Make your own free website on Tripod.com

BABY SUNAINA UK DEATH INVESTIGATION

Serious Crime Police Report 260508

Home | RPSGB vs two pharmacists | GMC vs 22 doctors | Pathologist 1 report 301200 | Toxicology report | Pathologist 2 report 310101 | Medical 1 report 010501 | Police Paediatrician 1 & 2 150804 | Pharmacist 1 240304 | High Court | Police report | Pharmacist 2 080608 | IPCC complaint | ECHR

Detective Inspector Carl Tipping failed to conduct a criminal investigation into the evidence of drug overdoses and the unlawful removal of organs yet claims that there is not enough evidence.  He states that he cannot now investigate because the body is in India, yet fails to investigate why this investigation was not done when the body was kept hidden for several years in the UK

Page 2 para 3

"All the evidence suggests that Sunaina died due to congenital abnormalities.  If you wish to contest this view, then you need to ask an independent expert to compile a report, which disproves the above findings and opinions."

 

Page 2 para 4

"You add that the doctors ‘punctured’ Sunaina to give her anti-biotics, but that she was not to be given treatment and puncturing is a known cause of sudden death.  In his statement dated 11th May 2001 to Dr Stearns, Dr Solebo states that on the 26th October, he was informed by Dr Hancox that she had been unsuccessful in siting any intravenous line for Sunaina’s antibiotics.  He states, “I then decided to site the intravenous line.  The first attempt failed.  At a second attempt, I inserted an intravenous cannula into a small vein, but discovered that Sunaina had suddenly stopped breathing.  Her eyes rolled and she also stopped moving.  I realized that Sunaina must have had a cardiac arrest and immediately instituted active resuscitation”.

 

Page 2 para 6

"There is no evidence to suggest that Sunaina was killed due to “puncturing”.  If you wish to dispute this view, then this is something which your independent  expert should be asked to comment on."

 

Page 2 para 8

"Sunaina was given an overdose of ranitidine.  She was given 150mg 2x daily instead of 3mg 3x daily. 

Tesco prescribed the overdose of ranitidine on the26th September 2000.  The above error was repeated by their pharmacy.

Dr Harrowes and Dr Shenoy at King George Hospital prescribed the ranitidine overdose on the 3rd October 2000.  Sunaina was given 30mg 3x daily instead of 3mg 3x daily.  The doctors then failed to stop administering the ranitidine to allow recovery from the overdoses.

 

Dr Soffe, a pharmacist failed to note the overdose of ranitidine on her daily ward round.  The ranitidine overdose caused an enlargement of Sunaina’s heart.

 

The Royal Pharmaceutical Society conducted an enquiry in to the ranitidine overdose by King George Hospital and Tescos."

 

Page 3 para 1

"In paragraph 23, he [Professor Weindling] states. “My view is that there were mistakes but that these were genuine errors.  Furthermore, it is unlikely that these mistakes resulted in serious injury or permanent damage”.

 

Page 3 Para 7

"If you wish to dispute Professor Weindling’s views, then you should ask your independent expert to address these issues."

 

Page 6 para 6

"I agree with your claim that there is no evidence to suggest that vitreous humour was taken and analysed.  If the scientist thought it necessary to carry out this test then vitreous humour could still have easily been taken." 

 

Page 6 para 8

"There is no dispute that an overdose of ranitidine was administered, but it is unlikely to have caused Sunaina any harm.  There was no evidence from the analysis of the stomach contents to show any overdose of potassium."

 

Page 7 para 2

“You also allege that video recordings were suspiciously omitted from the post mortems."

 

“Page 7 para 3

Your final complaints about the post mortem examinations is that no proper PM was carried out because the body had been tampered with to hide the removal of organs and that no one considered that an oxygen mask was used to suffocate Sunaina."

 

Page 7 para 4

“You have been unsuccessful in your attempts to persuade the Indian courts to order a further post mortem, but I do not see why this do not prevent you from having an examination carried out privately at your own expense."

 

Page 7 para 5

“You have alleged that the eyeballs, tongue and brain were removed on the day of death, four days before the final PM examination on the 30th October 2000."

 

Page 8 Para 3

“You have made various points about the police photographs, which show that Sunaina’s trunk was suspiciously bright red and she had a bloated stomach.  This is a matter that needs addressing by your independent expert because neither pathologist commented on it."

 

Page 8 para 7

“You have alleged that social workers committed perjury at an emergency hearing at a magistrates home @ 23.00hrs on the 20th October 2000, to obtain an Emergency Protection Order.  They used the Protection Order to prevent your family from being present whilst drugs were administered and Sunaina allowed to die."

 

Page 10 para 2

"You have stated that the time of death is suspicious.  Sunaina’s parents were informed at 11.05am that she ad died, but the time of death is recorded as 11.10am."

 

Page 10 para 6

"With attempts to site intravenous needles into Sunaina to give her antibiotics and the attempts to resuscitate her, I do not see that it is impossible that the blood came from these activities.  There is nothing to suggest that any cut or bleeding contributed to Sunaina’s death.  The cardigan is available to you should you wish the carry out an independent examination of the garment at your own expense."

 

Page 11 para 6

"You have alleged that pages were removed from the King Georges Hospital medical file covering the last week of Sunaina’s life.  In his report dated 15 August 2004, Professor Weindling states, “I can find no evidence to suggest that the medical record was falsified in any way, nor can I see why it should have been.  It is correct that ideally entries in the medical record should be timed, dated and signed.  It is however, often the case that this standard is not met in British hospitals”.

 

Page 12 para 4

"I have not found, nor have you produced any evidence to disprove the finding of the pathologists, the inquest or the police investigation.  To do so, you need to appoint an independent medical expert.

 

"Whilst we are fully aware that you do not accept the findings as outlined above I must now tell you that the review into Sunaina’s death is complete.  The papers will be filed away and the police will not spend any more time investigating this case. 

 

"You have not produced any expert evidence at all to refute the findings as summarized above.  I will only respond to further correspondence from you or your family if you produce prima facia evidence to overturn the inquest verdict and the opinions of Professor Weindling. "

 

image002.jpg

image004.jpg

image006.jpg

image008.jpg

image010.jpg

image012.jpg

image014.jpg

image016.jpg

image018.jpg

image020.jpg

image022.jpg

image024.jpg

Baby Sunaina died suddenly on 26 October 2000, aged 5 months, in a UK hospital, after UK paediatricians decided it was in "her best interests to die" against the parents wishes and without a High Court Order.  Pathologists found three needle marks on each hand, white food material in the airways and a wound in the arm, yet an Inquest concluded she died of natural causes.  The family expatriated the body to India after UK authorities hid the body for several years and threatened to destroy the body.  There is evidence that all internal organs including eyeballs were removed unlawfully to hide the cause of death.  Police appointed paediatrician took 4 years to admit doctors, pharmacists and nurses gave deliberate drug overdoses over a period of a month preceding death.  The family want the body brought back to the UK for a second Inquest after UK Police refused to make a request to India authorities to investigate.  A needle puncture in the neck has been omitted from all UK investigations.