It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
One of the inexplicable elements of the decision was the tribunal’s finding that Dr. Squier had erred by testifying to biomechanical issues without any expertise in biomechanics—although the prosecution experts who testified in the hearings were, like Dr. Squier, physicians with no apparent specialized training in biomechanics (Dr. Richard Bonshek, ophthalmic pathologist; Prof. Rupert A. Risdon, pediatric forensic pathologist; Dr. Neil Stoodley, neuroradiologist; and Prof. Colin Smith,
Forensic pathology professor Bo Erik Ingemar Thiblin of Uppsala University, for example, had explained how circular reasoning in the early shaken baby papers had allowed the theory to become established without scientific proof, the same argument that convinced the Swedish Supreme Court to revisit the legal status of shaken baby theory last year. Dr. Thiblin is an expert in epidemiology, the study of patterns, causes, and effects in health conditions, a complex field that emphasizes assessment and analysis of the known facts. In a triumph for circularity, the tribunal rejected his testimony with this explanation: It was clear that Professor Thiblin did not believe in the concept of shaken baby syndrome, and his view of the literature was coloured by that. He was critical of the methodology of all the research literature in relation to the subject because of its perceived circularity bias. The tribunal considered that his expert opinion on non-accidental head injury lacked credibility; therefore the tribunal attached limited weight to his evidence.
You provided expert opinion evidence outside your field of expertise by...
8. The tribunal took into account the advice of the Legal Assessor and determined that the evidence of Professor F would not assist in terms of the facts which are under consideration. Therefore, the tribunal determined that Professor F’s evidence was not relevant and should not be admitted.
You submitted that the report of Dr H may include relevant and admissible evidence; however a substantial part of her report is irrelevant and therefore inadmissible.
The tribunal will determine what weight to attach to it in due course.
If it turns out that some of the evidence is irrelevant the tribunal will ignore it.
Dr K, (Principal Engineer: Biomedical and Mechanical Engineering, Design Research Engineering, Novi, Michigan) 39. Dr K was very knowledgeable and enthusiastic about biomechanics, his field of expertise. He gave consistent answers with regard to his interpretation of the biomechanical literature. Having described the extensive education and experience that qualified him as an expert in the field, the tribunal was surprised that he appeared to believe that any competent person who read the biomechanical literature could give expert evidence about it in court. This paradox led the tribunal to doubt the credibility of some of his evidence.
The tribunal is fully aware that it is not empanelled to determine either the relevance of the triad to AHT or who was right in the cases before it. However, it has taken into account the background and context evidence it has heard, within the strict constraints of the Allegation that you face, in examining your expertise and the way in which you wrote your reports and gave evidence in court.
White children were more likely to be identified with ASD than black or Hispanic children. About 1 in 63 white children, 1 in 81 black children, and 1 in 93 Hispanic children were identified with ASD.