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.
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.
This has nothing to do with parents' supplement business nor does it have anything to do with vaccines. The autopsy was not conclusive and the experts disagreed on the cause of death. I'm not at all "threatened" by the fact that the couple's efforts to boost the child's immune system were alternative and failed to save him. I'm not the one who's dogmatic in that regard. I think that both mainstream and alternative medicine have their merits and faults.
Based on what I've read about this case, I would have had a very difficult time as a juror making a decision. The parents clearly loved their child and were very attentive to him throughout his illness and they did not seem to recognize the severity of his illness until it was too late. Maybe there was a little bit of denial on their part too. Who knows. The fact that the ambulance did not have the equipment to properly intubate the boy also may have contributed to his death as per the former Chief Medical Examiner.
I've read a lot about this case and I still don't know everything that the jurors heard and neither does anyone else who wasn't in the courtroom as reporting has not been very detailed in most cases. I have compassion for all involved. I find it disturbing how you are trying to spin the tragic death of a child and the prosecution of his parents to suit your agenda without seeming to even know much about the case other then what was presented in those scant news stories.
Last edited by MissTerri; 04-29-2016 at 07:20 AM..
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,
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).
Except perhaps ego or stubbornness or the need to be right. There are a few in every profession.
Except perhaps ego or stubbornness or the need to be right. There are a few in every profession.
True.
I know that David Stephan's Dad was sued by the Crown over his supplement business and the Crown lost. The family speculates that the law came down harder on them in part because of this. I have no idea whether there could possibly be any truth to that because I never bothered to look into that case but it shows one such motive for the prosecution to win at all costs.
Just like in the case of the Chief Medical Examiner who claimed that her office was compromised due to political influence and interests including interference with cause of death in cases specifically mentioning inmates and children in state run group homes. Even if most people are decent honest hardworking people who just want for the truth to prevail, there is always room for corruption and people with underhanded motives. She lost her job for speaking up about this which shows that the problems she had brought to light were not problems in the government's eyes. They saw the problem to be with the whistleblower who had stellar performance records for bringing the issues to light.
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.
This is exactly why I have had such a hard time mustering sympathy for them. Let's just say he's not completely off base about being used to set an example for other families who forgo vaccines and primarily use naturopathy... it is still unconscionable for them not to take personal accountability for their choices and say "Yeah, we ****ed up. But we honestly didn't realize how far gone he was, and if we could do it all over again we would have gotten medical attention much sooner." If I had contributed to my child's death by not getting he timely, appropriate medical care, I'd probably have a hard time coming to terms with it, and acknowledging the level of [preventable] suffering my child endured, too. But, with sentencing looming over them, that would work to their favor a lot more than alleging corruption and conspiracies.
This is exactly why I have had such a hard time mustering sympathy for them. Let's just say he's not completely off base about being used to set an example for other families who forgo vaccines and primarily use naturopathy... it is still unconscionable for them not to take personal accountability for their choices and say "Yeah, we ****ed up. But we honestly didn't realize how far gone he was, and if we could do it all over again we would have gotten medical attention much sooner." If I had contributed to my child's death by not getting he timely, appropriate medical care, I'd probably have a hard time coming to terms with it, and acknowledging the level of [preventable] suffering my child endured, too. But, with sentencing looming over them, that would work to their favor a lot more than alleging corruption and conspiracies.
I don't know about the Dad but the Mom did express remorse and regret in the courtroom for not getting him to a doctor sooner. I think that she was probably in denial about the severity of his illness when her nurse friend told her that she thought it could be viral meningitis. They should have gone to the Dr. on that day but they waited and the next day was when things took a turn for the worst. Again, I have no idea if the Dad has expressed any remorse or regret but Mom sure did.
I don't know about the Dad but the Mom did express remorse and regret in the courtroom for not getting him to a doctor sooner. I think that she was probably in denial about his illness when her nurse friend told her that she thought it could be viral meningitis. They should have gone to the Dr. on that day but they waited and the next day was when things took a turn for the worst. Again, I have no idea if the Dad has expressed any remorse or regret but Mom sure did.
I'm glad to hear that. Dad needs to put a cork in it, because most reasonable people would be okay with a light sentence if the parents are genuinely remorseful and admit their fault. Hell, even taking a plea deal would have gotten them a lot more public sympathy. But, pointing the finger at everyone else (even if he believes it to be true) is not a smart move when, regardless of any other factors at play (the poorly equipped ambulance, for example), it still all comes down to their choice to delay medical care.
This has nothing to do with parents' supplement business nor does it have anything to do with vaccines. The autopsy was not conclusive and the experts disagreed on the cause of death. I'm not at all "threatened" by the fact that the couple's efforts to boost the child's immune system were alternative and failed to save him. I'm not the one who's dogmatic in that regard. I think that both mainstream and alternative medicine have their merits and faults.
Based on what I've read about this case, I would have had a very difficult time as a juror making a decision. The parents clearly loved their child and were very attentive to him throughout his illness and they did not seem to recognize the severity of his illness until it was too late. Maybe there was a little bit of denial on their part too. Who knows. The fact that the ambulance did not have the equipment to properly intubate the boy also may have contributed to his death as per the former Chief Medical Examiner.
I've read a lot about this case and I still don't know everything that the jurors heard and neither does anyone else who wasn't in the courtroom as reporting has not been very detailed in most cases. I have compassion for all involved. I find it disturbing how you are trying to spin the tragic death of a child and the prosecution of his parents to suit your agenda without seeming to even know much about the case other then what was presented in those scant news stories.
The anti-vaccination community insists that vaccines damage the immune system and that being unvaccinated makes children healthier. Ezekiel's case certainly shows that is not true. The supplement business is relevant because reliance on supplements is what got Ezekiel killed. There are no supplements which can "boost the immune system".
I do not think you see the threat to their business that would come from taking Ezekiel to a doctor. If they are going to sell supplements to "boost the immune system" what does it say about their faith in their products if they do not use them on their own child?
The report from the EMTs indicates that Ezekiel's pupils were fixed and dilated when they got to him. That is a sign of brain death. The current ME says the brain at autopsy had no features of hypoxia. That means the EMTs were able to ventilate the baby even if they could not intubate him. The illness was bacterial, and the most common organisms that cause bacterial pneumonia and empyema in a child Ezekiel's age are Hib and pneumococci, for which there are vaccines. The former ME says that the empyema did not happen until after Ezekiel was at the hospital and was due to aspiration. Ezekiel was on life support only three days. Empyema takes longer than that to develop, and usually happens when pneumonia goes untreated. Ezekiel was on antibiotics. Viral meninigitis seldom makes a child as sick as Ezekiel was and has a 99% survival rate.
You want to believe the ME who is suing over her lost job rather than the one who did the autopsy. I understand that, because you believe in treating infections with supplements. The jurors who did hear all of the case apparently believed the current ME. I concur with them.
Please do not lecture me about compassion. I cannot find it for these parents.
The report from the EMTs indicates that Ezekiel's pupils were fixed and dilated when they got to him. That is a sign of brain death.
Please provide a source for this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by suzy_q2010
The current ME says the brain at autopsy had no features of hypoxia. That means the EMTs were able to ventilate the baby even if they could not intubate him.
The former Medical Examiner who's expertise in in asphyxia disagrees with the current Medical Examiner's opinion on the cause of death. We know from the EMT testimony that they were able to partially ventilate but not fully.
Quote:
Originally Posted by suzy_q2010
The illness was bacterial, and the most common organisms that cause bacterial pneumonia and empyema in a child Ezekiel's age are Hib and pneumococci, for which there are vaccines.
The autopsy wasn't 100% conclusive and the experts disagree on the cause of death.
Quote:
Originally Posted by suzy_q2010
The former ME says that the empyema did not happen until after Ezekiel was at the hospital and was due to aspiration. Ezekiel was on life support only three days. Empyema takes longer than that to develop, and usually happens when pneumonia goes untreated.
I will take the former ME's (who happens to be an expert in asphyxia) opinion over yours regarding this matter.
Quote:
Originally Posted by suzy_q2010
Viral meninigitis seldom makes a child as sick as Ezekiel was and has a 99% survival rate.
Right. One in 100. She believes that the cause of death was not the meningitis but rather a throat obstruction and subsequent lack of oxygen via the ambulance ride. Enterovirus and rhinovirus were found not only in his nose but in his throat and bronchial tubes.
Here is an article regarding the EMT's testimony. http://lethbridgeherald.com/news/loc...-save-toddler/
Quote:
Court was told the Cardston ambulance that met the Stephans on the highway after they called 911 didn’t have the proper equipment for a toddler. The bag valve mask for supplying oxygen to a small child was too big, and other breathing aids were also ineffective. An endotracheal tube finally managed to provide the child with some oxygen, but it was still only partially effective because the tube was also the wrong size.
Quote:
He also noted, in response to Buckley’s questions, there was an ambulance at Glenwood, and the Stephans would likely have driven within a block of it on their way to meet the ambulance from Cardston.
Quote:
Originally Posted by suzy_q2010
You want to believe the ME who is suing over her lost job rather than the one who did the autopsy. The jurors who did hear all of the case apparently believed the current ME. I concur with them.
I believe her testimony shows that the autopsy can't be used as evidence either way due to the fact that two experts came to two very different conclusions regarding the findings. I don't know which way I would have been swayed if I had been a juror. I don't know how you can say with such confidence that you would have gone one way or another without having seen and heard everything that the jury heard.
Note that Ezekiel stopped breathing several times before the EMTs got to him. The mother did CPR for about ten minutes before the EMTs arrived. And the former ME wants to blame hypoxia on the EMTs? Sure.
"Ezekiel had no spontaneous return of breathing and Collet says he was blue by the time EMS arrived." People complain of medical people acting like they are God, but it seems the former ME is suggesting that the EMTs should be God. They did get Ezekiel's circulation going again, despite the inadequacies of their equipment.
The doctor also states that Ezekiel was very hemodynamically unstable when he arrived and had fixed and dilated pupils.
Quote:
The former Medical Examiner who's expertise in in asphyxia disagrees with the current Medical Examiner's opinion on the cause of death. We know from the EMT testimony that they were able to partially ventilate but not fully. The autopsy wasn't 100% conclusive and the experts disagree on the cause of death. I will take the former ME's (who happens to be an expert in asphyxia) opinion over yours regarding this matter. Right. One in 100. She believes that the cause of death was not the meningitis but rather a throat obstruction and subsequent lack of oxygen via the ambulance ride. Enterovirus and rhinovirus were found not only in his nose but in his throat and bronchial tubes.
If the child had been asphyxiated due to complete obstruction of the airway, his heart would have stopped permanently, within minutes. It's called suffocation.
From the doctor's note in the previous link, the working diagnosis when he arrived was bacterial meningitis and broad spectrum antibiotics were started. I will take her diagnosis over that of an ex-ME who is suing the department that did the autopsy.
Quote:
I believe her testimony shows that the autopsy can't be used as evidence either way due to the fact that two experts came to two very different conclusions regarding the findings. I don't know which way I would have been swayed if I had been a juror. I don't know how you can say with such confidence that you would have gone one way or another without having seen and heard everything that the jury heard.
You do not know that the opinion of the ME that did the autopsy is the opinion of only one person. That was the diagnosis of the attending physician, too. As I have told you earlier, it is also virtually certain that the case would have been presented at the hospital's mortality conference.
"A forensic pathologist has now testified regarding the autopsy findings. Dr. Adeagbo concluded that Ezekiel died from both bacterial meningitis as well as pneumonia with an accompanying empyema. Empyema is typically diagnosed in the setting of a bacterial pneumonia when pus collects within the lining of the lung.
So what does this mean? It certainly makes sense from a clinical perspective. Ezekiel likely developed bacterial pneumonia caused by infection by either S. pneumo [pneumococcus; there's a vaccine for that] or HiB [hemophilus influenzae B; there's a vaccine for that], which went untreated and developed into an empyema. At this point surgical drainage is usually necessary for recovery in addition to appropriate antibiotic treatment. His bloodstream was repeatedly showered with the pathogenic bacteria, which eventually made its way to the child’s brain."
In addition, there was apparently a test done that showed Ezekiel did indeed have HiB.
From information in the autopsy report provided by Ezekiel's parents:
"As they tried to put the pieces of their lives back together again, they [the Stephans] received a copy of their son’s autopsy report 8 months after his death. Instead of a definitive answer to the cause of death, the report listed an 'opinion,' with a heavy emphasis on the fact that Ezekiel was not immunized. The opinion was that he died from bacterial meningitis and an infection in his right lung. According to 'a non-clinical research methodology,' haemophilus influenzae bacteria was identified in his body, but the particular strain was not cultured or identified."
Of course, the parents are questioning the report because it is a research test and not yet in clinical use. That does not mean it is not valid. In addition, the clinical course is compatible with HiB, not viral meningitis.
"Opinion" by the way is used to describe the conclusion of the person that provided the report. It does not mean, "Hey, this is just what I think and someone else may have another opinion which is different but just as valid."
Suzy, your link shows that Ezekiel's pupils were dilated when he arrived at the hospital which does not support your claim that he was brain dead by the time the EMT's got to him. They could not successfully get oxygen to him on that ambulance ride.
As for the other links you proved to your biased extreme pro mainstream medicine propaganda blogs that you hold so dear and always site in every conversation as if they are valid sources...They are no better sources then sites like Natural News or Dr. Mercola, which you may have noticed that I never have shared. I don't care to read whatever spin they came up with. I will stick to the trial testimony and the official documents. I'd advise you to do the same.
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.
