Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Sorry, but in Canada, jurors are NOT allowed to comment, in way, about how they reached their verdict. Period.
They also cannot write about , or speak about their decision. To do so, is a criminal code offence in Canada, under the "Juries Act " which is a part of the Criminal Code of Canada. A juror who is charged under this section , may, upon conviction, be sentenced to a Federal prison for up to five years. It has happened, but not very often.
What was the virus that caused the meningitis? The bacterial organism was not identified because the child was moribund on arrival at the hospital. No spinal tap was done. The doctor who saw him states in her examination that Ezekiel was so fragile she did not even want to turn him over to examine his back. The pathologic examination of his tissues was consistent with a bacterial process, and not a viral one. The child had a bacterial pneumonia, that was allowed to go untreated, and bacteria got into his blood and spread to his brain. He had lung symptoms first, then brain symptoms.
Enterovirus. Read the article.
Quote:
The most likely infectious agent in her examination of the entire medical examiner's file is enterovirus. This virus was found in a swab and wash of the nose, throat and bronchial, along with rhinovirus. These are the likely cause of the respiratory infection that caused Ezekiel to suddenly stop breathing. Enterovirus is also capable of an aggressive spread to the brain, and is almost always the cause of viral meningitis.
Quote:
There wasn't an abundance of neutrophils as Dr. Adeagbo had reported. There were no bacteria identified to conclude Bacterial Meningitis..
Quote:
Also, when Ezekiel was first admitted to the hospital, his condition prevented a lumbar puncture to sample the cerebral spinal fluid (CSF); this is the only way to diagnose for bacteria meningitis. Because this test wasn't done, and because high doses of antibiotics were administered, Dr. Adeagbo employed a test reserved only for researchers to search for bacteria in the CSF. The research microbiologist cautioned Dr. Adeagbo not to rely on any findings from this test in his report, which he did.
Again. Wish I could quote the whole thing. There is so much more worth reading beyond this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by suzy_q2010
You frequently claim medical studies are biased because of financial considerations. If you cannot see Sauvageau's clear conflict of interest, the jury did.
Can you not see that she willingly risked her job as chief medical examiner to shine light on the fact that the Crown (Prosecutor) and other politicians, were using their influence to change the results of autopsies, etc. She wasn't willing to lie in order to keep her job but you think she has reason to lie in this case because she's mad at them? And the prosecution gets the presumption of honesty over her why exactly? They have motive to lie.
"adjective, fewer, fewest.
1.
not many but more than one"
Like I said, the deliberations only lasted a few hours. It was an open and shut case.
In your universe "a few hours" is one in the same as "12 hours". Got it.
7pm: "Honey, I'm going out with the guys for a couple of beers. I'll be home in a few hours"
7am: "Honey! Why are you so mad? I said I would be gone for a few hours and I was!"
Last edited by MissTerri; 04-28-2016 at 02:38 PM..
Sorry, but in Canada, jurors are NOT allowed to comment, in way, about how they reached their verdict. Period.
They also cannot write about , or speak about their decision. To do so, is a criminal code offence in Canada, under the "Juries Act " which is a part of the Criminal Code of Canada. A juror who is charged under this section , may, upon conviction, be sentenced to a Federal prison for up to five years. It has happened, but not very often.
Silence in this instance is life long.
Jim B.
Ah well, it would have been interesting! I have heard of American juries that made a very quick decision, then just chatted for a while to make it look like they had deliberated longer. Also, sometimes there is a single dissenter who has to be convinced.
Ah well, it would have been interesting! I have heard of American juries that made a very quick decision, then just chatted for a while to make it look like they had deliberated longer. Also, sometimes there is a single dissenter who has to be convinced.
Quote:
In less than 24 hours, the jury came back with its judgment. In the packed courtroom, their foreman, an older man in the second row, stood up and announced the verdicts in a voice just above a whisper.
The verdicts brought gasps in the crowd, then shrieks and sobs. Collet Stephan bent over sobbing; two female jurors began to cry. The stress of emotion could even be seen on Justice Rodney Jerke’s face, as he agreed with the defence that the Stephans shouldn’t have to hand over their passports as they await sentencing at a date to be determined on June 13.
First you try to imply that the jury reached their decision in "a few hours" and when that clearly was not true you instead try to make it seem like the time difference was due to them just filling time with casual banter. Frankly I find it appalling that you think that the jurors would be so flippant about their role in deciding the guilt or innocence of these parents. It doesn't seem like you know very much about the case at all.
A few further points about the Canadian jury system.
Jurors can NEVER be named, nor can they be identified by court room artists, and of course in Canadian court rooms, there are NO cameras or sound recording devices allowed. The faces of the jury will be left blank in any court room drawings. Their identity is carefully protected.
How do I know this ? 30 years as a sworn law enforcement officer, in Canada.
We do not know that. Enterovirus was in the nose. Having it in the nose does not mean it caused the meningitis. Children often carry viruses and have no symptoms from them.
Quote:
Can you not see that she willingly risked her job as chief medical examiner to shine light on the fact that the Crown (Prosecutor) and other politicians, were using their influence to change the results of autopsies, etc. She wasn't willing to lie in order to keep her job but you think she has reason to lie in this case because she's mad at them? And the prosecution gets the presumption of honesty over her why exactly? They have motive to lie.
Why would the prosecution lie? What difference would it make to the current ME whether the condition was viral or bacterial? Also, you can bet the current ME had other pathologists look at the autopsy slides before he got on the stand to testify.* No matter whether it was bacterial or viral, the parents still did not obtain timely medical care for their child.
Another point against a viral cause it that viral meningitis is rarely fatal, with a mortality rate of about 1 in 100.
By the time Ezekiel was taken off life support he had been on antibiotics for three days, more than enough time to kill the bacteria so that they were not recoverable at the time of the autopsy. Even a single dose of an antibiotic can make attempts to culture it fail.
Sauvageau has great motivation to discredit the current ME. Her contract was not renewed and she lost a job paying over (Canadian) $300K annually. She is suing for over $5 million. Maybe she is not a disgruntled employee with an ax to grind, but she sure looks like it.
*US hospitals conduct reviews of all in hospital deaths, and I suspect Canadian hospitals do the same. Deaths are presented at conferences that include not just the staff members involved, but everyone in the department. The entire pathology department may attend. The tissue slides can be projected on a screen for everyone to look at. That means that there is an opportunity for anyone to question the original diagnosis.
Quote:
In your universe "a few hours" is one in the same as "12 hours". Got it.
Good. Glad you finally get it.
In the context of jury trials, during which deliberations can last for days or weeks, the decision in the Stephan case was made in a few hours. It did not take a very long time, the jury did not need days or weeks to come to a conclusion, suggesting that they found the evidence in the case to be compelling.
Last edited by suzy_q2010; 04-28-2016 at 05:31 PM..
First you try to imply that the jury reached their decision in "a few hours" and when that clearly was not true you instead try to make it seem like the time difference was due to them just filling time with casual banter. Frankly I find it appalling that you think that the jurors would be so flippant about their role in deciding the guilt or innocence of these parents. It doesn't seem like you know very much about the case at all.
My comment was in response to Jim B.'s information on the Canadian jury system. It was not and is not meant to be a description of the jury in the Stephan case.
Really, Terri, your attempt to turn a my comment about the brevity of the jury deliberation - and it was brief as jury verdicts go - into a big deal is truly bizarre. Even your quote makes note that the verdict was rendered in "less than 24 hours." Give it a rest. The jury did not take a long time to come to a verdict.
Suzy I can't force you to read the link that I shared but hopefully others who are interested in learning more about this case which was far from cut and dry will take the time to read it as well as other in depth articles documenting the trial and learn more about this case. It was an extremely complicated and extremely interesting case. It would have been difficult to have been on that jury and faced with making the final decision as to this couple's innocence or guilt. It was far from cut and dry. I feel for the boy, his parents, siblings, grandparents, the jury, the judge, etc. There were no winners. Very sad for all.
Suzy I can't force you to read the link that I shared but hopefully others who are interested in learning more about this case which was far from cut and dry will take the time to read it as well as other in depth articles documenting the trial and learn more about this case. It was an extremely complicated and extremely interesting case. It would have been difficult to have been on that jury and faced with making the final decision as to this couple's innocence or guilt. It was far from cut and dry. I feel for the boy, his parents, siblings, grandparents, the jury, the judge, etc. There were no winners. Very sad for all.
I did read it. The speed with which a guilty verdict was reached suggests that the evidence was indeed cut and dried.
Everyone involved is mourning for the dead child. This assuredly was a difficult case to be personally involved in.
This case shows us that unvaccinated children are not "healthier", that feeding an 18 month old child herbal smoothies will not substitute for vaccination, and that herbal concoctions will not treat infections.
Like many, I am finding it hard to feel sorry for the parents, especially the father, who accepts no responsibility at all for what happened. The risk that he will deny proper care to his other three children is considerable. Had the child gotten well, his story would have made a terrific testimonial for the business the parents run, which illustrates why testimonials are worthless. What he should be doing is telling the court he is closing down his supplement business and arranging for his surviving children to be vaccinated.
I understand that anything that points out the deficiencies of alternative medicine is threatening to you. Like it or not, reliance on alt med killed Ezekiel Stephan.
Like many, I am finding it hard to feel sorry for the parents, especially the father, who accepts no responsibility at all for what happened....
Full disclosure: I am a lawyer who practices in Alberta. I have been close to this case, by simply being at the courthouse, representing my own clients, while all this was going on. I have discussed it with my professional colleagues and courthouse staff, in passing.
As I said elsewhere on these forums,
Quote:
From a legal perspective, the father is doing himself no favours [with his Facebook "Letter to the Jurors"]. One of the mitigating factors raised at a sentencing hearing--a minor one, but one nonetheless--is whether the accused shows remorse or expresses contrition. He's done neither; rather, he's blaming the justice system and the Crown Prosecutor for the conviction, which definitely won't mitigate any sentence....
Had the Stephans been my clients, I would have instructed them to be quiet about the matter post-conviction. No talking about it with the media, of course (and I don't believe they can anyway); but more importantly, no posts about it on social media, no posts to internet forums like this, no communicating about it to anybody in any way. The only person they should be speaking about it with, is their lawyer.
I should add that the accused, accused the Crown of "deception, drama and trickery." Uh, no. Our prosecutors here in Canada do not keep their jobs based on the number of convictions they get. They are not elected; they are appointed, and paid a salary; thus they have no reason or incentive to resort to "deception, drama and trickery," in order to get a conviction. Any convictions they get are based on facts revealed in the courtroom. If the facts don't add up, then they withdraw the charge.
Aside to Jim B: each province has it own Juries Act, which is not part of the Criminal Code. However, you are correct that jurors cannot talk subsequently; see CC s. 649. But it's only a summary offense, not indictable, so only a fine of up to $5000 or up to six months in jail, or both, is possible. See CC s. 787(1).
Last edited by ChevySpoons; 04-29-2016 at 03:37 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
