On March 12, 2018 Dwayne Justin Lindsay was convicted by a Jury for the 2016 Murder of his partners six-month-old son Chayse Dearing.

Medical Experts who testified for the prosecution stated that Chayse had died as a result of a triad of non-accidental injuries: retinal bleeding, bleeding in the protective layer of the brain, and brain swelling classified as 
"SHAKEN BABY SYNDROME"
a scientifically unsupported medical hypothesis.

In May 2018, Lindsay was sentenced to 34 years in prison with a non-parole period of 27 years by Justice Stephen Kaye of the
Victorian Supreme Court. 

Throughout that time SC CR 3 Expert Evidence in Criminal Trials was implemented into the Victorian Criminal Justice System by
Justice Chris Maxwell President of the Supreme Court of Appeal.

Was this Murder? or was this a catastrophic over diagnosis of abuse with serious legal consequences.

Whilst "head injury" is listed as the COD in this case perhaps what is astonishing with this conviction is the over diagnosis of external injuries in particular Dr Greetika Badkars opinion that Chayse had been STRANGLED and abused, the catalyst for Lindsays prosecution and charge of Murder an "opinion" that would later be Globally published in the media.

In the 2017 committal proceedings Dr Micheal Phillip Burke stated that it was medically impossible that child had been strangled, concluding that clothing could account for the external marks to the child's neck but it would have been rough handling of clothing which was also the opinion of Dr Linda Elizabeth Iles, However, Burke stated that he did not know what the child had been wearing at the time of his collapse.

A post conviction review of the case files 
clearly shows that the singlet that Chayse had been wearing (which was put on by his mother Michele Dearing) was cut from the back indicating that at the time of collapse the child's singlet was on backwards. It was also noted that it he had been wearing a size 0000 (newborn) singlet when the correct sizing for Chayse's age, height and weight for this item of clothing should have been size 0.

The review also concludes that there is no continuity in the handling of this exhibit: singlet. With 4 first responders all claiming the cut and removed this item of clothing, 2 MFB officers wrongfully claiming this during trial proceedings.

Would Lindsay have been charged with Murder if this exhibit had been thoroughly examined by medical experts ? 

Why was the prosecution able to lead evidence from Badkar at trial that the child had been strangled with NO objection from the defendants legal team if it was medically established that the child had never been strangled?



The juxtaposition of Medical vs Legal in criminal cases of SBS/AHT in the Victorian Supreme Court. 

a four year analysis of the case files.

Mr Lindsay pleaded "NOT GUILTY"
and has maintained his Innocence throughout.

THE SBS/AHT HYPOTHESIS / MEDICAL EVIDENCE WAS NOT CHALLENGED IN THIS CASE & NO WITNESSES CALLED ON BEHALF OF MR LINDSAY.
Even though a request was made on multiple occasions by Mr Lindsay with supporting evidence to explore alternative causes of the triad. 

DEFENCE RESPONSE : DWAYNE HAD CAUSED THE INJURIES TO CHAYSE DEARING IN AN ATTEMPT TO ROUSE AN UNCONSCIOUS BABY. 

As Judge Posner of the U.S Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit pointed out in Aleman v. Village of Hanover Park, This type of shaking is the proper way to initiate infant CPR; hence, admitting to it hardly constitutes a confession to deadly criminal abuse.

see, e.g., Aleman v. Village of Hanover Park, 662 F. 3d 897 (7th Cir. 2011) (Posner, J.)(description of gentle shaking to elicit response from a collapsed infant was interpreted as confession to violent shaking).

Id. at 902(stating that" Aleman's mild shaking of Joshua was the proper initiation of CPR.") (citations omitted)


Publication Date : TBC

Testimony From:

Glendon Bail: Ambulance Victoria
Dr Geetika Badkar: VFPMS
Dr Deborah Colville: RCH Consultant Ophthalmologist 
Dr Linda Elizabeth ILES: VIFM
Dr Michael Phillip BURKE: VIFM

*Medical reports submitted by both VFPMS and VIFM representatives do not comply with SC CR 3. The standard and requirement expected by the Supreme Court of Victoria with regard to
Expert Evidence in Criminal Trials conducted after January 30th 2017.