There is a PINK blog supporting the Hendersons floating in cyberspace. The problem with pink plus the lack of justification for text design is the catastrophic failure at any artistry. This failure in her ability to use a simple thing like http://www.blogger.com/ properly raises questions about the content of the Sheila's Wheel's website. Can she manage anything more complex? No blogger would be seen dead in a pink template but I suspect Sheila would not know that. Then I suspect this is a Barbie world where the public is duped into thinking a guilty woman is innocent.
It sports the phrase " The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie -- deliberate, contrived and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic. Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought. John F. Kennedy 35th president of US 1961-1963 (1917 - 1963)". It would be good if Sheila believed in the same ethos.
Of course, intelligence has nothing to do with qualifications, it has everything to do with logic, analysis and conclusions. Take http://www.maeve4justice.blogspot.com/ - intelligent, witty, analytical, has the ability to learn. Hilda creates a blog that is more successful than all Sheila's blogs over the last year. She also doesn't depend on surgeons to justify her views. Infact, she doesn't need to - because Maeve4Justice has conviction where she is able to make the audience believe in her honesty and decency. Nevertheless, I doubt anyone would take Sheila's pink blog seriously really. Well, journalists might but they are tunnel visioned anyway. It is PINK afterall.
Luckily, the Pink Lady muses about Panorama so here is what the great John Sweeney has to say :-
"That day she rang 999 and said: "I've got a baby - I can't get breaths into her. She's just taking little breaths but not much, she's like semi-unconscious at the moment"
Any mention of a FIT here or was just for the " hearing show" then?
"The majority of experts at the Henderson trial gave evidence to the effect that she must have done it. Home Office pathologist Dr Nat Cary told the jury: "There are features in this case that would suggest that there has been a great degree of force." Professor John Elston, an eye specialist, said: "I think it was most likely caused by shaking."
I believe that was 12 experts who had the FULL FACTS of the case in front of them.
As for false accusations, Sheila has made a ton of false accusations against many many doctors over the years since she was awarded the Scientology Award. I believe John Sweeney missed the obvious Scientology award that remained just underneath is nose. He is a journalist who talked about the dangers of Scientology for Panorama. Shame he hasn't spotted the dangers of Scientology on Child Protection but then he is only a journalist with no lateral vision . Then there is of course the minor issue of the Ofcom report involving John Sweeney [Today, BBC Radio 4 and Breakfast, BBC Radio Five Live, 13 January 2004]. No doubt, John Sweeney will remember it well. A reflection of his reporting ability no doubt. John has been involved in near enough most documentary pieces where he has undermined the work of child protection professionals.
The Daily Mail article though amused me. It points to an amusing biomechanics study. By the way, I have done biomechanics :) and we all know that the judgment must be made upon the case in question - on the history and clinical findings - not just biomechanics. It is a bit like the CAD CAM hip - perfect bio mechanically but in real life they always go for the tried and tested ones with long term positive studies to their name. In any case, has our man in biomechanics had his paper peer reviewed :). Did John " Ofcom" Sweeney check that then? If we really want to see foreign expert embarrassment, we have to go to a tale many years ago by man called called Jim Sprott. The BMJ UK review gave it one star. Sprott was the rage in the UK at one point then the Department of Health happened to him. The BBC stated "A new government report has dismissed any connection between cot death and a chemical found in babies' mattresses". So there we have it. Just to show that the UK does not always follow those abroad. Another example is the MMR and Autism link. No matter what studies abroad show a link, the UK scientific community does not accept it and therefore by default it will not be accepted in any court in the land. The identical principle applies to Shaken Baby Syndrome.
So its all very well quoting specialists from the world over including the Arctic but if there is no UK mainstream established backing from the Scientific Community for the theory then it ain't gonna work. Everyone is aware of the Expert Witness guidance in the UK. All research has to be sound and not a "one off". I see no specialists [ paediatricians in the UK] disputing Shaken Baby Syndrome.
Of course, this clever media run appeal may work in public by blinding them and the Daily Mail with all this science but it doesn't blind us and it won't wash with the courts. This obviously has shades of an concerted effort by a group to disprove all causes of child abuse. First the effort to undermine Munchhausen's By Proxy and now to undermine Shaken Baby Syndrome. Interesting isn't it? Soon, all the abusers will be let out into the community to do more of what they have always done. Now, I wonder where child protection stands within that equation.
As it stands, the majority of experts [12] are against Keran Henderson's case. She has no UK specialist/expert backing her "theory" at this point. Anyway 10/10 to the Henderson Campaign and Panorama for attempting to make a half baked theory stand :). Please try harder next time boys :). This is though the best I have seen of " appeal by media".
As for John Sweeney, it would be poetic justice for the Scientologists if he inadvertently assisted their agenda. John though has a temper as exhibited on Panorama sometime ago :). Slightly intemperate I would say!
No comments:
Post a Comment