THE recent spate of incorrect convictions for alleged non-accidental injuries to babies once again prompts the question of how expert witnesses are chosen, trained and helped to maintain their knowledge of supposedly enhanced opinion expression.
The use of improved imaging techniques and procedures in our local hospitals is ostensibly giving rise to enhanced detection rates for assault on babies.
An awkward alternative explanation is usually ignored: that what is actually being observed
is a previously unknown or under-estimated frequency of various temporary neo-natal conditions such as increased tendency to bleeding under the skull or behind the eye, unusually large movement of skull bones, and even hairline metaphyseal fractures.
Additionally the images themselves are often of degraded quality, resulting from imperfect positioning, squirming, kicking babies who may be banging their heads and legs during X-rays.
The resulting images may be passed to remote “experts” who are excessively prone to over-interpretation of ambiguous imperfect images as indicants of physical abuse, whilst steadfastly deaf to any suggestions that the injuries might be accidental or even artefacts of the imaging or later interpretations.
Additionally, there are well-documented cases of unusual symptoms which in reality are rare but serious medical conditions, such as reduced ability to excrete salt. Such symptoms easily give rise to faulty expert opinion of deliberate poisoning. Juries are notoriously prone to believe expert opinion over eye-witnesses or the lack of suggestive circumstances.
Finally, faulty guilty verdicts erroneously re-inforce the experts’ opinion, in a circular argument which developes over many similar cases. The result is that more and more entirely innocent parents are being falsely convicted or banned by the state from contact with their children.
We should call for an urgent thorough investigation into the use of expert witnesses in all relevant areas of law, including physical, sexual, and emotional harm cases, and including Family Court cases.
Quite apart from the conviction of the innocent or denial of parental contact, there will be an increasing reluctance of parents to take their children to A&E, lest an examining doctor, fearful of career prospects for failing to spot obvious injuries, should pass on to the police or social services entirely unfounded opinions of non-accidental harm.
Roy Everett
East Anglia Representative
FACT (Falsely Accused Carers
and Teachers)
Ipswich
