– If there is something we do not want, it is judicial murder. That is what the experienced Kripos investigator Kåre Svang tells news. For many years, he has worked with violence, abuse and murder of children. In a number of cases in recent years, news has reported on the professional dispute surrounding rag shaking. The question is whether the head injuries in such cases must necessarily stem from violence and shaking – or whether there can be other explanations. The professional communities in Norway are divided. This inflamed and polarized expert debate around rag shaking creates great uncertainty for the police who investigate these cases involving babies with serious head injuries. – The problem arises when you have disagreements among experts. If you are not sure whether a child is exposed to a violent and criminal act, says Svang. There is professional disagreement about the diagnosis of Shaken baby syndrome. The hypothesis has been that the child was shaken so violently, that it could cause acute brain damage with subdural and retinal haemorrhages. Illustration: TOM BOB PERU ARONSEN / news Disagreement about rag shaking (Shaken baby syndrome) “Shaken baby syndrome” is thought to be the result of mistreatment of infants and toddlers. The hypothesis has been that the child was shaken so violently, that it could cause acute brain damage with subdural and retinal haemorrhages. The shaking of the child is believed to trigger strong forces and correspondingly large head injuries. “Shaken baby syndrome” is characterized by a so-called triad of injuries: Brain haemorrhage outside the brain (subdural haemorrhage), haemorrhages inside the eyes (retinal haemorrhage) and other damage to brain tissue. There is a lack of scientific documentation as to whether this is correct. There is professional disagreement about the diagnosis internationally, but the Norwegian professional community believes the condition is real. A Swedish literature review (SBU report) from 2016 of nearly 3,700 research articles on “Shaken baby syndrome” concludes that there is limited knowledge base (low quality evidence) that the symptom triad can be linked to traumatic shaking, and that there is insufficient knowledge base (very low quality evidence) for the triad’s diagnostic safety in traumatic shaking. The SBU report has received criticism for alleged methodological weaknesses and contrived themes. A so-called consensus report from 2018 asserts that the rag shaking diagnosis is a widely recognized medical diagnosis. There are various theories as to what the bleeding in the head can be due to, if the cause is not rag shaking. It can be due to complications during childbirth or congenital hydrocephalus. Reference is also made to studies which show that a large proportion of children are born with a subdural haemorrhage. This often disappears by itself. Opponents of the term “Shaken baby syndrome” believe that many caregivers have been innocently convicted of having stuffed their child. At the same time, there are undoubtedly cases of child abuse in such cases. The professional community in Norway has gradually moved away from the term “Shaken baby syndrome” as this says more about the mechanism than you want to know in some cases. Instead, the term “inflicted head injury” or “Abusive head trauma” (AHT) is used. AHT takes into account that the injuries can be caused by several factors, such as shaking in combination with blunt force. Since there is doubt and disagreement among medical experts, which in turn has major consequences for the legal process, research has also been done on this in Norway. In 2020 and 2021 respectively, a legal and a medical research report came out which concluded that several parents may have been wrongly convicted. Both reports received strong criticism from the country’s leading forensic pathologists. news knows of at least four convicted parents and carers in so-called ragging cases who have requested their cases be reopened at the Readmission Commission. (Sources: Norsk Helseinformatikk, Store norske lexikon, Statens beredning för medicinsk och social evaluation and news) Get other evidence In these so-called patchwork cases, the medical conclusions are very important. There is often not much other evidence, and there are rarely witnesses in these cases involving infants. – Therefore, the case must be based much more on medical conclusions than in an “adult case”, Svang points out. If the police and the prosecution are to proceed with a criminal case, they must be convinced that the injuries are due to violence and other criminal acts. And they must be sure that the evidence will hold up in a court case, says the Kripos investigator. – If there are gaps in the medical conclusions, then the police do not have the evidentiary basis they should have to issue an indictment. It would then be correct to drop the case. The little girl from Ringerike was barely four months old. The parents have always maintained their innocence. Photo: Anne Mone Nordahl / news Several cases have been dropped In August 2021, the Attorney General decided that the case against a couple of parents from Ringerike should be dropped based on the state of the evidence. They were charged with having stuffed their 11-week-old daughter, so that she died of her injuries. In April 2022, it happened again: the Attorney General concluded that the case against two foster parents in Levanger had to be dropped after an extensive investigation. The foster father was charged with ragging his five-month-old foster son so that the baby died from the injuries. The case was dismissed following the state of the evidence. State prosecutor Kaia Strandjord at the Trøndelag state prosecutor’s office says that they had expert reports which indicated that the foster son had been exposed to trauma, i.e. inflicted violence. Photo: news The prosecution lacked objective evidence that could substantiate the suspicion that the baby had been stuffed, state attorney Kaia Strandjord tells news. – For example bruises on the child, or possibly others who have been present who could have spoken about the use of violence. Furthermore, the injuries to the child were not entirely clear, says Strandjord. – How has the professional disagreement about rag shaking among experts affected the prosecution’s work with such cases? – The requirements for evidence have been tightened. We have to find and search for more evidence and points of evidence to be able to establish that a ragging has taken place. The court: Can’t draw firm conclusions In December 2022, a father in his 30s was acquitted by the Borgarting Court of Appeal after having been accused of drugging and injuring his three-month-old son six years earlier. A total of 17 experts had to explain themselves to the court’s seven judges. The Court of Appeal pointed out in the judgment that the mechanism between the various head injuries and concussions is not known: “It is also a factor that the scientific basis is under development. With further research, the probability that the three aforementioned findings are due to rag shaking can either be strengthened or weakened. No definite conclusions can therefore be drawn at the present time. According to the majority’s assessment, there are no external findings at [sønnen] which substantiates that [faren] have fillers [sønnen].” This judgment is important because it takes the position that these internal findings in a child’s head are not sufficient evidence in themselves, explains lawyer Henriette Willix. She and Frode Sulland were defenders of the father, who was acquitted. Photo: Morten Waagø / news Defense lawyers Henriette Willix and Frode Sulland believe that the court’s decision should have significance for other similar cases. – Both for cases that have been sentenced, but also for cases that are now under investigation where these findings are the basis. It is too uncertain, and the Court of Appeal says that clearly in its judgment, says Willix to news. Several ragging cases have been requested to be reopened Recently, news told the story of former daycare worker Rita (53), who is fighting for the chance to clean herself. She has been convicted of killing one-year-old Martine in 2006, and is still serving her four-year prison sentence. Rita has submitted her second petition for readmission to the Readmission Commission. Rita is scheduled to be released on parole in May. Several experts in her case believed that the extensive head injuries on Martine were compatible with inflicted violence and rag shaking Photo: Morten Waagø / news In addition to Rita, news knows of three other convicts in similar cases who have submitted petitions to the Reinstatement Commission recently: A father who was sentenced to one year in prison by the Borgarting Court of Appeal for drugging his four-month-old son A father who was sentenced to ten months in prison in the Gulating Court of Appeal for drugging his six-week-old son A mother who was sentenced to one year in prison by Eidsivating Court of Appeal for having stuffed his two-month-old son Hey! Care to share some immediate thoughts? Or do you have specific tips that we should take a closer look at? Please contact. We are a group of news reporters who have been reporting on this topic since 2018, and we work to uncover possible miscarriages of justice within this field in the judiciary.Signal: +47 970 14 290
ttn-69
The police must drop cases where babies have head injuries – not enough evidence – news Trøndelag
