John and the baby's mother took the baby in for a "well baby" pediatric appointment. She had lesions around her lower lip from overheated formula the mother didn't want to admit to, and she had been fussy and and congested for days, but otherwise they thought she was fine. While being undressed for measuring and examination, she started this high-pitched crying off and on which concerned both the parents and nurse, who told the doctor she thought something was wrong, so the baby was taken to the hospital by ambulance. At some point after being taken from the parents she acquired several bruises on her face by the time she was photographed a first time and more after a second set of photos were taken after a nose tube was inserted. And then they did an x-ray and claimed there were at least 10 broken ribs and 2 broken collarbones. Thats what all the reports said. However, it turned out no fracture lines showed at all, only some knobby things on the bones that may be associated with healing fractures, but also with even a slight case of brittle bone disease and vitamin deficiency which creates a kind of scurvy effect and bone abnormalities. But the court and prosecutors were told "broken bones." Hours later, a CT scan was done and interpreted as having an indented skull fracture around the temporal lobe with the side of the bone plate lifted up and a linear fracture on the back of the head, with a subdural hematoma and areas of hemorrhage in the skull. What they court didn't find out was that the radiologist said the skull fractures and hemorrhaging were only "hours old" after the baby had already been in the hospital for many hours. 10 days later, another set of x-rays were taken, showing 10 more "broken ribs", which meant bones with "beads of callus" on them, but no sign of fracture lines.
One report in the court file said there were "bruises all over the body of this baby" but I read the pediatrician's report who saw the baby first and she said there were no marks on the baby except fo the burns around the mouth, which the mother told every one were "fever blisters", which didn't hold up when they found a burn on the roof of the baby's mouth.
I went into this thinking that the inexperienced, indifferent young mother had caused injuries and let the father be blamed, but after looking at the photos, reading all the reports and doing research on the injuries, one basic question came to mind. How did all of these injuries, supposedly caused by violent child abuse, take place without leaving single bruise or area of swollen tissue on the outside of the injury site?
And I wondered how professional health care people had come to bruise an infants all over it's face--on the cheek, temple and forehead--at a children's hospital where they were used to handling infants?
I started doing research on rib fractures, hemorrhages, and the other signs and that's when all of the information on vaccine injury started coming up--in particular the symptoms of vaccine injury mimic Shaken Baby Syndrome, with vitamine deficiencies resulting from the vaccine that cause bone deformities just like fractures occuring at different times, a hemorrhagic condition that causes bleeding internally and easy bruising externally, also in the eyes, gums, lungs, etc., as well as encephalitis which can kill the baby or cause brain damage and in particular causes "high-pitched crying. There are so many things that fit, but no one had a clue. The imprisoned father calls my house 2-3 times a week to talk to the daughter I'm raising now, and when I started telling him about this, he was shocked! He did drop the baby once accidentally, but called the hospital and went through visual checklist to determine she wasn't injured, which she wasn't. I laundry basket broke the fall onto a carpeted floor...but law enforcement and the prosecution let him think he caused the injuries even though the doctors denied absolutely that the fall was responsible for anything.
Same with the mother. She bumped into a wall while holding the baby and thought she caused injuries even though the doctors said no--they insisted John had flung the baby across the room or something, and squeezed her chest to hurt her, but the parents were never told these things and left believing they had done it. In fact, John had to pat the baby's back all night to help her cough up phlem when she was sick, so they let him think he broke her ribs that way even thought the doctors said it was impossible.
In short, the parents went through the case thinking they had accidentally caused injuries while the doctors denied any possibility that the incidents in question had caused harm. I guess I'm the only one who requested all of the records available as well as the court documents and photographs, and asked the right questions followed by the right research to come up with what seems likely to be an entirely different scenario than child abuse. The mother was always with the baby but had no incidents of child abuse to report against the father, even though he plea bargain depended on her doing so. She tried to bring up something from the past unrelated to the case, but the prosecution wasn' interested and through the book at her, even though they thought her only "crime" was in allowing the father to attack the baby and not seeking immediate medical attentions. And John thought he was guilty of accidental injuries, but would be convicted of intentional abuse and get 20 years, so he did an Alford Plea which admits the likelihood of conviction while professing one's innocence, on condition that they drop one of 3 charges. He was told if he did the plea, that the mother would be released, could get the baby, and he would have a family waiting for him to come home to in about 3 years. He felt so responsible he was willing to do the time even without any criminal intentions involved, and had no idea that an "exceptional" sentence was in the works, based solely on the opinion of whoever wrote up a pre-sentence report, without proof of intentional abuse.
I knew the baby had some kind of respiratory condition when she was taken to the hospital at 3 days old the first time, and on a hunch asked if she had been vaccinated then. She was, with a multiple vaccine of some kind, sometime between 3-8 days of birth under conditions counter-indicated for any baby. That's when it all really fell together.
So yes--the parents got a total of 24 years in prison between them for what I believe was vaccine damage, but no one had an inkling about this at the time.