Pregnancy: "Baby Casey" Laverty's mother, Melissa Berest, had a problem during her pregnancy that medical professionals providing her prenatal care either ignored or overlooked. Melissa became obsessively concerned about "getting fat" and became at least borderline anorexic during her pregnancy. She refused to eat the healthy food John's mother cooked and lived on of bits of junk food like cookies and chips, no prenatal vitamins, 8-10 cups of coffee per day sweetened with about 2 cups of sugar. She was observed going through 5lb sacks of sugar every few days. She also smoked, before, during and after giving birth when she was still providing pumped breast milk. She only gained 10lbs during her pregnancy. She suffered from conditions like ADHD and hyperactivity, as well as physical conditions like her lifelong chronic eye infection--iritis, associated with vitamin C deficiency in some online reports. If there were other conditions, they are unknown at present. She had prenatal care at a clinic that took medical coupons but was not assigned to any doctor even for her delivery and no one seemed to notice anything amiss, so the level of "care" she received is questionable at best, but appears to have been negligent and uncaring. John worked long hours and often on his days off, and was less aware of her diet than his family, who only described her eating habits when interviewed for this research. No one else ever asked.

Birth: When she gave birth, Melissa hemorrhaged for 2 days, which led to the family being kept over at least one extra day at the hospital. The birth was not "normal" in that sense, although doctors who didn't bother to check the records or take any nutritional or social history said the delivery was "normal". This should have raised some red flags, but it wasn't even reported in the pediatric records.

Baby: Baby Casey should have been underweight, given the malnutrition and small weight gain of her mother, and yet had an appearance described as "normal". However, photographs taken a month later show an infant with abnormally puffy cheeks and lower mandible, with signs of both edema and slight wasting, pale, mottled skin, and swollen eyelids. Her photos look nearly identical to textbook examples of babies with Caffey's disease--infantile cortisol hyperostosis, which usually presents with a swollen lower face and rib/clavicle fractures. Online articles about ICH now describe it as possibly as a stage or manifestation of infantile scurvy (Barlow's disease) which was listed as a differential when Dr. Caffey first described the condition. However, he didn't believe it was Barlow's disease which usually only appeared after 6 months of poor diet, obviously unaware that chronic, subclinical scurvy can begin in the womb. ICH usually presents at birth or shortly after and resolves around 6 months, coincidentally (or not) when the diet becomes more varied, except in the rare cases where it takes a lethal turn and the infant dies.

Unidentified infant from textbook photos: diagnosis--Infantile Cortical Hyperostosis	Baby Casey forensic photos (B&W): diagnosis--Shaken Baby Syndrome

Unauthorized Vaccination: On the day AFTER she was born, not the "day of" according to John, someone came in to vaccinate the baby. John said "no vaccinations". In the case of his older daughter, Sierra (called SiSi), the parents claimed the right of personal exemption allowed in Washington State to deny all vaccinations based both on the mother's family history of severe adverse reactions, including the mother herself getting life-threatening case of flesh-eating bacterial infection immediately following her first and only vaccination--combined Strept A and Staph and the grandmother's (me) subsequent years of research on the subject of adverse reactions following this incident with an infection so virulent and contagious that my husband and I also contracted the infection from direct physical contact during a time of unusual susceptibility for both of us when we were under extreme stress, eating poorly, and were careless in avoiding contagion.

However, the hospital attendant or doctor took Baby Casey right out of John Laverty's arms and told him, "It's the law," indicating he had no choice in the matter. He didn't have enough information or knowledge to argue, but in Washington State personal exemptions are allowed. He had every legal right to refuse vaccination for his second infant daughter, just as he had for the first, at the insistence of that baby's mother. Not only that, but he heard them say "triple vax", a term he would have been unfamiliar with, while the medical records claim it was Hep B only. And John clearly remembers it took place on the second day of birth while the "corrected" pediatric records list it as the first day. This wouldn't have been significant to the parents, but it would have made a difference to a doctor who knew about the 72 hr. reporting window for vaccine reactions. It's possible he remembered wrong, but falsified records are also a possibility.

Hepatitis B vaccination has so many reported injuries that the public in France staged demonstrations against vaccinating with Hep B at birth and got it removed from the infant vaccination schedule. If Casey was given a triple vax, someone "jumped the gun," as hospitals have been know to do to get a head start on the enormous vaccine load now given to babies, and loaded this newborn with 3 different vaccines, all with known side effects including death. No other vaccination is listed at birth in the pediatric records, and all other records were probably based on the first one.

"Adverse Event?": Once again there was a discrepancy in what the parents recall and the pediatric records. Melissa Berest, Baby Casey's mother, later told investigators the following event took place on Thanksgiving Day. Casey was born on Nov. 20th. Thanksgiving was the 23rd. However, the pediatric records list it as the day after, on the 24th. Casey had a bad day. She was lethargic, slept more than usual, and didn't want to take her bottle of pumped breast milk. She gave a cry and when John immediately picked her up, her eyes rolled back in her head, she became unresponsive to voice and finger-snapping and appeared to stop breathing. He also noticed then that her skin seemed yellowish and there was a blue tint around her mouth.

The parents rushed her to the hospital and doctors there monitored her heart rate and breathing, as well as doing numerous tests. The close proximity of a possible apnea incident so soon after a vaccination should have spurred some suspicion of a possible vaccine adverse reaction...but nothing of this was written in the records. In fact, the pediatrician Dr. Clapper later treated the whole apnea incident dismissively claiming it was "undocumented" by anyone but the parents in spite of documented abnormalities in heart rate, breathing, poor responsiveness and test results which other doctors determined were indicative of an apnea event and other health issues. By the parent's recollections this put the reaction 2 days after the shot while the pediatric records indicate 4 days, outside of the required reporting time for an adverse vaccine reaction.

First hospitalization: The blood test given to Baby Casey showed infection with staph and strept and panicked the parents by telling them she had a "rare blood disease". She was also found to have high bilirubin levels and jaundice later than might be seen in other newborns where it resolves spontaneously. Before being released after 4-5 days, during which time her parents stayed with her at the hospital day and night until John was compelled to leave towards the end to save his job. The hospital forced Melissa to feed the baby every two hours, but Baby Casey was unable to nurse due to the shape of Melissa's breasts and nipples, so she was given expressed milk during that time, but when they left the hospital, her milk was so scanty that John immediately went out and got baby formula--Similac, because John was typically lactose intolerant as most Orientals are and feared Casey would be too. The Similac is soy-based, not a healthy milk substitute (no commercial milk substitutes are good for infants). One more notable event happened. When a medic held Casey's leg to take a blood sample from Casey's foot, he left a bruise on her thigh, which an outraged John called him on. It was the first sign of unusual bruising, but it was treated dismissively. Again, the pediatrician Dr. John Clapper ignored the medical findings. After 3 days of IV antibiotics, no sign of blood infection was found, and instead of reporting that it had been resolved by treatment, Dr. Clapper claimed that it probably never happened in the first place and was a "hospital error" from a presumably "contaminated" blood sample. The parents were left confused and upset by doctors who claimed the didn't know what was wrong, what happened, or what to do about it, which broke their trust with the doctors and that hospital as being reliable or competent. And because no one warned them, as required by law, about potential of adverse reactions to the vaccine, they had no idea that might have been involved.

Nurse consultation phone line: When Casey was being discharged from Mary Bridge Children's hospital, the parents were given a while business card with a nurse's "hotline" number to call if they had any questions or health issues to discuss. They were told that records were kept of the caller, the identity of the baby, and the nature of the call. They called this number and spoke to nurses on many occasions in the following three weeks before a second hospitalization. John informed a law enforcement investigator of this, expecting Det. Michael Hefty to get those records which documented the many concerns the parents had about their daughter's health. Instead, the investigator changed the story around, claiming John "called him" (which John denies ever happened) and told him the number came from the discharge paperwork following her birth at Tacoma General Hospital, which was a number for floor nurses at the hospital. He went to Tacoma General, spoke to nurses there who do not keep records of such calls, only spoke to a couple of them at a different time of day then the evening shift when John called the nurse's line after he got off work, meaning the investigator went to the wrong hospital, spoke to the wrong nurses, at the wrong time of day. He then told the court that no calls were made, it never happened, and that the parents were lying. Whether this was a genuine misunderstanding on his part or intentional sabotage is unknown, but given later events, the latter is more likely. The director of the nurse consultation line associated with Mary Bridge Hospital said that sounded like her service, but she didn't work for it in 2000, that there were several services like that in Washington State, and she couldn't say whether that was the one John and Melissa called or not, and wouldn't check their archived records without a subpoena.

The time in between hospitalizations: The day after they got Casey home, a visiting home nurse came by and spent considerable time with the parents. She noted how doting the father was and all of the questions they asked her about child care, as well as listening attentively. She returned a second time while John was at work, and found a man there with Melissa. No record was made of that visit, but she told John's attorney about it for some reason. From the time Casey came home from the hospital, she was unusually fussy, irritable, lethargic, and fed poorly. By then, she was almost exclusively fed on soy formula, although she may have continued trying to pump a little milk for a while. She also cried continuously when held, but was more quiet when left in her bassinet to the degree that Melissa wouldn't allow John's mother to even pick her up when she visited. John noted a particular posture at that time-- "She had a way of turning her heels in that was creepy to look at", perfectly describing the characteristic frog leg posture ("pithed frog" in British literature) of infantile scurvy, which also means any movement of her legs or even touching them would have caused intense pain. She remained about the same for the next two weeks before taking a turn for the worse.

FROG LEG (PITHED FROG) POSTURE, INTRACRANIAL HEMORRHAGE, ANOREXIA, LETHARGY, FUSSINESS, IRRITABLITY, PALLOR, EYE HEMORRHAGE, PAIN, ECCHYMOSES, SHORTNESS OF BREATH, ACNE,  POOR WOUND HEALING

As John tells it, a frightening thing happened sometime before the most acute symptoms began, many days before the pediatric "well-baby" appointment on Dec.18th. He came home from work and noticed that Baby Casey had something going on with her head. He must have originally said something about a lump or bump because an investigator confused this as some kind of swelling from a head impact. When I read what was in the mixed-up investigator's report to him over the phone, John said, "He confused two separate stories," and told me the "head" incident was not that kind of a "bump". More detailed questioning resulted in, "Well, like her head was elongating and turning into a 'cone head' shape.'' He called the nurse's hotline immediately and they laughed it off, assured him that was a temporary condition caused by the baby lying on her side too long (Melissa left her in a bassinet all day), and to lay her on her back and "go to bed." The next day her skull shape was back to normal. This was prior to the following crisis. Baby Casey had been kept on her side instead of her back due to doctor's instructions because she was a "shallow breather".

CRANIOTABES (SOFT SKULL) IS CHARACTERISTIC OF INFANTS UP TO 3 MONTHS, BUT MAY ALSO INDICATE RICKETS http://www.faqs.org/nutrition/Pre-Sma/Rickets.html Rickets: "One of the earliest signs of rickets in the infant is craniotabes (a softening of the skull) and delayed closing of the anterior fontanelle (the soft spot on the head). The infant's skull becomes large and thick (though soft), and muscle tone is poor. Poor calcification of osteoid at the ends of bones makes the bone spread in that area. At the ends of ribs, these splayed areas create a knobby-looking chain called the "rachitic rosary" on the front of the chest. In other areas, the pressure of a child's weight bends poorly mineralized bones, creating shortness, bow legs, and knock knees. Poor calcification also creates weakness, making bones prone to fracture. Children can also have delayed dentition, pelvic abnormalities, and enlarged joints, along with a curved spine and a forward projected breastbone. Rickets also lowers a child's immune defenses."

There are accounts of babies developing a flat spot on the back of their heads from lying on their backs, but this usually occurs over time. In rickets, the skull can be so pliable and thin that just finger pressure can cause depressed skull fractures. Perhaps in the first month their skulls do remain soft and malleable enough to deform easily, and it is certainly seen in newborns after going through the birth canal (which happened in my case when I was born), but such a sudden onset and quick resolution 2-3 weeks after birth seems unusual, although it apparently caused the nurse no concern or alarm. The hotline nurses never once suggested bringing the baby in for examination, and specifically said, "She doesn't need to be seen".

On Tuesday 11-12-07, 21 days after her shot, the parents bundled the baby up and went shopping. About 11 PM that night, Baby Casey became acutely ill from respiratory problems with severe lung congestion and labored breathing. John called the hotline and was told to apply chest compressions, but he didn't know how, so the nurse instructed him to pat her back to help her cough up mucus blocking her air passages. He described holding her over his left forearm with her head in his hand and gently patting her back. He did this every hour when her breathing became more labored. She coughed up white frothy material until the last time, at 5AM, when she was able to discharge a yellow mucus plug which John suctioned out, after which she was able to sleep peacefully. When he left for work at 6AM, and she was still resting comfortably and hadn't woken up again. That Wednesday, at 22 days, John came home from work and saw a brown discoloration beneath her lower lip that he said, "looked like she had been eating chocolate and drooled". He wondered if it was "wind burn" from being out in the weather the day before, because even though he had her all bundled up, her face was still exposed. But he was more concerned because her eyes were unusually bloodshot and her eyelids hemorrhaged-looking, and she had developed a high-pitched cry.

SWOLLEN AND DISCOLORED EYELIDS

Melissa told him this all started around noon. He called the hotline but the nurse dismissed the symptoms as "just a cold" with red eyes from crying. John asked if the abnormal-sounding cry might be "colic" and she agreed that it probably was. On Thursday At 23 days, the brown discoloration separated and erupted into 4 distinct "messy sores" he thought must be cold sores (unaware that these are caused by a herpes virus and not by having a cold). Melissa was on the phone when he came home, talking to a nurse who was unconcerned--she told them to apply A&D lotion. Later that evening he noticed she had "bloody spit". John thought she was probably just teething and suctioned it out. (It did not recur). That was the single symptom he did NOT call the hotline nurses about. The ICU doctor later claimed this came from a bruised lung but infantile scurvy articles and books list symptoms of a hemorrhaging lung or bleeding in the breathing passages as a common occurrence. Also, it is unlikely that a doctor could diagnose the source of bloody saliva days after the fact. Later x-rays or the CT scan revealed a shadow on her lungs they "interpreted" as a "contusion", but in an infant with a respiratory infection and "rales" in the lungs, another explanation is more likely, but by that time all symptoms were interpreted and explained in terms of abuse without medical causes being considered, and the fact that she had fluid-filled lungs was ignored.

A search of medical literature (Google and scholar.google) explained the chocolate brown stain that erupted into skin sores. Scurvy descriptions describe exactly this occurrence ranging from blues, browns and black discoloration from the extravasation of blood under the skin that sometimes erupts on the surface in sores/lesions which have little tendency to heal normally. Swollen, hemorrhaged eyelids were mentioned in several accounts, even in animals with experimentally-induced scurvy.

"The skin may be mottled with small and large purple, blue, brown or blackish spots produced by degenerative changes in the extravasated blood in the cutis. Sometimes ulcers are produced by the perforation of effused blood on to the surface." Hemorrhages in the skin, subcutaneous tissues, eyelids, eyes, and internal organs

On Friday night, Dec. 15th At 24 days, John was alone with the baby for the first time while Melissa went for coffee with her mother. He was playing with Casey by holding her horizontally in the flat of his hands and bouncing her to make her laugh. The mother of his first child saw him do the same thing and "got on his case" but said the same thing, that it only involved a "bounce" rather than "threw the baby to within a foot of the 8' ceiling" as Det. Hefty wrote is his fabricated account of the interrogation. His partner in the investigation reported accurately that it was "upwards".  John doesn't know how it happened, but she dropped through his hands. He was in the cramped bedroom at the time, and may have moved a little and got out of balance. Her fall from about waist high was broken by a broken laundry basket padded with layers of duct tape on to a carpeted floor. She quit crying as soon as he grabbed her up and hugged her tightly to his chest, without so much as a bruise or bump, but he immediately called the nurse's hotline, told them what happened, and a nurse went through a detailed checklist for any sign of injury, decided there was none and told him it wasn't necessary to bring her in to be seen. However, when Det. Hefty wrote up his report, he claimed John said he DID NOT call the hotline, and made certain no one obtained the hotline records to dispute his false account. She was sleeping peacefully when her mother and maternal grandmother returned. He didn't tell her what had happened because she had "gotten on his case" about doing that. So did the mother of his first-born, but babies love it and even infants will giggle and laugh.

Saturday, Dec. 16th, At 25 days, John's mother and stepfather visited. Bob Hutchens later said Casey seemed fine, although "lethargic" which had been on-going since the apnea episode 3 weeks earlier.

Sunday, Dec. 17th, John came home from work and noticed a red spot on Casey's cheek. He always took over the baby as soon as he got home, changed her, fed and bathed her and held her for the rest of the evening while he watched tv. She was always more fussy when being held, but he thought it was because she "forgot" him during the long day away. He admitted to being a little jealous of Melissa being with her all day, and wanted quality time with her as soon as he got off work, so he always noticed every little thing. Melissa thought it was just a mark made by a broach John's mother was wearing when she held the baby the day before, and doctors wanted to include it as some kind of "abuse" but forensic photos tell the story. It can be seen erupting into a pimple or whitehead. (Scurvy acne?) That same weekend, diarrhea also developed.

At the hospital, Dr. Clapper told the parents to bring the baby in for a follow-up visit, but John lost the phone number and had to make several calls to get it. However, when he reached the clinic he was told that Dr. Clapper was "on vacation" and so the visit had to wait until he returned, and then made on John's day off because Melissa didn't drive, rarely left the apartment, and never went anywhere alone as far as he knew. She was "afraid" of the outside world and uneasy around people. It was scheduled as a "well-baby" appointment on Monday, Dec.18th.

In spite of what seemed to be a hard cold with a runny nose, lung congestion and labored breathing/choking difficulties continuing, John said Baby Casey was "in a good mood" --and very alert the day they went to the well-baby appointment on Dec.18th, 2000, (Monday) 27-28 days after her shot, at least until he started moving her around to undress her for the nurse to do weight and measurements, at which time she started crying. At some point she was also coughing. When he laid her down naked on the cold scales, she let out a piercing scream that shocked everyone, as John recalls. He always kept her bundled up in the cold with warm clothes, little hats and "hoodies" and said he wondered at the time if the cold room and cold metal scales on her bare skin had set her off? After that, she continued with the high-pitched cry that had come off and on since the previous Wednesday--a symptom most often associated with vaccine-induced encephalitis.

The pediatric nurse became alarmed by the "frequency of high-pitched crying" later described by the doctor as "inconsolable" and went in to tell the doctor, who hadn't seen the baby yet, that "something was wrong". He took the baby in another room for 4-5 minutes and then had an ambulance called. His record reports labored breathing, inconsolable high-pitched crying, and rales in the lungs, although more was added later and one can see that he altered some of it, presumably after her hospital exam, not before.

http://www.tinussmits.com/english/dynamic.htm?main=pvs/dynamic.htm?main1=http://www.tinussmits.com/english/pvs/discription.htm The Post Vaccination Syndrome Dr. Tinus Smits, MD basic discription [Home] The symptoms united in this syndrome originate from two sources. On the one hand a large number of these symptoms are frequently cited in the literature as post-vaccination symptoms; other symptoms are my own observations. It must be stressed in this context that any symptom that manifests itself following vaccination and only disappears after treatment with the potentised vaccine (homeopathic remedy) is caused by the vaccine concerned. The PVS can be divided into an acute and a chronic syndrome. The following are the main symptoms of the acute syndrome: fever, convulsions, absent-mindedness, encephalitis and/or meningitis, limbs swollen around the point of inoculation, whooping-type cough, bronchitis, diarrhoea, excessive somnolence, frequent and inconsolable crying, penetrating and heart-rending shrieking (cri encéphalique), fainting/shock, pneumonia, death, cot death (since the Japanese delayed the whooping-cough vaccination to the age of two years, cot deaths have been practically obliterated in Japan [1] ). By carefully studying and recording the cases we arrive at the following catalogue of chronic post-vaccination symptoms: colds, amber or green phlegm, inflamed eyes, loss of eye contact, squinting, inflammation of the middle ear, bronchitis, expectoration, coughing, asthma, eczema, allergies, inflamed joints, tiredness and lack of vigour, excessive thirst, diabetes, diarrhoea, constipation, head-aches, disturbed sleep with periods of waking and crying, epilepsy, rigidity of the back, muscle cramps, light-headedness, lack of concentration, loss of memory, growth disturbances, lack of coordination, disturbed development, behavioural problems such as fidgeting, aggressiveness, irritation, moodiness, emotional imbalance, confusion, loss of will-power, mental torpidity. This list must needs be incomplete as the symptoms of post-vaccination illness can be extremely varied. The diagnosis is based not so much on the actual symptom as on the point of time of its appearance. To add to the complication it is not possible to attribute certain individual symptoms of the PVS specifically to the DKTP*- or DTP* vaccination, others to the MMR-vaccination and yet others to the HIB* vaccination. In practice it must be accepted that each vaccine can be responsible for several of the symptoms named and also for additional symptoms that have not been mentioned. There is also no clear demarcation between acute and chronic complaints as the acute conditions are often the beginning of chronic suffering. The fact that someone has displayed no direct or acute reaction to a vaccination does not necessarily exclude the possibility of the vaccine being the cause of chronic complaints. These complaints usually become clear only after one, two or even more weeks have passed and dismissing a diagnosis of PVS in chronic cases because of the time-lapse between the cause (vaccination) and the appearance of the condition is fundamentally wrong. Ellen, case 12, page 29 demonstrates this. It is often only after the second, third or fourth administration of the vaccine that problems suddenly occur. 1. Cherry et al.: "Report of a task force on pertussis + pertussis immunisation'. "Pediatrics" (supp) 1988 2. Dhr. Johan E. Sprietsma, Ortho nummer 1, februari 1995, p. 30 3. Dr. Jean Elminger: La medecine retrouve ou les ambitions nouvelles de l'homeopathie; Bron S.A. Lausanne 1985 4. Tijdschrift voor Jeugdgezondheidszorg, jaargang 26, juni 1994, nr.3. p. 41 5. Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 57 (5): 819-827 (1979) 6. Cody C.L., Baraff L.J. Cherry J.D. et al: Nature and rates of adverse reactions associated with DTP and DT immunizations in infants and children. Pediatrics 1981: 68:650-660 7. Wilkins J., Williams F.F., Wehrle P.F. et al: Agglutinin response to pertussis vaccine. J. Pediatr. 1971; 79;197-202 8. Kathleen R. Stratton, Cynthia J. Howe, Richard B. Johnston, editors. Vaccine Safety Committee, Division of Health Promotion and Disease Prevention. Institute of Medicine: Adverse Events Associated with Childhood Vaccines. Evidence bearing on Causality. National Academy Press, March 1994, 2101 Constitution Ave., N.W. Washington D.C. 20418 USA or 36 Lonsdale Rd., Summertown, Oxford, U.K. OX2 7EW 9. Odent M.R.; Culpin E.E.; Kimmel T; Primal Health Centre, London. Pertussis Vaccination and Asthma: Is there a link? JAMA, 1994; 272/8:592-3 10. American Institute of Medicine. Division of Health Promotion and Disease Prevention. C.P. Howson, C.J Howe, H.V. Fineberg, editors: Committee to Review the Adverse Consequences of Pertussis and Rubella Vaccines. National Academy Press, 36 Lonsdale Road, Summertown, Oxford, U.K. OX2 7EW 11. Viera Scheibner Ph.D. VACCINATION, 100 years of Orthodox Research shows that Vaccines represent a medical Assault on the Immune System; published by Dr. Viera Scheibner, 178 Govetts Leap Road, Blackheath, NSW 2785, Australia; fax 047-87 8988; ISBN 0 646 15124 X 12. Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 57 (5): 819-827 (1979) 13. H.G. ten Dam & K.L. Hitze: Bulletin of the World Health Organization 58 (1): 37-41, 1980. Does BCG vaccination protect the new-born and young infants? 14. Care 40 - febr/mrt 1997: Gevonden en gewraakt: het postvaccinaal syndroom. Peter Fokkens 15. Vaccination dangers; Dr. Gerhard Buchwald; Raum & Zeit Vol. 3, no 1, 1991 16.The Poisened Needle; Eleanor Mcbean; Health Research, 1993; Mokelumne Hill, California 19. Similia Similibus Curentur - september 1998; H.C. Moolenburgh; Vaccinatie beschadiging

Pediatric assistant Shelly LaVergne report: Ms. LaVergne was the first health care professional who saw Baby Casey at her "well-baby" appointment on 12-18-00. She spent nearly 30 minutes with the baby and parents before coming alarmed over the pitch of the baby's crying went to tell the doctor, who hadn't seen the baby yet. He ordered for the ambulance to be called without any real explanation why to the parents, after which the baby was transported to the hospital. I found her report in the police file but it was not included in the court file nor referred to by anyone in the legal system other than a brief mention by the police officer who requested it and picked it up, and then there was no indication of the content. It paints a very different picture of the situation than subsequent medical assumptions and opinions (see hand-written report) and the legal assumptions and opinions that were influenced by them. In fact, it was completely suppressed, and Dr. Clapper later changed his records and gave information to police investigators in direct contradiction to his findings at the time.

TRANSCRIBED from the hand-written report by Medical Assistant Shelly LaVergne: This was the first person to observe and examine Baby Casey on December 18th, 2000, which took place at the "well-baby" visit at Dr. Clapper's office in the Northwest Pediatrics clinic building in Tacoma, Wa. Called parents back--FOB (father of baby) carrying baby, MOB (mother of baby) carrying bag and car seat. Asked routine questions--normal pregnancy, yes: Induced or spontaneous. delivery--mom looked puzzled and looked at FOB--he responded with, "they broke her H20". Asked if breast-fed or formula-fed. MOB replied breast and FOB replied formula-then MOB said is given formula @ times. MOB wasn't sure of name of formula. FOB replied Similac. FOB was asking about "red marks" on baby's eyes. MOB said she contacted the Mary Bridge nurse because MOB has "arthritis" [sic] and she (MOB) that the eye redness was arthritis (Melissa was saying "iritis"). FOB and MOB said baby has been crying a lot and maybe the eyes (then FOB showed me the baby's eyelids that were red and discolored) could be from the baby crying. FOB asked about the blisters on baby chin. I asked what happened. FOB said they (MOB and FOB and baby) went shopping on Tuesday 12/12/00. Baby started coughing and FOB said the next day she had the blisters. MOB said she (baby) had the blisters after they got back from shopping. MOB said she called the nurse @ Mary Bridge Hospital and told her about the blisters and the nurse said she has a cold and doesn't need to be seen. FOB still holding baby while sitting down on bench. FOB placed baby against his chest. FOB was wearing a white furry jacket. Baby's face was against the fur. MOB told FOB to move her head because MOB was afraid she would inhale some of the fuzzy jacket. FOB stated if she (the baby) couldn't breath then she (the baby) would turn her own head. MOB started talking about the baby being hospitalized for one week because the baby stopped breathing. FOB said the doctors all thought she had some kind of rare blood disease and she (the baby) had to be "poked" and FOB said "She had all kinds of shit done to her." FOB said they still weren't sure what's wrong with her. Baby cried every time FOB moved her. I asked if baby usually cries this much. MOB said yes. I asked even when baby came home from the hospital? MOB replied "no, she has always cried and my mother says she has colic. But the cry has been louder the last 2-3 days." FOB replied that the baby "must have a cold." I asked FOB and MOB to undress the baby down to her diaper so that I can weigh her, get her length and check her head circumference. FOB laid baby on table to undress her. Baby screamed piercing cry. I asked MOB if the baby usually cried like that. She said yes. The MOB & FOB wanted to know if I thought the baby had colic? I said I would make a note of it and Dr. Clapper would be able to give them an answer. MOB looked over at the baby and MOB said to FOB, "you can't hold her like that because you left a red mark on her face". I looked at baby's face and there was a small red mark on baby's left cheek. FOB said he didn't touch her there, but he held her head still by (then he showed me and MOB) placing his left thumb on baby's right side of the temporal lobe and placed his finger to the left side of the baby's temporal lobe. I did not see any marks. MOB asked why the baby would get marks so easily? I said that the baby has sensitive skin and we have to be gentle with them. FOB finished undressing the baby (while the baby cried). The FOB carried the baby to the scale. I weighed the baby. I told FOB to take the baby back to the room. He did and laid the baby on the table. Once the FOB left the baby to still (?). Baby stopped crying. I picked up the baby so I could turn her to get her length. She cried. FOB and MOB were standing next to me. I asked again if she always cries with that high pitch. MOB replied, "She's just tired and has a cold." I finished measuring her and told the FOB and MOB to wrap the baby in a blanket and Doctor Clapper would be in shortly. I left the room and told Dr. Clapper that I thought there was something wrong with the baby because of the high pitch cries and the frequency of crying. I was putting the chart together and MOB came out of the room by herself and said she was concerned about how little the baby seemed to be eating. I asked how much does she eat & MOB replied 1/2 ounce to 1 ounce every hour. I asked when the baby eats the 1/2 to 1 ounce what does she (the baby) do? MOB replied, "she falls asleep." I told MOB that I would let Dr. Clapper know and he would give his advice to how much he thought the baby should eat. She went back to the room. After putting the paperwork for the baby together I went in their room to give them the baby's measurements. FOB had the baby on the table. I looked at the baby and she had what appeared to me was Vaseline on her chin where the blisters were. I asked the FOB what was on her, he replied "A & D ointment;" that the nurse @ Mary Bridge told him to apply the ointment. Dr. Clapper asked if I would get an O2Sat (?) on baby. I went in there. MOB was very upset and crying. FOB was holding baby. I told them what I was going to do. MOB said she knew about that from when they went to the hospital for one week. FOB replied that this was stupid and that there was nothing wrong with the baby. MOB replied she was extremely tired of last time she was at the hospital because the nurses @ T6 (Mary Bridge) kept waking MOB up every two hours to feed the baby. She seemed to be irritated about this. MOB replied saying Dr. Clapper is over-reacting and that the baby just has a cold, and there is nothing wrong with her. FOB seemed to be angry. I asked if they wanted to talk with Dr. Clapper again, they said no. After getting the 02SAT-which I told the parents it was100% MOB said that having the baby go in the ambulance was "freaking" out. MOB asked if they could take the baby by their car. I told them I couldn't override what Dr. Clapper had said and if they wanted to talk to Dr. Clapper again and MOB asked FOB who was looking out the window and just shrugged his shoulders. MOB started crying again and said she would like to talk to Dr. Clapper. When paramedics arrived FOB and MOB stayed seated on the bench. After the paramedics took her away. MOB was crying. Neither FOB or MOB went with the baby in the ambulance. FOB and MOB left after the baby was gone.

The above report was written on request from Det. Michael Hefty, one of the investigators, and placed in the police file, but was never given to attorneys or made available to the court. Either this MA or another (the handwriting is hard to read) also reported on the office visit notes as follows"

This part of the report list subjective observations--what she saw at the time and noted in the pediatric records. Only red eyes, crying, and "mouth" has been added afterwards, referring to the 4 equally placed sores rimming the lower lip that resembled cold sores. No mention even of the small red mark on Baby Casey's cheek that can be seen in the forensic photos taken about 6 hrs. later as an erupting pimple or whitehead. No bruising whatsoever was noted, even about the hemorrhaged eyelids creases the doctor later described as "ecchymoses" and "black eyes", just as he described the red mark on the cheek as "bruise ecchymosis right zygoma (cheek)".

"A Handbook of Pediatric Anaesthesia" regarding epiglottitis: The fundamental thing is sensitisation of the epiglottis to such an extent that it triggers airway constriction for the slightest thing (see p235) Casey had a well documented infection which the nurse advisory service insisted was only a cold. This would satisfy the criterion for epiglottis infection. Note p.235 says that fatalities have occured after simply depressing the tongue!

The scenario this gives me is that the nurse went about assessing Caseyin a routine way until she got to dental development and depressed the tongue to get a better view. That triggered airway constriction, Casey could not breath properly and her voice sounded odd ( Breathing through a constricted airway can produce somewhat musical notes in a similar way to an organ pipe ) The paediatrician would have recognised the risk of the "laboured breathing" progressing to total airway obstruction, for which a tracheostomy would be required for which he would not be equiped, so he called an ambulance to get her to an emergency ward as quickly as possible. I would suggest that Casey got worse and he and/or the ambulance staff had to use cardiopulmonary resuscitation to keep her alive on the way. Page 250 shows two approved methods. It is well known that if CPR is carried out correctly it carries a risk of rib and/or sternum fractures but text books point out that it is better to end up with a live patient with a few broken ribs that a dead patient! Note also that method (b) would also be expected to produce bruises on the chest walls. Note also the roll under the neck to keep the head well back so that the throat is kept open. In the heat of the moment holding the head back could put excessive pressure on the back of the skull. Is that where the depressed fracture was found.? Also it seems curious that there were 10 old rib fractures found and the same number found later. Could they have been the same ones measured by different methods and interpreted by different personel e.g. Cat scan, Xray etc.

The other bio-chemical factors might well have a bearing on bone development, how strong her bone structure was at that stage, and hence how vulnerable she was to the large forces required to make CPR work. It seems to me that the rib and skull injuries could well be within the normally considered acceptable of risks of CPR, i.e. you do not need to prove negligence, it was a normal accident due to unforseen circumstances.

Dr. Clapper called the police, but not to report any suspicion or evidence of abuse. The parents doubted the judgment of the doctor after the earlier fiasco at the hospital and thought he was "over-reacting" as Melissa told the nurse. Understandably they didn't trust the hospital and were reluctant to put the baby through more testing when no conclusion had been forthcoming during the previous hospital stay, and for the last week on a nearly daily basis, phone consultation nurses had been been insisting that Baby Casey just had cold sores, a bad cold, possibly colic, red eyes from crying, and the parents and maternal grandmother thought maybe "iritis" like Melissa sporadically suffered from throughout her life. The police were called to meet the ambulance and make certain there was no interference with the baby's admission, and Dr. Clapper later admitted there was no problem at all with the parents. In fact, Melissa had collected Casey from the ambulance and carried her in to the hospital herself while John went home to pack bags for them to stay with Casey at the hospital, thinking there was no emergency and that she was only being admitted because of the "bad cold". There was no mention of any suspicion of abuse to the police or the parents. Dr. Clapper would have been required to tell the police if there had been. He later gave a falsified report to investigators, claiming Baby Casey presented at his office with "severe bruising on the face and chest". No bruising on the face occurred until she was being handled at the hospital, and there was never any bruising on the chest.

 

Baby Casey was noted to be coughing, have rales (fluid) in the lungs, labored breathing and inconsolable high-pitched crying. Dr. David Talbert, Ph.D, who is researching and writing about respiratory problems being misdiagnosed as SBS had the fo

 

The above pediatric nurse's report, noting the many concerns the parents had about the baby and observing that the baby had only fever-blister type lesions under her lower lip, reddened eyes and hemorrhaged eyelid creases and a small red mark on her cheek when she was brought in. There were NO bruises nor other external signs of injury at this time. Detective Michael Hefty verified this in sworn testimony at a 3.5 hearing later, but referred to the 4 equally-spaced lesions around the lower lip as "cuts and burns" as if to preserve the illusion of abuse when there was nothing else to see, unaware that medical staff put bruises on the baby's face after he left, just from normal handling. If there had anything Dr. Clapper perceived as abuse, he was compelled by law to report possible it immediately. He did not do so. He did call the police to meet the ambulance, but only because the parents objected to another hospitalization after one 3 weeks earlier where the parents went through hell due to an alleged misdiagnosis, medical testing, and the baby had to suffer through a lot. He feared there might be some interference in admitting the baby, but admitted afterward there had been no problem. However, he later gave a false report claiming he noted bruises all over the baby's face and chest. It was a complete fabrication. Non appeared until after she was being handled at the hospital, and even then there wasn't a mark on her chest.

The nurse probably knew nothing about their experience with the hospital, the constant calls to the nurse consultation line, and so had no idea why they were objecting to another go-around when they had been assured nothing was wrong that warranted being seen by a doctor. Also, John had to drive to the hospital and Melissa was too fearful to get in the ambulance, but they didn't stay behind long because they arrived at the hospital right behind the ambulance, and Melissa carried Casey in herself, telling them the doctor wanted more tests done.

Dr. John Clapper: Later, Dr. Clapper amended his report to claim "non-accidental injury" and although there were no signs of abuse at his office, pointed a finger of blame at John, without a shred of evidence, citing his belief that "mothers don't hurt their babies." This suggests his claim of "non-accidental injury" soon after was based solely on x-ray and MRI findings and his personal dislike of John, which was clearly expressed in statements to investigators. He took umbrage that his questions to the parent he expected to answer as "primary caretaker"--the mother--were instead answered by John, or very tentatively by the mother who was sometimes corrected by John, a stickler for details and accuracy, such as when she claimed to be breast-feeding and John pointed out that she was on formula. The doctor was apparently unaware that this was John's second child, that he was the only experienced parent who had to teach the mother everything, and that she had trouble understanding certain things. She didn't even know what kind of baby formula they used.  The doctor thought he was "controlling" and painted him as some kind of Svengali, when quite the opposite was true. John was unusually accommodating and gentle, but he didn't hesitate to correct her errors or deceptive claims to a doctor. Dr. Clapper also knew John was overhead saying, "he only wants the money" about sending the baby back to the hospital that had made such a mess of things earlier, after having been assured all week that she didn't need to be seen.

This is the same pediatrician involved with Casey since her first hospitalization who we suspect may have had something to do with the illegally administered vaccination, or was covering for someone when he ignored the hospital reports of abnormal heart rate and breathing, altered consciousness (difficult to rouse), blood tests showing septic blood requiring 3 days of IV antibiotics, jaundice, Hyperbilirubinemia, and abnormal bruising by a medic to claim that apnea was "doubtful" because it wasn't witnessed by anyone but the parents, that the blood infection was "probably hospital error" and that she appeared healthy.

Forensic photos taken 7-8 hrs after the morning pediatric appointment. These are the only marks seen on Baby Casey at the well-baby appointment before she was sent to the hospital for "inconsolable high-pitched crying" and "rales" (fluid) in the lungs.

 

Mary Bridge Hospital, 12-18-00: Melissa carried Baby Casey into the hospital after having retrieved her from the ambulance and told the admitting nurse that Dr. Clapper wanted to do more testing. It is unknown what went on immediately without the actual hospital records, but it was several hours before a forensic officer was called in to take photos. The pediatric appt. was in the early morning, and the photographs weren't taken until between 4:17 to 4:30 PM. However, it isn't difficult to piece events together.

Baby Casey arrived at the hospital without a bruise on her body or any other signs attributed to abuse, but she was seen by a string of doctors, and literally "the right hand didn't know what the left was doing" because somewhere along the way someone inflicted bruises on the baby's face, probably wasn't aware of it, and the next doctor or medic who came along assumed she had arrived that way. Specifically, bruising occurred during the time in the ER but were only noted by the ICU Dr. Martha McCravey later in the day, and more bruising developed later on and a second set of photos were taken--by whom, we don't know. Once bruising was seen, abuse was assumed and every sign and symptom thereafter was viewed and interpreted in terms of child abuse, and of course the police were called back in.

Forensic Report and Photos: The first set of forensic photos are missing. They should have been in the court clerk's office in the archived exhibits for the case, but a only a second set was there--known to be a second set because they don't match the forensic report of the first set taken before a nose tube was inserted. The second set, the only one found, were taken afterwards. The baby acquired more bruises in between the first and second set.

 

SORES: What Officer Johnson noted as "a severe cut or laceration to victim's chin, just below her lower lip, which covered most of this area." In later reports, these were referred to as "burns". As can be seen, these are NOT cuts or lacerations, they are 4 equally spaced out lesions, not unlike cold sores. The shiny area on the second photo is A&D lotion applied by John for several days on instruction from a hotline nurse. If he had been asked how they started, he would have described a chocolate brown stain which only broke out into sores the following day, which describes extravasalated blood pooling underneath and erupting on the surface, as described in literature on infantile scurvy. Skin sores are also one of the best-documented adverse effects of vaccination. There were no similar lesions on her lips, gums, cheeks or throat.
	Office Johnson noted "bruising on the forehead."  There is clearly bruising on the forehead...seen in the shape of a thumb and fingertip marks. The person who put them there is probably right there in the photo, or it was someone else handling the baby on the head in the same way. What no one noticed is that they are upside down for anyone but a person standing behind her in exactly that position. However, ICU Dr. McCravey later told investigators these were proof John tried to crush her head by squeezing it (attempted murder by forehead pinching?). The bruises weren't there before she came into the hospital.
	"I took photos as Dr. McCravy pointed out areas of concern. These were the left ear, including inside the ear."   What is actually seen here is a red ear with redness on the cheek next to it, unless the light spots in the ear canal are blisters. Even a casual observer might see this looks like redness caused by laying or the pressure of the side of the head being held against a bed or gurney. It isn't bruised or injured, just red, and there is nothing inside the ear other than just more slight redness. This was not observed during the well-baby appointment before the Baby Casey was taken from her parents and transported to the hospital. Note also the redness in the crease of the arm and near it on the chest. It appears there has been slight hemorrhaging in the skin creases just from the pressure of the arm held in a normal position at her side. Still, the reddened ear was "documented" as signs of abuse while the redness on the cheek and under the arm was ignored.
TORN FRENUM (the tiny piece of skin connecting the upper lip to the gum):  "I also took photos of the victims mouth showing where connecting tissue for the upper lip is torn. I was advised that this was called the "frenum". Nothing more." No sign of this earlier. Doctors examined inside the mouth. It's very probably that in the course of opening or holding her mouth open, they did this themselves. It's a tiny piece of tissue in an infant. However, ICU Dr. McCravey told investigators this was "evidence" John tried to suffocate Baby Casey. There was no evidence John did anything. He was targeted by Pediatrician Dr. Clapper who did so claiming "mothers don't hurt their babies."

The Discrepancies Between the Forensic Report and the Second Set of Photos:

The bruise on the temple wasn't there on the first set of photos described in the forensic report. It is consistent with a fingertip. There are marks above it which may be hair, or something else, and an odd white area. There are now slight striations of red on the cheek. The scratches on the nose are new and obviously made by Baby Casey scratching at her nose tube. She is drugged at this point and was kept on morphine throughout the 11 days of her hospitalization, which appears to be the only kind of "treatment" she received other than drugs when a biopsy of her stomach was done to see why she had developed swallowing difficulties, the cause of which remained undiagnosed. (Swallowing difficulties and anorexia are characteristics of Barlow's disease.)

This photo shows a very red RIGHT ear with a diffuse bruise on the cheek following the curve of the ear, very obviously from pressure against the side of her face, probably as her head was held down on a gurney or hospital bed, not observed in the forensic report or mentioned by ICU Dr. McCravey when the first photos were taken. Note also the mottled skin and the folds of the skin around the armpit, showing a kind of wasting characteristic. Baby Casey has her mouth wide open here, obviously crying or screaming. Infants diagnosed with SBS, as a "hospital expert" later did are supposed to arrive at the hospital comatose or dead. However, "shaking" alone has never proven to cause the symptoms associated with SBS which is why medical authorities quietly changed the name to Shaken-Impact Baby Syndrome or "Non Accidental Trauma" without admitted the 3 decades of error followed the widespread diagnosis of shaking as a cause of subdural Hematoma, Retinal Hemorrhages, and Diffuse Axonal Injury. As such they acknowledge the necessity of an impact to the head. However, such as impact, believed to be equivalent to a fall from a 2-story window or unrestrained impact in an vehicle crash would result in a thick subdural hematoma and no lucid interval, while the SD's found in SBS are usually the thin type associated with hypoxia (loss of oxygen), which may present with a lucid interval. However, more recent studies provide compelling evidence that short falls of an accidental nature can cause these symptoms. And DAI injury is associated with impact, such as that seen in auto crashes, but not from shaking. Dr. C.A.B. Clemetson and others have alternative explanations: http://whale.to/a/clemetson_h.html *Clemetson, CAB (2004) "Capillary Fragility as a Cause of Subdural and Retinal Hemorrhages in Infancy." *Clemetson CAB (2004) "Capillary Fragility as a Cause of Substantial Hemorrhage in Infants." Medical Hypotheses And Research VOL. 1, No. 2/3, July 1, pp. 121-129

Baby Casey on morphine, with swollen, hemorrhaged eyelids, bruising caused by medical personnel, scratches on the nose, hemorrhagic streaks on her cheek, erupted lesions around her lower lip...with a medical person holding her head on the right side exactly where a depressed skull fracture was found the next day on a CT scan, claimed to be "only hours old" by ICU Dr. McCravey, which wasn't seen on x-rays taken this day, with a splint on her hand due to a muscle contracture or abnormally strong grip in her thumb that developed in the hospital showing edema in the face and unusually swollen cheeks.

Emergency Room At Mary Bridge Children's Hospital, Tacoma, WA: John, thinking nothing serious was wrong with Baby Casey, dropped Melissa off at the hospital. They arrived right after the ambulance, and she was allowed to carry Amanda in to admittance herself, proving there was no sign or suspicion of child abuse nor any indication of injury. She told them the pediatrician Dr. Clapper wanted more extensive tests done, which was all the parents knew at the time. John went on home to pack a suitcase for them to stay at the hospital with Casey, and was cleaning the apartment when Melissa called him from the hospital in a panic and told him he needed to come there immediately. He left in such a hurry he forgot the packed suitcase, left behind in his bedroom where investigators later overlooked it when they checked his apartment. He had apparently stopped off in town on the way home to buy her a flannel shirt, because she liked the one he had. During her previous hospitalization for apnea, he had never left her side, stating he "didn't trust the quality of care there" and didn't want to leave her alone, at least until she was considered out of danger and his boss threatened to fire him if he didn't come back to work.

The timeline isn't known exactly, but it appears x-rays were taken after the forensic photos were done. The police had only been called in several hours after Casey's admission when bruises started appearing on her face and doctors who came on board later failed to realize they were inflicted by hospital personnel and instead assumed the parents had done it, indicating abuse.

X-rays revealed what was interpreted as 10 calcifying fractures in the ribs and clavicles, assumed to be broken ribs from blunt force trauma. Certain facts were not taken into consideration. First of all, studies have demonstrated that a single rib broken by external trauma has an 85% chance of causing severe thoracic damage. The odds of 10 fractures causing none would be a near statistical impossibility. Also, the calcification involved "first ribs" which are protected by the collarbones and difficult to injure. On top of that, there wasn't a mark on her chest--no swelling, bruising, or any sign of external trauma whatsoever. Added to that, no differential diagnosis was even considered, much less tested for. No medical causes were eliminated, when many were possible, including bone necrosis and brittle bone conditions caused by Barlow's disease, blood histamine increases, endotoxemia, particularly since she had been diagnosed with a bacterial infection earlier and treated with massive doses of antibiotics, both of which can cause endotoxemia, resulting in capillary fragility that affects bone formation. Even more, calcifying subperiosteal hemorrhages on the skin of the bone that look exactly like healing fractures in different stages and can only be identified by microscopic examination to differentiate between calcifying bleeds and actual fractures. Other possibilities were rickets and vitamin K deficiency in an infant who had started out in life with maternal malnutrition and gone downhill from her first vaccination and subsequent medical treatment, or lack thereof from medical misdiagnosis.

John and Melissa were shown the x-rays. John didn't know what to think or believe. There were no fracture lines, no sign of bone displacement, only "little balls" on the bones, as he describes it, which ICU Dr. McCravey insisted where "healing fractures". But given the previous errors and mishaps that took place at that same hospital, it took some convincing to make him believe that's what he was looking at. When he finally did, investigating officers described him going into physical shock, with the blood draining from his face and his near inability to talk, and then only in a stunned monotone. His first reaction was that someone had injured his child. When he realized the officers thought it was him, he nearly lost it--crying, "I can't be thought of as a child abuser!"

John and Melissa had been immediately separated and interrogated individually, so there was no chance to collaborate on a false story. They gave nearly identical accounts of events, trying to find reasons to blame themselves rather than to protect their own interests. The only discrepancy was in Melissa's claim that she was breast feeding, a lie she continually told. John explained that she had felt inadequate in not being able to physically breast feed, and then in providing so little pumped breast milk that the baby soon went to mostly soy formula. They didn't supplement with juice as they should have, because that's what pediatricians tell them. No juice before 4 months. It's right in the pediatric well-baby literature.

By then, the ulcers around Casey's mouth, first falsely described as "a severe cut or laceration" after the bruising put every interpretation in terms of child abuse, was by then being described as "burns" of unknown origin or cause (chemical or heat). They asked if Melissa had used a microwave to heat bottles. John didn't think she had, because he had trained her not to, and she denied doing so, but John's mother reports seeing her do it at least twice, after telling her not to. It wasn't that any burns where ever seen resulting from this, but it would have destroyed the vitamin C content of both breast milk and formula.

As for the ribs, all they could think of was that 5 days earlier, all during the early hours of the previous Wednesday when John had patted Baby Casey's back to help her cough up mucus, that he had inadvertently broken her ribs, and both reported the same. John added, without admitting at that point that he had dropped the baby accidentally 3 days earlier, that he had "hugged her tightly" (when he grabbed her up from the floor and hugged her to his chest" and could have possibly injured her ribs in doing so. That was all either could recall that might have caused injury to her wrists.

The radiologist said the "fractures" were from 7-10 days old, although fracture dating is an imprecise science. In fact. radiologists take their findings from one of 3 major studies, none of which agree with with each other. and a more recent meta-analysis of studies and radiology findings has determined even those studies taught in radiology training can be off, listing fracture dating that could extend Baby Casey's rib signs to as far back as her first hospitalization, or birth injuries.

However, the parents were never told that their accounts failed to fit the fracture dating timelines and also that doctors EMPHATICALLY DENIED these incidents had anything at all to do with Baby Casey's condition. They were allowed and encouraged to believe otherwise, and to assume their own guilt, or in this case, John's. As Melissa put it, John was very strong and "didn't know his own strength." John was devastated to think he was the cause for having done nothing more than follow the instructions of a phone line nurse to treat congestion. He also had a poor understanding of mens rea (with malice aforethought).

These were the only findings on the first day--bruising that took place at the hospital, but were assumed to have been caused by a parent, skin ulcers first described as cuts and then burns, red eyes and hemorrhaged eyelid creases afterwards described as "bruise ecchymoses", a little red mark on the cheek seen erupting as a pimple or whitehead...and the appearance of numerous calcifying ribs on x-rays. The x-rays showed nothing more, no skull fractures no bleeding. All the parents knew before they left around 3am the next morning after being denied access to even see their child was that she supposedly had broken ribs.

ICU: The following day, a CT scan was done. This revealed or was interpreted as showing a depressed skull fracture on the right side, in which the edge of the affected bone plate was lifted and overlapping.  It stands to reason that if a nearly solid object is depressed in the middle, that an edge will lift, but these were treated as two separate skull fractures. ICY physician, Dr. McCravey said it looked look someone had taken her head and "squeezed" it. She somehow linked the slight fingertip bruises on the baby's forehead inflicted by one of her own doctors or medics as "proof" that John had done so. There were also subdural hematomas and bleeding in the brain. She told investigators the fractures and bleeding "were only hours old" ignoring or overlooking the fact that the baby had now been in the hospital for two days, and that no such signs had been seen on the x-rays the day before. If her dating was correct, that put responsibility squarely in the hands of medical personnel. She had been handled, held by the head in exactly that area for photographs and probably the insertion of the nose tube, and her head would have been secured in some way for both x-rays and the CT scan itself. Who knows how much pressure might have been applied to her tiny skull in any of these procedures and what damage done at the hospital, particularly if she had a brittle or soft bone condition from vitamin deficiencies or other causes.

Another possibility exists. Fracture dating on skulls rather than other bones is far more difficult if not impossible to be done with any accuracy or assurance. There was no sign of bruising or swelling or any kind of external trauma at the pediatric examination. It is far more likely the "squeezing" took place in the birth canal as a birth injury, or even a prenatal one ...unless the doctors care to admit guilt. Also, there is a skull equivalent to calcifying subperiosteal hemorrhaging on the other bones, and unanswered questions as to the role of bone abnormalities and what happens when the head swells  from conditions like encephalitis, including "vaccine-induced". Whether the skull fractures were of a medical origin, birth trauma, or iatrogenic doctor-caused that day at the hospital will never be known because doctors considered no other possibilities than abuse.

Medical Records From Northwest Pediatrics

 

 

 

Medical Records Top

Medical Records Top

These hand-written notes are difficult to read so an enlargement has been made. Transcribed notes as accurate as possible:

12/18/00-Mother and father-here for health supervision, came at 10:15, 911 called at 10:45, (30 minutes later), to transport baby to Mary Bridge Emergency Room. Baby went with EMTS (Emergency Medical Technicians?) mother & father in private car.
12/19/00-Karen Picu (?) 403-1434 Wanting to know if we ? Records ? of R's ? MM?? Phone message found.
1/2/01 Attempted to return ??home cell C 845-5749- MLTCB ??
1/2/00 (01) 5:35-Foster mother-Similac to Enfamil ??? formula
1/2/00 (01) 2:50- foster mother here for follow-up from Hospital. ?????
HU or HV from admission for NAT, sent home ? NG, then on night feeds stopped last night, has been on total oral feeds since then, taking 2 ounces Q2h (every 2 hours?) maximum 3 ounces, weaning off morphine, last dose today. (Formula--was on Similac, now on Enfamil, some gas) PE: AF flat, healed palate, eyes clear sclera, TM's ok, chest clear, ? abdomen benign, bilateral clavicle calluses, Abd benign ??? G? Mu ??intact s/un s/-desquamation, A/P NAT HPV next visit, good weight gain, took NG out, stopped night feeds. ?? 1 week if not better, 2 weeks if thriving, ??? next visit.
1/8/01 12:00- Robin-Gentiva Home Health Care-- needing Verbal oedu? to DC tube feeding as G? or.?1/4/01-G???
1/10/01 10:15-M?Q for Julie Johnson at CPS 403-7?35 ??? 1/4/01 info given ????.
1/11/01-mom called Request ?? Shot Rec non giVin?
1/16/01 6:pm Foster Family-- Fomo? just stepped out, unsure what her question was. Will call ???? ????
1/17/01-Julie-CPS-253-403-7935-wanting to know wt. on 4th (8? 1002) & if imm's due-(2mo-DTap-HB-IPU-????? Message left on ??2/8/01-Mo-Hue?? for 2?? Hs
2/12/01 5:05 Mo on Enfamil, stools too pasty, on Similac, too loose.?????? (both lacto-free) if not working CB-& we will give samples of ??????

Medical Records Top

Medical Records Top

From page 10 of the DSHS case summary. Retinal hemorrhaging?

There were no bruises at the time Casey was taken from her parents to be transported to the hospital from Pediatrics Northwest, the skin sores under her lip erupted like cold sores, and

DSHS Report page 10, "retinal hemorrhaging" again



"bruising around eyes"

As for the "nursing staff" not recalling any phone calls, the investigator who made this report spoke to nurses at Tacoma General Hospital, not Mary Bridge Children's Hospital, and the nurses' hotline is phone line nurses, not floor nurses. Information was provided for a subpoena of the phone records which no one bothered to request, and the nurse's phone line number has never been searched for or provided. The investigator took a number from the birth paperwork provided to all parents at Tacoma General Hospital and claimed John gave it to him, while John claims he clearly described a small white business card given to the parents as Baby Casey was being released from Mary Bridge Hospital after her apnea incident, not after her birth.

Medical Records Top

Medical Records Top

December 18-19, 2000 X-ray & CT scan

Dec. 28th X-ray of Chest Where is 12-23-00?

Taken from document above

December 26, 2000 CT Scan

August 8, 2001

"CRANIAL CT WITHOUT CONTRAST 8/8/01 CLINICAL HISTORY: Follow up trauma. There is bilateral frontal lobe encephalomalacia status post previous injury. The hemorrhage seen previously has resolved. Several cystic spaces are seen in the frontal loges. Ventricles are at the upper limit of normal but symmetric. No extra-axial fluid or blood is seen. The bony calvarium continues to show right parietal fracture that is not completely closed. No new intracranial abnormalities are seen.

IMPRESSION: BIFRONTAL ENCEPHALOMALACIA POST-TRAUMA. NO RESIDUAL INTRACRANIAL HEMORRHATE. VENTRICLES AT THE UPPER LIMITS OF NORMAL. RESIDUAL PARIETAL FRACTURE ON THE RIGHT NOT COMPLETELY FUSED AT THIS JUNCTURE."

"CRANIAL CT WITHOUT CONTRAST 8/8/01 CLINICAL HISTORY: Follow up trauma. There is bilateral frontal lobe encephalomalacia status post previous injury. The hemorrhage seen previously has resolved. Several cystic spaces are seen in the frontal loges. Ventricles are at the upper limit of normal but symmetric. No extra-axial fluid or blood is seen. The bony calvarium continues to show right parietal fracture that is not completely closed. No new intracranial abnormalities are seen.

IMPRESSION: BIFRONTAL ENCEPHALOMALACIA POST-TRAUMA. NO RESIDUAL INTRACRANIAL HEMORRHATE. VENTRICLES AT THE UPPER LIMITS OF NORMAL. RESIDUAL PARIETAL FRACTURE ON THE RIGHT NOT COMPLETELY FUSED AT THIS JUNCTURE."

December 16, 2002

Medical Records Top

"CRANIAL CT WITHOUT CONTRAST 8/8/01 CLINICAL HISTORY: Follow up trauma. There is bilateral frontal lobe encephalomalacia status post previous injury. The hemorrhage seen previously has resolved. Several cystic spaces are seen in the frontal loges. Ventricles are at the upper limit of normal but symmetric. No extra-axial fluid or blood is seen. The bony calvarium continues to show right parietal fracture that is not completely closes. No new intracranial abnormalities are seen.

IMPRESSION: BIFRONTAL ENCEPHALOMALACIA POST-TRAUMA. NO RESIDUAL INTRACRANIAL HEMORRHATE. VENTRICLES AT THE UPPER LIMITS OF NORMAL. RESIDUAL PARIETAL FRACTURE ON THE RIGHT NOT COMPLETELY FUSED AT THIS JUNCTURE."

Medical Records Top

BLOOD ANALYSIS

Lab work Nov. 24-28, 2000 Apnea Hospitalization

 

Lab Work Dec. 18-19, 2000 "Non-Consolable Crying" Hospitalization

SEPT. 1, 2001

SEPT. 11TH, 2001

Medical Records Top

2nd DISCHARGE SUMMARY

Medical Records Top

Dr. Clapper first claims, "This patient presented at the office on December 18th with severe bruising on the head and chest." However, according to his assistant, there were no marks on the baby except for sores below her lip, bloodshot eyes and hemorrhages in the crease of her eyelids, except for a faint red mark on one cheek that appears in photographs hours later as an erupting pimple. The lesions at the corners of the mouth and two eruptions below the lip began as brown discoloration that "looked like Casey had been eating chocolate" and by the next morning had progressed into something that looked like "messy sores" according to John, who is wiling to take a polygraph on any statement he makes. It wasn't there when he went to work in the morning and was present when he came home. There was no sign of anything appearing as a burn. He thought they were "cold sores". There is no sign of lesions on the lips, gums, tongue, cheeks or down the esophagus. A lesions found on the roof of the mouth is a particular symptom of infantile scurry. That may also account for a similar lesion on the pharynx. Baby Casey was at the clinic for over 30 minutes, and the reason given for calling the ambulance was "high-pitched cry and frequency of crying" when the baby was being moved around. Dr. Clapper called the police, but only to meet the ambulance in case the parents tried to interfere with the admission, due to prior problems with the hospital supposedly misdiagnosing a serious blood disease, being unable to diagnose the cause of her apnea incident, bruising the baby and general distrust, particularly since they had been assured by nurses on a hotline that she had a bad cold and nothing more.

The doctor admits in writing that there was no cause for concern, and made no mention to the police of any sign of abuse or external signs of injury, as required by law. Investigating office Hefty admitted under oath at a 3.5 hearing that there were no signs of injury on first observation except for "cuts and bruises under the lip". Forensic photos show no bruising on the chest, and only faint bruises on the face obviously from fingers. The forensic officer described the same. However, a second, later set of photos (on this site) show more bruises than the first, meaning they were inflicted by hospital personnel in between two sets of photos, as were the first ones. He claims the "initial assessment was non-accidental trauma" BEFORE the ambulance was called, but no report of this nature was made at the time. He claims the parents had no explanation about the bruises, but there were none before the baby was taken by ambulance, and they weren't asked. He claims there was significant "swelling of the head" but his assistant measured the head and noted nothing, nor did the forensic officer, nor do photographs show any abnormalities. He claims on the eyes there were "reddish purple bruises", but as can be seen there is nothing more than hemorrhaging at the creases that came on after the baby started crying, which she wasn't doing when they first came in to the clinic.

Cuts and burns? Bruises on eyes? "This patient presented at the office...severe bruising on the head and chest." --Dr. John Clapper, Pediatrician	Bruises on chest?
Dr. Clapper's statement to defense investigator
"Parents did not make regular baby care appointments." In fact, he then comments that he saw the baby two weeks after the hospital visit and she was taken from the parents on that day. They tried to see him earlier but he was on vacation. The parents did, however, call a nurse's hotline on an almost daily basis after Casey became acutely ill with lung congestion, red eyes, skin sores, abnormal crying, when John accidentally dropped her, and when her head began to look "cone" shaped from laying on her side. A nurse told John to change her position and it went back to normal.
Forensics report--no bruise on left temple nor on the cheek near the ear reported, none on chest. Iatrogenic bruises caused by "medical" handling = abnormal bruising.

Medical Records Top

Medical Records Top

Medical Records Top

Medical Records Top

Medical Records Top
Background Information Top