Barely a year ago, a father stood accused of possessing fillers and mistreating his then three-month-old son. The baby ended up on a ventilator and suffered life-threatening injuries. The experts who described the injuries in court, and assessed what they could have caused, disagreed. Did the injuries come from rag shaking and/or other violence to the head? Or could the injuries be caused by illness? Professionals and researchers all over the world have argued for several years about the diagnosis of rag shaking, also known as Shaken baby syndrome, which is well enough proven through science and research. The man was convicted in the district court, but in the appeal case in the court of appeal he was acquitted. The court could not disregard the doubts of the experts as to whether the injuries could have other causes than violence. The son is now completely healthy and lives with his parents. Being criticized for being in agreement During the trial, the defenders criticized the Forensic Medicine Commission (DRK). Before the medical experts can present their findings to the court, DRK must have checked the quality of the work that has been done. Criticism of the commission was based, among other things, on the lack of counter votes. The commission only has members who represent one professional view in the fillers debate: They believe the fillers diagnosis is real. Statements from experts who believe that the injuries can be caused by illness receive several critical comments You can read the entire criticism in the judgment from the Borgarting Court of Appeal, and DRK’s mention of him in its annual report, in the fact box. Criticism of the Forensic Medicine Commission From the judgment in the Borgarting Court of Appeal: … The central point in the defenders’ criticism of the commission is that the opposing voices against the fact that the triad could be caused by rag shaking or other violence to the head are not represented in the commission. The majority agrees with the defenders that the commission’s remarks bear the stamp of this to a certain extent. The majority also finds reason to mention that some members of the commission have engaged in the public debate on the meaning of the triad, while at the same time they have quality-assured statements in this case. Depending on the circumstances, this may weaken confidence in the objectivity of the Commission’s work with these declarations. From DRK’s annual report: … It was further pointed out in the judgment that the commission has members who only represent one professional view, and that statements from experts who have the same view do not receive critical remarks. Statements from experts who represent alternative points of view are met with more criticism. The commission is aware that the members can be perceived as “sitting on several sides of the table”. – The professional community protects each other Frode Sulland and Henriette Willix were the defenders of the man who was acquitted of having the filler strip the son. Sulland believes that the commission stands out as an actor that wants to defend its own professional positions. – This then seems like a small professional environment where you protect each other, and which new and critical voices do not dare to come forward, says Sulland. He believes that the DRK favors those who believe that the disputed filler diagnosis is real, and that this weakens the credibility of the commission. – That will lead to a gaggle of dissenting votes. Together, this leads to the cases being illuminated one-sidedly, which in turn can lead to erroneous judgments and miscarriages of justice. Henriette Willix and Frode Sulland were the defenders of the man who was acquitted of having his son drugged in the Borgarting Court of Appeal. They believe that the Forensic Commission takes a position and is biased. Photo: Morten Waagø / news Using “generally accepted knowledge” The head of DRK refutes the criticism and says that, on the other hand, they only do what they are supposed to do. – As professional auditors, which is actually a commission, we have to take into account the current understanding of the phenomenon, explains Karl Heinrik Melle. How the Forensic Medicine Commission works The Commission’s main task is to check the quality of forensic declarations and statements given by experts in criminal cases. The commission is divided into the following specialist groups: Group for forensic pathology and clinical forensic medicine, Group for toxicology, Group for genetics and Group for psychiatry Each case is dealt with as a general rule by three or at least two members. First, they consider the case separately. Then they check what the others have done. They then make a joint statement. Any disagreement (dissent) must be stated in the statement. The cases are assessed against what is the prevailing view or understanding of the phenomenon in the professional environment. Members cannot assess their own declarations or declarations from their own workplace. The commission also calls in foreign experts when necessary. Positions in the Forensic Medicine Commission are advertised publicly. The Appointments Council assesses relevant candidates and submits an advisory recommendation to the Norwegian Civil Rights Administration, which has been delegated the task by the Ministry of Justice and Emergency Preparedness. The ministry appoints members to the recommendations council. Source: The Forensic Medicine Commission What is the prevailing view and what research is most emphasized is up to the medical community, according to Melle. The commission evaluates the reports against what is considered “generally accepted medical knowledge”. – But if there is new research or new knowledge that indicates that the prevailing understanding must be changed, then it will of course also be changed in practice both from the expert community and the commission. Melle says that it happened after the so-called Bjugn case. Research then showed that findings one thought indicated sexual abuse were actually completely normal findings in children’s abdomens. – But as far as I can see now, there has not been that type of research in this field, says Melle. Karl Heinrik Melle hopes that there will be new research that will take the discussion in the field further. Photo: Erlend Laanke Solbu / news – A straitjacket Defense attorney Sulland says he understands that one must have outer limits for the scientific basis, but thinks this could quickly become what he calls a straitjacket. – When you are in an area with major discussions, major professional controversy, both nationally and internationally, it becomes a completely unacceptable way to delimit the expertise, says Sulland. Competence determines Melle confirms that there are no members in the group that deal with these cases who stand for the alternative view of rag shaking, i.e. that the injuries can be caused by illness. – There will be a tendency for the professional environment that represents a prevailing view of a subject area to be the one that dominates both among the professional auditors and the experts who issue the declarations, says Melle. It is not DRK that nominates or decides who will sit on the commission, but the nominating council. According to Melle, there is nothing to prevent an applicant with an alternative view from being given a place on the commission as long as the person concerned has the right skills. – Cannot have members because DRK is divided into four professional groups. Forensic pathologist and professor emeritus at the University of Oslo, Torleiv O. Rognum, heads the group for forensic pathology and clinical forensics who deal with the ragging cases. He believes that the members must be those who are best qualified and who best master the subject, and cannot be selected based on what they think in the professional debate. – The choice of who will assess a declaration is made by those in the management group who do not come from the professional environment where the declaration was drawn up, says Torleif Rognum. Photo: Morten Waagø / news – It is not the commission itself that selects those who sit there. It is professional competence and experience that is emphasized by the selection board, not what the applicants think in various questions. – How did they maintain the control function internally if they only represent one side of the debate? – There are two important factors: ability and competence. I will therefore not be asked to distribute or assess a declaration from my professional environment in Oslo, explains Rognum. Wasn’t a topic for the recommendations council Former head of the recommendations council, Bjørn K. Soknes, helped select the members of the group for forensic pathology and clinical forensic medicine, who are in office now and until 2027. He says that it is completely coincidental that no one is responsible for it the alternative view of rag shaking is included. – I think it is simply that they have not applied. I also don’t know if it would have been relevant to take them in, if they had applied. After all, they can’t get in just because they have their own theory linked to the diagnosis of fillers. They must also satisfy the other requirements to be on the commission. According to Soknes, the recommendations council focused on putting together a group that had broad expertise and that would be able to handle all types of declarations that they receive. The sight of rag shaking was not something they talked about. – I can say with 100 percent certainty that there was no theme on any of the days we gathered as a setting body. – This is not something we wanted, but a result of who has applied, says Bjørn K. Soknes, who was head of the recommendation council for the Norwegian Broadcasting Corporation between 2015 and 2023. Photo: Morten Andersen / news – Will use the qualification principle Katharina Rise is the new leader for the setting council. – Will they ensure that there are representatives from both sides of the debate the next time members are appointed? – We will use the qualification principle as the leading principle for appointments and which generally applies to government appointments here as well. This means that the best qualified applicant will be appointed, she wrote in an e-mail to news. Same experts with multiple roles Both news and Klassekampen have previously mentioned that there are three experts who repeat themselves in the ragging cases. The three are also members, or have been members, of the Forensic Medicine Commission. Few forensic doctors in Norway ensure that those who go on as experts in the majority of ragging cases also sit on the Forensic Medicine Commission. This means that the expert can be an expert in a case, and next time check the report of an expert with whom the relevant person cooperates in the commission. – I can understand that defense lawyers find the connection problematic. But the commission only checks written statements, and has no other role in the legal process. It is just one of many pieces of evidence, answers Melle. According to Melle, it is impossible to do it in any other way since the environment is so small. He underlines that the Ministry of Justice and Emergency Preparedness has concluded that competence is the hallmark. 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 ragging and violence against children since 2018. Signal: + 47 928 58 483
ttn-69
Frode Sulland criticizes the Forensic Commission for being biased in ragging cases – news Trøndelag – Local news, TV and radio
