The Minority Report

In an account in the Daily Mail by Mr Henderson, he writes as follows :-

"One, neuropathologist Dr Waney Squier, suggested Maeve's injuries could have been months old. But that did not suit the prosecution, so the next day they brought someone in to say the injuries must have been more recent. "

Dr Waney Squier works at the John Radcliffe Hospital Oxford. By Mr Henderson's own admission she was the only expert [ out of the possible 12] that had a differing view. She was also the only expert witness that went public .

She then told the Daily Mail ""What I cannot say is whether those injuries were accidental or inflicted. But it's incredibly unlikely it was shaken-baby syndrome. There is absolutely nothing to indicate she was shaken".

So, the words "incredibly unlikely" does not fit with " There is absolutely nothing to indicate she was shaken". "Incredibly unlikely" gives us the idea that there was a possibility no matter how remote. So Waney is seen to contradict herself here. Even worse she states " What I cannot say is whether those injuries were accidental or inflicted". So basically Waney cannot tell us what happened at all. In any event each sentence of hers conflicts with everything else she states in the papers.

In any case, by Iain Henderson's own admission, the jury were already aware of Dr Waney Squire's view when they made their judgment. It is nothing new. The media spin on this is rather interesting. No media outlet tells us how many experts actually supported the prosecution. At the last count there were 12 experts [ I could be wrong].

What is interesting is this, Dr Waney Squier works in the same hospital where Maeve Sheppard had been admitted. The Express pointed out "Maeve was taken to Wexham Park Hospital, then transferred to intensive care at John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford". Waney Squier's witness evidence can hardly be said to be completely "independent". I believe others who have done this sort of thing in the past have been accused of a breach of confidentiality by the scientology award winner. Waney though hasn't been accused of this at all showing that the accusations by the Henderson camp supporter is normally made just for convenience. Dr John Chapman who wrote in the BMJ (2005) about a case already in the public domain. He stated "I posted a response yesterday. I did not include my email address deliberately. This morning I have received an email from PM who is reporting me to the GMC and the Royal College of Paediatrics & Child Health for a perceived breach of patient confidentiality. Beware" .

Of course, I often think that it is a very brave expert witness to go public on a case she has been involved with. This has the net effect of distressing Maeve's parents [ who feel compelled to defend themselves] and influences the forthcoming appeal of Mrs Henderson.

The Henderson case supporter and Scientology award winner then wrote " Finally unless you have obtained permission from the family to give details of the case in which you were an attending doctor, I do believe that you have breached patient confidentiality by leading the reader of your response to the article in which the child's name appears" (2005). Of course, Waney was one of the first doctors to review the brain of this child because it was the hospital where she was treated.

Dr Squier, from the John Radcliffe Hospital in Oxford, said: "I spend all my life reading papers and studying my field of expertise". It is therefore interesting that she ignores the views of all clinicians in the case completely. Well, she considers herself as a neuropathologist to be the only expert that counts, the rest of the experts are now apparently irrelevant according to her. That is what she and the Henderson camp would like to think anyway. In reality, a conclusion is reached by the view from all specialities. This is called a Panoramic view. Taking her view out of context is simply taking one jigsaw out of a entire picture and coming to a conclusion.

The Daily Mail said of the other experts

"One of them, respected consultant neuroradiologist Dr Neil Stoodley, insisted that scans taken at the hospital showed bleeding in the brain of baby Maeve which was a "marker of a shaking injury. Others said that the little girl had haemorrhages behind both eyes and that her brain had swollen which proved an attack"

In conclusion, it seems the majority view supports the prosecution case. What we are given by the media is a Minority View. In truth, the jury were already aware of Waney Squier's view and summarily rejected it. What we have is a cleverly constructed media spin meister overinflating the importance of the minority opinions.

What is even more interesting is this "A website has been set up and a campaign fund started, which, on the first day was sent £3,000 by anonymous donors". Not bad money for overinflating a minority view and essentially blinding the public. I assume that money has been given to Maeve's parents. At least that is the right thing to do. Either that or Bill Bache has informed the legal aid people of their new found fortune.

Until next time.....