A medical professional says a baby’s rib fractures could have been caused at birth, rather than at the hands of a prominent sportsman.
The sportsman, who has interim name suppression, is on trial at the Dunedin District Court after pleading not guilty to wounding with reckless disregard and an alternative charge of assault.
The Crown case is that the defendant applied a squeezing or crushing force to the child’s torso during a moment of frustration while the infant’s mother was at the gym in July 2023.
But the defence has offered other explanations, including the baby’s severe vitamin-D deficiency causing him to fracture easily, the injuries being caused at birth or the fractures being caused through unsafe co-sleeping.
Yesterday, obstetrician and gynaecologist Dr Barry Schifrin offered his opinion on the birth of the child.
He said it was an "extraordinarily rapid" descent and pressure would have been put on the baby as it navigated the birth canal.
The mother described the delivery as a "two-push" birth.
Dr Schifrin said a fast labour and quick descent could lead to complications, especially in bigger babies — as this baby was.
"The baby is being squeezed, at least the head, maybe the body as well," Dr Schifrin said.
While birth-related rib fractures were "rare" they had been documented, he said.
"There is no fracture or set of fractures that is diagnostic of abuse," he said.
"Those alleging abuse in this case have failed to responsibly exclude the significant potential of birth injury."
He said other people who had looked at the case had not fully considered obstetric history in reaching their conclusions.
While he would not rule out that the baby had been intentionally harmed, he believed the allegation of child abuse was "medically flawed".
He accepted there were "no immediate consequences, no immediate harm was recognised" after the birth.
Dr Schifrin told the jury he was censured by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists in 2004.
Under cross-examination he revealed why.
"They said I had intentionally lied or misrepresented facts in a case, which was certainly not true, but that’s what they said," the doctor said.
"It had no impact. It was, I believe, an attempt to get me to stop testifying, especially for plaintiffs."
He later received awards from the organisation and had continued giving evidence in cases since the censure.
Earlier in the day, a neighbour of the defendant said she visited the home just hours after the alleged violence took place.
She said the baby had always been "uncomfortable" and nothing was different that day.
"He wasn’t crying, he was grunting and, like, doing sit-ups," the woman said.
"I remember thinking he can’t poo."
The witness described the defendant, whom she had known for about three years, as "very gentle".
"He is patient, he is kind, he is thoughtful," she told the jury.
The defence evidence has concluded, with closings from the Crown and defence expected today.
