Dear Kate

[Rosy]

Dear Kate,

I am contacting you in regard to your 2 articles dated March 14th and 15th in regard to Brendan Barnes being acquitted of the manslaughter of baby Max.

In what is obviously a tragic situation where nothing can bring Max back I find your biased articles a disgrace.   Barnsey has been acquitted.  He's no longer got the got the guillotine of life in jail hanging over his head, he's no longer locked away in remand yet a certain journo (you) seems hell bent on using your position to influence public opinion against him.

Sure people are grieving and want answers but you should respect the fact that many have been through hell in this instance, and write your article accordingly .

If you've been following this case closely you'd be well aware that your articles don't mention other evidence given in the Coroner's Court in 2006 as mentioned in the 3rd article below, yet you have only published what suits your agenda.

Evidence you conveniently didn’t mention includes

• Paula said that Max's cousin Liam would sometimes hit him
• Paula said she'd never seen Brendan be violent with Max and never took any threats seriously
  
• The injuries Max had were 7-10 days old in one instance and 1-3 days old in the other.  No evidence to conclude they were inflicted on the night he was admitted to hospital.
  
• Paula admitted to lying to doctors about the incident
  
• Max had three to four bruises on its head and extensive pneumonia, commonly seen with severe long-standing head injuries.
  
• there was nothing in the autopsy to show the baby was necessarily shaken in a severe way
  
  

A very, very sad situation for all concerned and if you have any conscience you’d realise your articles influence the public, and in regard to this issue you’ve cast aspertions over the jury's verdict.

Maybe you should have asked who was looking after Max when he was actually injured rather than highlighting who was looking after him on the night he succummed to those injuries.

R.I.P. baby Max.  I hope you are comforted by happy memories of better times Paula.  You've been through hell Barnsey.  Best wishes now at last the legal nightmare is over and you've been acquitted.

Lift your act Kate.

 

[Rosy]

Mother: who killed baby Max?
Kate Uebergang

March 14, 2008 12:00am
A SUPREME Court jury yesterday acquitted Brendan John Barnes of the manslaughter of a 13-month-old boy, leaving the child's mother to ask tearfully outside court: "Who killed Max?"

In 2006, a coroner found Mr Barnes, who was caring for his former girlfriend's son, to be "the only person" who could have inflicted dreadful injuries on Maxwell.

But the jury yesterday took just four hours to find Mr Barnes not guilty. Baby Max died in the Royal Children's Hospital on December 20, 2004, three months after being admitted with severe brain injuries.

Mr Barnes, 33, of Eltham, who had pleaded not guilty to one count of murder and one count of manslaughter, smiled at his defence team as the verdict was read out.

Last night, the child's distraught mother, Paula Duffy, who sat by Maxwell's hospital bedside for three months before he died, said: "I thought I'd lived my worst nightmare.

"But that was a bad dream. This is my nightmare.

"So who killed Max? I've been cleared.

"He was such a pleasure, he was just precious. I used to call him my little precious."

The jury had heard Mr Barnes was caring for the baby at the home of Maxwell's grandfather while Ms Duffy was gravely ill and convalescing in the house.

Maxwell was taken to hospital after he was found not breathing. He never regained consciousness.

An autopsy revealed two subdural haemorrhages and bleeding in the baby's eyes, consistent with being shaken or struck on the head.

A tearful Ms Duffy said she was shocked by the verdict, saying she felt the jury had not been told the full story.

"There were only two of us there throughout that whole time," she said.

"I know I didn't do it.


"I've had to fight this whole time to get a bit of justice for my son."

Ms Duffy said Mr Barnes was looking after Maxwell while she was unwell.

Her weight had dropped to 35kg as she dealt with post-traumatic stress following the death of her sister Kelly.

Ms Duffy said she had left court for the day yesterday but rushed back when she heard there was a verdict.

She said she was disappointed not to arrive in time to hear the outcome.

"Maxwell was born prematurely and he had to struggle at birth. But he was such an easy-going, happy, baby," Ms Duffy said.

She has another 15-month-old son and is pregnant with her third child, also a boy.

"Unfortunately these two little boys are going to miss out on knowing their big brother."

Last Friday, Justice Jack Forrest made the decision that Mr Barnes could not be found guilty of murder because there was not enough evidence and asked the jury to consider the lesser charge of manslaughter.

The jury of 11 men and one woman began deliberations at 12.45pm yesterday and returned its verdict just after 5pm.

In 2006, a coroner found Mr Barnes was the only person who could have inflicted the dreadful injuries on Maxwell.

Coroner Phillip Byrne said he could not properly conclude Paula Duffy was involved.

Prosecutor Gavin Silbert, SC, told the court at the opening of the trial on February 27 that Maxwell was taken to the RCH unconscious by air ambulance from his mother's home at Skye, southeast of Melbourne, on September 27, 2004.

"Max was admitted with major head injuries," Mr Silbert said.

He said that Maxwell had injuries consistent with being shaken or hit on the head with a blunt object.

Defence lawyer Mark Rochford asked the jury to give his client "a fair go" and to keep in mind that no one saw Mr Barnes shake Maxwell.

"The Crown's case is a mixture of facts, theory and conjecture," Mr Rochford told the court.

 

[Rosy]

Joke of hitting kid kept from murder trial jury
Kate Uebergang

March 15, 2008 12:00am
A MAN acquitted of killing his girlfriend's baby son joked about giving crying children "a few belts around the head" days before the toddler was rushed to hospital.

Brendan John Barnes also spoke about frightening "the living s---" out of his own child when he misbehaved, according to evidence tendered to the Coroner's Court two years ago.

A Supreme Court jury this week found Mr Barnes, 33, not guilty of the manslaughter of 13-month-old Maxwell James Webster.

Yesterday Maxwell's family and friends said they were disappointed the jury did not hear evidence that was given in the Coroner's Court in 2006.

Coroner Philip Byrne found Mr Barnes was the only person who could have inflicted the dreadful injuries to Maxwell.

But evidence given at the inquest by Maxwell's mother Paula Duffy, his grandmother Monica "Jan" Duffy and family friend Beth Gordon was ruled inadmissible at Mr Barnes' trial.

Maxwell died three months after being admitted to hospital with severe brain injuries on September 26, 2004.

An autopsy revealed he had two subdural haemorrhages and retinal bleeding, consistent with being shaken or struck to the head.

Mr Barnes, who has three children of his own, had been caring for the baby at the home of Maxwell's grandfather while he was in Queensland and Ms Duffy was convalescing in the house.

The Coroner's Court heard Mr Barnes had shocked Max's grandmother with his comments about discipline.

Mrs Duffy gave evidence her daughter, baby Max and Ms Gordon were in her kitchen on September 19.

"We were just chatting away about Max and how he had been crying," she said in the statement tendered to the court. "Brendan then came out with the comment, 'If they cry like that you just give them a few belts around the head'."

Ms Duffy and Ms Gordon also recalled the incident.

Mrs Duffy said a week earlier Max was playing with wires behind the TV and "Brendan said, 'You know what I do with my little bloke when he does that? As soon as he goes near them I put the sound on full bore and frighten the living s--- out of them."

Mr Barnes, of Eltham, pleaded not guilty to one count of murder and one count of manslaughter.

Justice Jack Forrest ordered the jury to return a not guilty verdict on the murder charge. The jury acquitted him of manslaughter after four hours of deliberations.

 

[Rosy]

Monday May 14, 2007 07:35 PM
Boyfriend joked he'd slap baby, says mum

A Melbourne man accused of shaking his girlfriend's baby to death joked he would slap him on the head to shut him up, a court has heard.

Fourteen-month-old Maxwell James Webster died in the Royal Children's Hospital on December 20, 2004, three months after being admitted with severe brain injuries.

His mother's boyfriend, Brendan Barnes, 32, of Eltham, appeared in Melbourne Magistrates Court on Monday charged with his murder.

The baby's mother Paula Duffy gave evidence Barnes had earlier joked about hitting the baby.

"(He said) I'll give him a few slaps around the head, that'll shut him up," she said.

However, the court heard she did not take the threat too seriously and had never seen Barnes being violent with the child.

On the day Max was admitted to Royal Children's Hospital, Barnes had smoked marijuana and drunk half a bottle of Jim Beam and coke, according to witness statements tendered to the court.

Hospital staff found Max had two severe head injuries, which they believed were sustained through shaking.

The first injury was seven to 10 days old and the second, one to three days old.

In her statement, Ms Duffy said Max's toddler cousin Liam would sometimes hit him.

On another occasion, Max had hit his head on a tiled floor.

Ms Duffy stated that on the night Max was admitted, she had helped Barnes put him to bed in a port-o-cot and went to sleep on the couch because she felt unwell.

Later she heard Barnes screaming something was wrong and found him trying to resuscitate Maxwell.

Under cross examination from defence lawyer Mark Rochford, Ms Duffy admitted to lying to doctors about who found the baby first and who attempted resuscitation.

She said she did that to prevent the baby's natural father from finding out about Barnes, because he was jealous, violent and paranoid.

Ms Duffy believed Barnes inflicted the injuries because he was the only person other than herself with access to the baby at the time, according to witness statements.

The statements reveal Barnes had told a Department of Human Services child protection worker he did not know how Max was hurt and denied causing his injuries.

Giving evidence, Professor Stephen Cordner of the Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine said the baby had suffered blunt trauma to the head, but could not say precisely what happened.

He said the baby had three to four bruises on its head and extensive pneumonia, commonly seen with severe long-standing head injuries.

But he added there was nothing in the autopsy to show the baby was necessarily shaken in a severe way.

Ms Duffy's doctor Colin Rattray-Wood gave evidence that although she was on depression medication, she could still make sensible decisions regarding her son.

Magistrate Sarah Dawes extended Barnes' bail and ordered him to reappear at court on Tuesday.

 

[jb03]

Perhaps you shouldn't call him 'Barnesy' Rosy.

 

[Rosy]

What does calling him Barnsey have to do with the price of cheese in China? If I called him Brendan John Barnes it wouldn't change the fact that Ms Uebergang's articles are typical HeraldSun headline grabbers that have little respect for the facts.

How does calling him Barnsey alter the fact Ms Uebergang mentions Paula asking who did it, saying there were only 2 of them there and she had been cleared, when the coroner's investigation showed the injuries that Max tragically died from didn't happen then?

How would it alter the fact that the articles highlight the fact Barnesy found the baby unconscious but not mention evidence of other trauma the baby had suffered in the previous 2 weeks?

 

[t-rob]

A sad case indeed.

I did wonder whether it was about Race, Religion or Politics?

 

[jb03]

By using Barnesy instead of his name, you imply an emotional attachment and lose impartiality and objectivity.

 

[Rosy]

I did wonder whether it was about Race, Religion or Politics?

Seeing you're concerend enough to question it please let me know if you think it doesn't belong here and I'll shift it. I actually gave some thought as to where to post it and decided it was probably a bit emotional for the General board and not footy related like most posts on the Journos board. I didn't think it would worry anyone too much whichever way I went.

 

[Rosy]

By using Barnesy instead of his name, you imply an emotional attachment and lose impartiality and objectivity.

Piffle. That's your personal perception, and there's certainly nothing unusual at you having digs at my posts is there, but you're wrong. It speaks more to me about how your mind works rather than my impartiality and objectivity based on the use of a nickname.

You haven't answered my questions above. Even if I was Brendan Barnes' mother it wouldn't change the fact that certain information was conveniently omitted from Kate Uebergang's articles.

As well as my other questions you've chosen to ignore can you please tell me how I wasn't objective. I didn't give any personal opinion on the case, other than comment on what has actually been published, or as in Kate's case, what actually hasn't been published.

 

[jb03]

Piffle. That's your personal perception, and there's certainly nothing unusual at you having digs at my posts is there, but you're wrong. It speaks more to me about how your mind works rather than my impartiality and objectivity based on the use of a nickname.

You haven't answered my questions above. Even if I was Brendan Barnes' mother it wouldn't change the fact that certain information was conveniently omitted from Kate Uebergang's articles.

As well as my other questions you've chosen to ignore can you please tell me how I wasn't objective. I didn't give any personal opinion on the case, other than comment on what has actually been published, or as in Kate's case, what actually hasn't been published.

You didn't read what I said. If you are going to write a letter it is better to write it with at least the perception of objectivity. On the whole your letter is fine but I feel using a nickname removes some of that objectivity, I had neither a go at you, your post nor did I comment on anything else on the matter, which is a tragic set of circumstances. I was trying to offer some advice. If it was from anyone other than me, and perhaps a few others you would be more willing to at least listen to it; of course you are not obliged in anyway to agree or to accept it. It was offered in good faith but you jumped to a conclusion that I was trying to be negative against you which I wasn't.

 

[Rosy]

You didn't read what I said. 

I did read what you said "By using Barnesy instead of his name, you imply an emotional attachment and lose impartiality and objectivity." and I think you're wrong with that implication, and it's an irrelevant perception anyway.

I'd still like to know where I showed a lack of impartiality or non-objectivity.  Not a perception you might choose to believe but where it was actually evident and relevant to the context of my concerns.

I discussed the fact that certain information wasn't included in the articles, and no perception of non-impartiality, especially based on the use of a nick-name, alters the fact that Kate chose not to divulge things that would have shown a different side to the picture her words were painting.

 

[t-rob]

Seeing you're concerend enough to question it please let me know if you think it doesn't belong here and I'll shift it. I actually gave some thought as to where to post it and decided it was probably a bit emotional for the General board and not footy related like most posts on the Journos board. I didn't think it would worry anyone too much whichever way I went.

I actually thought the same thing.

The solution might be to add another name onto this sub-board (are they called that?)

Not sure what though.

t-rob

 

[jb03]

I did read what you said "By using Barnesy instead of his name, you imply an emotional attachment and lose impartiality and objectivity." and I think you're wrong with that implication, and it's an irrelevant perception anyway.

I'd still like to know where I showed a lack of impartiality or non-objectivity.

My suggestion is only by using a nickname it mya give the perception of a lack of objectivity. I never said balance or the remainder of the letter lacked objectivity. I think you have shed quite a bit of light on the case that the media have ommitted from their reporting (which I guess is the point of your letter in the first place).

 

[mb64]

A sad case indeed.

I did wonder whether it was about Race, Religion or Politics?

Does it really matter?

 

[mb64]

Do you know this Barnes character Rosy?

 

[t-rob]

Does it really matter?

Obviously it matters.

If things/people don't know their place then there would be chaos.

Now go eat some cake.

 

[t-rob]

Do you know this Barnes character Rosy?

I wondered the same thing but thought the question too personal.

 

[Rosy]

Does it really matter?

Probably not to 3711 of our 3712 registered PREnders. :hihi

Do you know this Barnes character Rosy?

No.

 

[Liverpool]

A sad case indeed.
I did wonder whether it was about Race, Religion or Politics?

Maybe the "Justice" thread?