Shaken Babies: What's the Truth? Panorama

Shaken babies -

a father who harmed his child.

I hate him. That's a strong word, but I do hate him and I always will.

The parent convicted of shaking who protests his innocence.

You should dig deeper before you ruin their life.

..the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God.

And the doctor found guilty of

giving irresponsible and dishonest evidence in court.

I can find nothing to support the hypothesis

that shaking was involved.

The stakes could not be higher.

Most miscarriages of justice can often be traced back

to an expert who has ventured outside their field of expertise.

Tonight, I'm on a journey into the heart of a row

over whether doctors can be certain when a baby has been shaken.

If I thought I had done anything wrong, I would have shut up.

Immediately.

He's got a really good sense of humour.

He constantly makes people laugh every day. He makes me laugh.

Charlie is nine years old and he has boundless energy.

He loves talking to people and meeting new people.

I've come to meet Charlie and his mother Joanne

at their home in Huddersfield.

-Where's Alison?

-I'm just here, Charlie.

Charlie was a healthy baby.

-You all right?

-Yeah.

Now, he's almost completely blind.

Is the light on at the moment?

On.

On, yes.

Off.

It was a normal delivery and everything.

When he was 15 weeks old, he collapsed

and was rushed to hospital.

They didn't think he was going to make it through the night

and he was just this tiny, tiny little baby and having these

massive seizures, which were just horrible to watch.

His father, who was looking after him, said he'd choked.

But that explanation didn't add up for doctors,

so both parents fell under suspicion.

The doctor did ask me if Charlie had suffered any trauma.

He said, "Has he had any falls?

"Has he banged his head? "Has anything happened to him?"

The police eventually charged Charlie's father with harming him.

At the start of his trail, he admitted shaking his son violently.

I hope he lives with what he did to Charlie

for the rest of his life, every day.

He was jailed for four years for causing grievous bodily harm.

I hate him.

That's a strong word, but I do hate him and I always will.

Charlie continues to live with the effects of being shaken.

He suffered bleeding on the brain, behind the eyes

and brain swelling.

Together, these three symptoms are called the triad.

For most doctors, they point towards a diagnosis of what used

to be called shaken baby syndrome.

It's now known as abusive head trauma.

Last year, hospitals recorded more than 100 cases

of babies with these symptoms.

We are now more confident that that so-called triad

of symptoms or signs, the bleeding behind the eyes,

the bleeding of the head and the sudden collapse,

we are more confident about that

as being caused by an abusive injury.

Children's doctor Geoff Debelle says there is good scientific evidence.

It's the mainstream view.

Nothing's easy when it comes to this area,

but figures are up around 85% or over

in terms of probability, based on systematic reviews.

So, for every 100 babies with the triad of symptoms,

most doctors think further evidence of abuse

will usually be found in about 85 -

leaving 15 cases where we can't be sure

or where natural causes are discovered.

Are these cases that keep you awake at night?

Yeah.

They do.

In what way?

Am I wrong?

That's the one.

How sure can I be?

Could it have been something else?

There are, though, a small number of doctors who believe the triad

is not strong enough evidence to diagnose abuse.

I would think it may well be possible to shake a baby

sufficiently that you kill it.

I'm sure that if you're violent enough, you could do that.

But I don't think we can say

because we have the triad that shaking has taken place.

Doctor Waney Squier studies babies' brains.

Her research into how they develop

and how brain cooling can help treat injury has been a ground-breaking.

She believes there's a lack of proof

for the mainstream view on shaking.

There is very little science in shaken baby syndrome.

It's become a label.

Virtually all of the data supporting shaken baby syndrome

have taken babies who had the triad and called them abuse.

We're not there at the time of collapse.

We don't know if these babies have been shaken or not.

Dr Squier gives expert evidence in court, usually for the defence.

In 2010, she was reported to the doctor's regulator,

the General Medical Council or GMC.

She's accused of misrepresenting research,

going beyond her expertise and misleading the courts.

For the past 12 months, we've followed Dr Squier.

She fears being struck off, no longer allowed to practise medicine.

I'm still going to fight it very hard because I think that

would be completely wrong and completely disproportionate.

I'm at the end of a long career,

over 30 years studying baby brains.

Today, she's on her way to the latest hearing.

She estimates she's given evidence in 50 cases

involving allegations of shaking.

In the spotlight are six where judges were highly critical of her.

Now, there's a seventh -

an appeal against an adoption.

The judges complained they didn't know Dr Squier

was under investigation.

It's a long day,

which goes against her.

I'm still a bit numb.

I think it needs to sink in.

The hearing concludes she must inform the lawyer

she's working with that she's facing allegations.

She says she always does.

Back at work in Oxford, she checks the GMC website.

She remains defiant.

You've got this feeling inside where you just feel sick.

I'm not going to be beaten up by a small group of people

who are determined to get me out of the courts.

The GMC insists Dr Squier's views on shaking

are not under scrutiny,

just how she gives her evidence.

Judges said that evidence of shaken baby syndrome...

I first met Dr Squier more than a decade ago.

She once agreed with most doctors that the triad

of brain and eye symptoms pointed to a child being shaken.

I went along with what I was taught at medical school

and what was in the textbooks

and believed that shaken baby syndrome existed,

that if we had the triad, I would write the diagnosis

of shaken baby syndrome.

She even gave evidence for the prosecution in about ten cases

where parents were accused of shaking their baby.

I remember being here at the Royal Courts of Justice in London

in 2005.

I was reporting on a case where a mother was appealing

against her conviction and Dr Squier had given evidence

that had helped convict her.

This time, Dr Squier was appearing for her.

Dr Squier had changed sides,

giving evidence against a conviction she'd helped to secure.

The mother's conviction was quashed.

There was new research into abusive head injuries in children.

It reported that the brain damage doctors expected to see

hadn't been found.

It made Dr Squier question the whole shaken baby diagnosis.

That's why she believes it's essential to challenge science

in cases where so much is at stake.

I think one of the favourite parts of being a dad is feeding time.

These are precious photos for Ela.

They show her brother Ryszard Spiewak in 2008

with his newborn son Piotr.

Unfortunately, I never had a chance to meet him.

I hoped for it, but it...

didn't happen.

She was in Poland, Ryszard was in Peterborough.

When Piotr was six weeks old,

he collapsed whilst in his father's care.

Four days later he died.

My mum called me and she told me

that my brother was arrested on the suspicion of murdering his son.

And I cried my eyes after hearing this.

At the trial, the prosecution pointed to bleeding

and brain swelling, that suggested Piotr had been shaken.

He also appeared to have ten broken ribs and fractures to his skull.

It looked straightforward.

But defence experts discovered the skull fractures

were gaps in the bone caused by a genetic condition.

Some very senior people have

completely misinterpreted these findings.

A colleague of mine in Oxford looked at the scans

and picked up the diagnosis.

The prosecutor said, "Can we just stop the trial now and postpone it?"

My brother was released on bail, we thought...

"..This is it, he'll be released."

But that wouldn't be the end of the case.

These are some of the most difficult decisions that are made,

both by criminal courts

and family courts, where children can be taken into care.

I'm going to meet a retired High Court judge

who's presided over about a dozen cases

where shaking has been alleged.

In cases where children have been harmed,

allegedly by their parents, the stakes are extraordinary high

because in a criminal case, a parent is facing a long prison sentence.

In family cases, they are facing the loss of surviving children.

Decisions that can pull families apart.

One of the UK's leading barristers says it adds to the pressure

in cases that stand or fall by the medical evidence.

In the criminal law, we call for certainty.

You know, "Don't convict somebody," a judge will say,

unless you are sure that they are guilty.

And that draws people into levels of sureness.

"I am categorically sure that this baby couldn't have had

"these injuries unless it was shaken."

Somebody on the other side saying, "Well, actually, I don't think it would have taken very much."

It's the system that does it,

it turns people into dogmatic witnesses.

This area of medicine is a small world where experts know each other.

And Dr Squier is not the only one to have had a rethink.

-Hi.

-How are you?

I'm so sorry I couldn't be here for your party.

Dr Norman Guthkelch has just celebrated his 100th birthday.

He's one of the scientists who, more than 50 years ago,

helped identify the triad

by studying children who were shaken by their parents.

You can't just leap from an observation

to a conclusion of that sort

unless you're absolutely certain

that there's no other possibility.

He is also worried that some doctors are too quick to say

a child has been shaken.

No accusation of criminal activity should ever be made

without excellent reasons.

Welcome back, ladies and gentlemen.

Dr Squier travels the world giving evidence in cases

of alleged shaking.

She's in the United States for the trial of 34-year-old David Allen.

He's accused of killing his baby son.

Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth

and nothing but the truth, so help you God?

-I do.

-Kindly have a seat.

In the UK, filming isn't usually allowed in court, but here it is.

I can find nothing to support the hypothesis

that shaking was involved.

I cannot exclude there having been trauma, which left no mark,

and led to swelling.

Yet, David Allen admitted shaking, crushing and dropping

his nine-month-old son,

then retracted his confession.

Dr Squier accepts he may be guilty,

but can only comment on the child's brain damage.

She says there are other explanations she can't rule out,

such as a stroke.

It's what I've seen in a number of other cases

with obstruction of blood flow out of the brain.

Next, the sort of questioning she regularly faces in UK courts.

-Rib fractures could be caused by trauma.

-Yes.

And wrist fracture could be caused by trauma, correct?

All of those can be explained by trauma, isn't that true?

Ah, they can, but it doesn't fit the whole picture in this case.

According to you.

No, according to the findings, according to the evidence.

-Thank you.

-WOMAN:

-And underneath it...

Her disciplinary action is also on the agenda.

The prosecutor focuses on the cases the GMC is considering,

where others had diagnosed shaking.

And you were indicating that that could not be a diagnosis

made in those cases?

In all of those cases, I suggested that shaking was unlikely

because there were other more likely causes of their collapse.

After weighing all the evidence, the jury finds David Allen guilty.

He's now serving a 20-year prison sentence.

Well, I'm getting quite used to being

one of the few experts for the defence,

sometimes I'm the only one, that's just the way it is.

Partly, it's a funding issue,

but it's mostly because I'm one of the few people

who is willing to challenge this shaken baby hypothesis.

Back in the UK, Dr Squier moves the 160 miles from home

to a rented cottage near Manchester,

ready for the five-month hearing that will decide her future.

Just look, look at that.

Isn't that absolutely fantastic?

She does accept some parents hurt their children,

but she's accused of insisting there could be natural causes,

whilst ignoring evidence that strongly points to shaking.

The case being made against you is that whether it's HIV,

choking, thrombosis, anything however unsupported,

that you will still say, "This is not shaking."

That's the nub of what the GMC is saying.

I believe that's incorrect

in that in all of these cases,

my arguments for an alternative diagnosis WERE supported,

whereas the shaking hypothesis was NOT supported in any of these cases.

Have you quite simply become too fixed,

too engrossed in your standpoint on this?

I very much hope not

because I'm constantly reading the literature, I'm constantly

seeing what those who believe in shaken baby syndrome are writing.

I, whenever I can, go to meetings and discuss it with those

who are willing to discuss it

because it's too important to get wrong.

She's also accused of offering opinions

outside her particular specialism.

If any expert does that, it's serious.

Most, but not all,

but most miscarriages of justice can often be traced back

to an expert who has ventured

outside their field of expertise,

but has nevertheless maintained that aura of authority,

which has led to people placing a reliance on it

they shouldn't have done.

Sir Mark was the judge

in at least one of the cases for which she's criticised.

But he has concerns about a small number of experts

on both sides of the argument.

And I think there are some who simply will not accept

that shaking can cause the kind of injuries that are regularly seen

and there are others who are sometimes too ready

to come to the conclusion there has been shaking,

when actually, it may be a case that medical knowledge

simply does not yet fully understand the mechanisms.

Given these broader concerns,

some of Dr Squier's supporters

believe she's been unfairly targeted.

I expected a very boring talk, to be honest, I expected it...

Heather Kirkwood, an American lawyer,

thinks Dr Squier's problems can be traced back six years

to a conference in the States

for international experts on shaken baby cases.

She took careful notes at one workshop.

Well, within five minutes it was clear that this was a talk

on a coordinated plan to eliminate those who questioned

shaken baby syndrome, particularly in the courts in the UK.

Which must have caused him...

Colin Welsh, a detective inspector with the Metropolitan Police,

led the workshop.

He told delegates how convictions in the UK had increased.

He said he'd worked with lawyers and doctors

to question everything about defence experts.

"Qualifications, employment history, testimony,

"research papers presented by these experts."

His notes were obtained under the Freedom of Information Act.

They describe how two of the most high-profile defence experts

were facing disciplinary action.

"It is now inconceivable that the defence will be able to

"successfully deploy these experts in similar cases in the future."

One is Dr Squier, the other, Dr Marta Cohen.

I felt at some moments very down.

I even had my...

I have considered leaving the UK.

Dr Cohen has an international reputation for investigating

unexplained deaths in babies.

Everything that was said confirmed that there was a plan.

It's very sad because the only way that science can progress

is through debate.

The way that this has been treated is to silence science.

This is what I feel that they are just obliterating.

But the notes from the 2010 workshop also make DI Welsh's concerns clear.

He and others were worried by a number of cases

where people accused of harming children were acquitted.

His belief is that people who do bad things to children

are getting away with it and that you're helping them.

I very much hope we're not allowing child abusers to get away,

but my concern is that on the contrary, we're...

we're convicting or removing children from...

parents who haven't harmed their children because we haven't seen,

we haven't had enough emphasis on the natural causes of this triad.

..that their actions had cost the lives of...

Colin Welsh, who retired three years ago, hasn't commented.

The Metropolitan Police say they fully supported

his involvement in the 2010 conference.

Last October, Dr Squier's full hearing begins

at the Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service.

Over the next five months,

the GMC prosecutor details the case against Dr Squier.

It takes place away from cameras.

"She flouted the rules and was driven by a desire..."

"She gets a report that doesn't support her view,

"yet cracks on anyway with her..."

"We submit she acted irresponsibly in each case."

Her defence team fights back, saying all experts

provide some information outside their narrow specialism.

"The court will not be assisted by being left in ignorance

"that there are views opposing..."

"She did not give any evidence

"which was deliberately misleading or dishonest."

The panel retires to consider its decision.

Dr Squier is convinced cases like Ryszard Spiewak's

underline why scientific opinion should be challenged.

His trial was stopped when it was discovered a genetic abnormality

caused gaps in his son's skull.

They weren't fractures,

but Ryszard soon faced a second trial,

again accused of shaking Piotr.

He insisted he hadn't harmed him, that his baby had a fit.

Doctor Squier gave evidence in his defence.

We had a perfectly natural explanation for this.

This all could have been due to the malformation that this baby had,

the genetic problem.

But the prosecution said Ryszard

was a video game addict, angered by his crying son.

There was the triad of symptoms associated with shaking

and what appeared to be ten broken ribs.

He got senten...life sentenced with minimum 16 years.

We lost...

all the hope and...

..we didn't know what's going to happen next.

For six years now,

Ela and her mother have been visiting Ryszard in prison.

His case still worries Dr Squier,

so she discussed it with a leading geneticist.

He's funded new research

into the effect of Piotr's genetic condition on human ribs.

If it turns out to be linked to rib damage, then it could mean

Ryszard's conviction for murder is unsafe.

If there is any doubt in someone's case, you know,

you should dig deeper and...

..you should check every detail before you actually convict someone

and ruin their life.

-ALL:

-Happy birthday...

There's no doubt Charlie was shaken,

so his mum worries doctors won't be vigilant enough.

If Charlie's dad would have got away with what he'd done, I don't know...

how I would have lived with that.

She now campaigns to highlight the dangers of shaking.

She has a simple message for anyone who becomes tired or stressed

caring for a baby.

Walk away. Put the baby down. Take a break.

Let the baby scream or cry if it needs to,

that's not going to harm it or kill it.

But if they pick that baby up,

just a few seconds of shaking can cause that damage

that is going to affect them for the rest of their life.

The scientific arguments over shaken baby cases

will need to be resolved,

but that won't happen at disciplinary hearings,

according to the doctors' regulator.

The GMC and, indeed, the courts

are not a way of resolving scientific dispute.

We recognise that people have high passions around this area.

Ultimately they will be resolved by scientific experts

coming together to more of a shared view of what is happening.

Now, that's complex and difficult.

12 years ago, there was an equally bitter row over the way

doctors handled so-called cot deaths.

There was an inquiry which took the heat out of that dispute,

led by Baroness Kennedy.

I think it's very helpful to have

an inquiry that takes place

with a level of calm, where you can look at the evidence,

rather than turning on individuals.

We shouldn't close our minds down on the fact that

there may be truths on both sides.

I asked if the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health

would consider leading such a review.

The notion you put of a - if I can say it -

a Baroness Kennedy-like working group would be an ideal way forward.

I think I'll take you up on that idea.

We shouldn't be asking the courts to adjudicate on these arguments,

we should be doing it ourselves.

The college will discuss the idea at its next child protection meeting.

That will be too late for Dr Squier.

Last Friday, the disciplinary panel decided

she'd brought her profession into disrepute

through the evidence she gave in court.

'It concluded she'd been irresponsible,

'dishonest and misleading.'

Do you regret getting involved in these cases?

If I thought I had done anything wrong, I would have shut up.

Immediately. And gone back and hidden away.

I don't think I've done anything wrong.

And I think that, essentially, this will be shown.

In the next fortnight she's likely to be sanctioned.

She may be struck off.

So, we light it, but we can't touch it.

We're lighting the candle to raise awareness

for the children that have passed away.

At the heart of these arguments are children who need our protection.

The most important thing is the child and finding out exactly,

you know, what happened, getting the truth.

Finding that truth couldn't be more important for babies.

Dr Squier has been judged to be misleading in evidence she's given,

but that won't end the scientific row.

Only doctors can do that.