– I was simply shocked by what I found. That’s what Per Brodal says. The renowned professor of medicine has carried out experimental brain research throughout his professional life, and written several textbooks. He was asked by a former colleague to look at the scientific basis for the diagnosis of shaken baby syndrome. The diagnosis is used when it is assumed that a child has been shaken so violently that he has suffered serious head injuries. – It has not actually been proven that rag shaking can lead to triad findings at all, says Brodal. He believes it is obvious that the findings may be due to other things, such as illness. Professor emeritus Per Brodal, together with two colleagues, questions the legal certainty in the ragging cases. Photo: Morten Waagø / news – Are there more verdicts The findings Brodal refers to are the so-called triad: Bleeding in the head, bleeding inside the eyes and other damage to brain tissue. Brodal says it is well documented that there are several judgments where children only have this triad, and no additional damages. Such as fractures or bruises. But that it has nevertheless been concluded that the children have been severely shaken. news has previously discussed two such cases: Brodal believes it is impossible to draw certain conclusions about the cause of the triad findings. – That it is being done amazes me. It’s simply not good. Disagree with the criticism Chief physician and forensic pathologist Arne Stray-Pedersen is one of those who is frequently used in court cases as an expert on injuries to children. He disagrees with the criticisms made by the three professors. – It is not a ChatGPT that assesses damages. One, two, three, and then it’s diagnosis. He believes that it is a gross simplification when someone believes that they make a diagnosis based on a triad of injuries. – It is completely wrong if someone thinks that a forensic expert goes and looks at three injuries and then makes a diagnosis of shaking. Stray-Pedersen says that their task is to assess all symptoms and injuries individually, and then as a whole. Arne Stray-Pedersen works as a senior physician in the department of forensic medicine at OUS. Photo: Morten Waagø / news He says that they are considering several cases that never reach the courtroom. – In cases that are reported to the police, it is not the case that we always conclude that the damage has been caused. In cases where we conclude that, it is because we believe it is well documented. That the scientific documentation for the assessments is sustainable, he says. Heated debate The discussion about how the evidence should be interpreted in ragging cases is sharp and heated. In several countries, including Sweden, they have virtually stopped using the diagnosis. In Norway, the debate started in earnest when the retired neurosurgeon Knut Wester expressed concern that parents could be convicted innocently. He was quickly welcomed by large sections of the forensic community. – I think some have been convicted innocently Sidsel Rogde has worked as a forensic pathologist for almost 40 years. She has performed at least 12,000 forensic autopsies and has been a forensic expert in criminal cases many hundreds of times. She has also been a member of the Forensic Medicine Commission, which is responsible for quality assurance of the reports of the experts. Rogde says she has long been concerned about the bias shown by some experts in the courtroom. – The judges are completely dependent on receiving good and balanced information, she says. She believes that since the professional community is divided in this case, the experts are obliged to present uncertainties in their conclusions. – Based on three findings that are not visible on the outside of the body, you cannot actually say that a specific action has taken place, says Rogde. – What do you think might have happened in such court cases? – I think that there are quite a few people who have been convicted innocently. Professor emeritus Sidsel Rogde says she is concerned that the experts are taking on what she believes is the role of “children’s lawyer”. Photo: Morten Waagø / news Arne Stray-Pedersen says he does not recognize himself in this criticism. He has the impression that coroners are not foolproof. – I think that biased certainty does not belong with an expert. An expert must be accurate, careful and objective. – Hypothesis has become truth The professors claim that the diagnosis was launched as a hypothesis 50 years ago, but that it has gradually been accepted as a truth. – It is dangerous to life when hypotheses become truth, without being challenged. The environment have not been critical of this, but have rejected literature and research that does not fit their view, says Brodal. Brodal and Rogde, together with colleague Bjørnar Olaisen, have shared their point of view in the Journal of the Norwegian Medical Association. – History has shown how wrong it can go when the medical community acts as a herd without a sufficient professional basis, the three believe. Per Brodal and Sidsel Rogde accuse their colleagues of acting in a herd in a chronicle. Co-author Bjørnar Olaisen was not present when the photo was taken. Photo: Morten Waagø / news They refer, among other things, to the Bjugn case in the 1990s. There, several adults were suspected of abusing many children in the same nursery school. The experts initially believed that certain changes in the children’s abdomens were clear signs of sexual abuse. The changes turned out to be natural variations. The Bjugn case The Bjugn case was a case of sexual offenses that caused a great deal of attention in Norway in the 1990s. A male kindergarten assistant was accused, later prosecuted and acquitted, of sexual abuse against several children in a kindergarten in Bjugn municipality in Sør-Trøndelag. Several others were suspected but not charged. The experts in the Court of Appeal had concluded that the children had been exposed to sexual abuse, but the explanations were not believed in court. Strong criticism was leveled against the investigation, experts and the judge’s interviews. The case led to great debate, among other things, about methods for questioning children, the role of experts and the interpretation of abdominal examinations. An independent report from 2006 determined that the children had not been abused. Some of the children have subsequently retracted their explanations and several parents have expressed doubts as to whether their children were abused. A developmentally disabled man confessed in 2007 to assaulting two of the girls. (Source: Store norske lexikon) – Must stick to the academics Professor emeritus Bjørnar Olaisen has worked at the Institute of Forensic Medicine for almost 30 years and has extensive experience as an expert in criminal cases. Olaisen has carried out extensive research in forensic medicine, and is behind around 150 scientific publications. He has also been a leader in the Forensic Medicine Commission (DRK). Olaisen calls this a painful topic and says he understands that the experts have a difficult task. At the same time, he believes their task in court is clear. – My biggest concern is that as an expert you are stretching your own actual knowledge, that you are stretching it too far, says Olaisen. Professor emeritus Bjørnar Olaisen is concerned that the experts may go beyond their duties in court. Photo: Private He believes it is important that the expert does not get too involved in the case, but relates to what one has to contribute professionally. – They should not say anything about what they think has happened, but about what they know. – The court that will judge During the debate about what evidence is needed to convict parents of child abuse, several have expressed concern for children’s safety and legal protection. Brodal, Rogde and Olaisen believe that it is not the medical experts’ task in the courtroom. – This cannot be said clearly enough. It is not their task to ensure the legal security of the parties. That task rests with the court. Hi! Care to share some immediate thoughts? Or do you have specific tips that we should take a closer look at? We are a group of news journalists who have reported on rag shaking and violence against children since 2018. Signal: + 47 928 58 483 Published 10.10.2024, at 22.24
ttn-69
– Think someone may have been innocently convicted – news Trøndelag – Local news, TV and radio
