When an infant enters the hospital with serious head injuries, and it is suspected that the child has been abused, you are completely dependent on medical experts who can explain how the child may have received these injuries. But there is great disagreement among the professional experts as to what is the cause of the injuries. The question is whether the child is a fillerista, also called Shaken Baby Syndrome, or whether the injuries may be due to illness. A month ago, it became known that the daycare provider who has been convicted of killing Martine at 13 months, will have her case reopened. She has served time in prison and has always claimed that she did not hurt Martine. Thinks it’s problematic In addition to the nanny, news knows of at least four other convicts in similar cases who have submitted petitions to the Readmissions Commission recently. Parents who believe they have been innocently convicted of harming their own child want to have their case tried again. A review carried out by news shows that there are three medical experts who appear again in these five cases. Defense lawyer Henriette Willix believes that a small group of experts has too much power in the so-called ragging cases. Photo: Morten Waagø / news Defense attorney Henriette Willix is behind several of the petitions, and is working on several applications for reopening. She believes it is problematic that the three experts go again, because they usually conclude that the child’s injuries are due to violence, and not congenital disease. – Because what on earth do we do if these people have made a mistake? New trial, same expert In several of the cases, the same experts have been used throughout one and the same case, both in the investigation and in several courts. This means that they have examined the injuries to the child for the police and contributed to the investigation. In addition, they have either been court-appointed experts or expert witnesses, in both the District Court and the Court of Appeal. news has been given access to court books and judgments, and our review shows the following: Law professor Ulf Stridbeck at the University of Oslo has written in a research article that it is problematic that the same experts are used in one and the same criminal case “Because the experts’ assessments mostly is decisive for the question of guilt, one should avoid using the same expert all the way from crime scene investigation, via hospital investigation to being a judicially appointed expert in court”. These are the three medical experts who go again; Torleiv O. Rognum, professor emeritus in forensic medicine at the University of Oslo. Head of the group for forensic pathology and clinical forensic medicine, The Forensic Medicine Commission (DRK) Arne Stray-Pedersen, senior physician in forensic pathology and clinical forensic medicine at Oslo University Hospital. Member of the group for forensic pathology and clinical forensic medicine, DRK. Jens B. Grøgaard, senior physician and former head of the Children’s Clinic, Ullevål University Hospital. Member of the group for forensic pathology and clinical forensic medicine, DRK, until summer 2023. – Absurd simplification The three experts who are returning are Jens B. Grøgaard, Torleiv O. Rognum and Arne Stray-Pedersen. That Willix claims that the three usually conclude that the child’s injuries are due to violence, paediatrician Jens B. Grøgaard explains as follows: – Yes, that is correct because other causes of injuries do not usually lead to legal proceedings. I have had several cases where I have concluded other causes of injuries, and then the police drop the case. Chief physician and forensic pathologist Stray-Pedersen believes that it is an absurd simplification to claim that the three usually conclude with violence. – It is making fun of forensic diagnostics and not taking the child’s or parents’ legal security seriously, he says. – As a forensic pathologist, I have to deal with current medical knowledge, that is, what is written in medical textbooks and which is based on scientific research. We must be open to new research findings and knowledge, but alternative theories must also be documented with research, says Arne Stray-Pedersen. Photo: Morten Waagø / news Stray-Pedersen believes that it is not surprising if people who work in the same professional field have fairly similar professional views. – Fractures, bruises, haemorrhages under the dura mater and haemorrhages in the retinas of the eyes are most often caused by the child having been exposed to mechanical trauma, i.e. violence or an accident. In rare cases, illness may have played a role. My job as a forensic pathologist is to document the injuries and investigate the causes. – Don’t think the same All three are critical of defense lawyer Willix trying to portray the experts as a close-knit group who think the same. Jens B. Grøgaard reminds that the defenders can veto the proposal for court-appointed experts if they believe they constitute a small group. Photo: Ole Jørgen Kolstadbråten / news – We do not represent a group, but individuals, says Grøgaard. – How head injuries in children can occur has long been debated in professional journals, in open professional meetings and in court, says professor emeritus and forensic pathologist Torleiv Rognum. – There should have been more On the other hand, both Rognum and Stray-Pedersen agree that the environment is small and that there should have been more forensic pathologists. – Child forensic medicine is a separate special field in forensic medicine. We only have 10–15 forensic pathologists, and we only have a couple or three who work especially with children, says Stray-Pedersen. Rognum believes that a separate specialty in the field would be an advantage for both recruitment, education, capacity and research. – This particularly applies to forensic examinations of children. The wider an environment is, the safer it is, he says. Professor emeritus Torleiv O. Rognum. Photo: Morten Waagø / news But both believe that it is absolutely necessary that the same person who maps the injuries a child has, and who assists the police during the investigation, is also allowed to testify in the courtroom. If the requirements for legal certainty are decreasing, Willix says she sees the problem that the environment is small. But she believes that the work has not been done well enough to bring out new voices. – A small environment cannot mean that we should reduce the requirements for legal certainty, says Willix. Willix believes that if several of the cases end up being reopened and acquitted, the use of few experts will be one of the main reasons. – This is a result of both the prosecution, the experts and the courts being willing to accept that such a small group of people have been given such great power, says Willix. news is aware that at least five convicts in so-called ragging cases have submitted petitions to the Reinstatement Commission recently. Photo: Morten Waagø / news Perceived as an attack In a number of cases in recent years, news has reported on the heated professional dispute over how the evidence should be interpreted in racketeering cases. Stray-Pedersen says he feels that many questions are now being asked about these child abuse cases, and that he experiences the criticism as an attack on the Norwegian forensic professional community. – If it is the case that I or Norwegian forensic doctors should no longer be used, then I think it requires better arguments and a broader discussion. We must be confident that there is sufficient forensic expertise in Norwegian hospitals. This equipment is used to conduct a forensic examination of a dead person. Photo: Morten Waagø / news Grøgaard is positive that the readmission commission will make a new assessment of these cases, especially since there may have been developments in the subject. – In the course of 10–15 years, something may have changed, so that you can see it from another side. I think it is reassuring that there are such possibilities, that you can take up a case that you believe may have been misjudged, says Grøgaard. Facts about experts in criminal cases Doctors’ medical expertise and assessments are often in demand in cases before the courts. They may be asked to be a witness, expert witness or court-appointed expert. Court-appointed expert: Appointed by the court to give an expert opinion on a matter in a case of which the members of the court cannot otherwise be expected to have sufficient knowledge. The court is responsible for ensuring that the case is fully disclosed. Anyone appointed by the court to serve as an expert is obliged to undertake the role. Before the court appoints someone as an expert, it should usually ask him if he is willing. If he declares his unwillingness, he should not be appointed if there is an opportunity to appoint someone else, cf. strpl. § 138 The prosecuting authority can request the court’s appointment of experts for use in the investigation, cf. strpl. § 237 Experts must assist the court, the statements are indicative and do not bind the court in its decision on the case. Expert witness: An expert witness stands in an intermediate position between witnesses and experts. An expert witness is appointed by one of the parties, and contributes both with the actual course of events and professional assessments. Appointed by the party, gives an account of experiences, observations and makes professional assessments The rules for witnesses apply In civil cases, expert witnesses can follow the negotiations in their entirety and ask questions unless they have to explain the course of events Remuneration must be agreed with the client (Source: Legeforeningen) Hi !Want 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
Three experts repeat themselves in the child abuse cases sent to the Reinstatement Commission – news Trøndelag – Local news, TV and radio
