did quieten down a little bit," Mrs Arshad said.

She added that she was trying to console her son, but noticed his face turn pale.

"I got really worried and immediately rang my husband," she said, adding that she depended on her husband because her English was not very good.

He arranged for his brother to call an ambulance.

When the first paramedic arrived she said Zaid was in her lap and not breathing, and she was crying.

Her barrister, Peter Carter QC asked what she had to say about the prosecution suggestion that the baby was in that condition because she had shaken him.

She replied: "The first thing is he is my son, why would I kill him? I was having a very happy life with my family."

The case continues.