During the interview, the woman was adamant the child had not been intentionally injured, and expressed frustration and a loss of trust with the doctors who had initially claimed the injuries were caused by trauma.
“It felt like we were constantly accused that we had hurt him, but we haven’t hurt him,” she said.
“I argued and argued and argued with them, can we do this testing, can we do that testing... It felt like they were just looking at one thing, they were just so narrow-minded by his broken bones that they wouldn’t look at anything else.”
She told the detective she believed a possible explanation for the injuries was when she co-slept with the infant, a process she had occasional doubts about.
She said the defendant was adamant he had never squeezed the infant, and that the defendant told her he was worried the injuries may have occurred while he was burping the infant.
“I like to say that I know him well enough that if he had hurt him, he wouldn’t be able to live with himself. He’s not that type of person.”
The police interviewer put to the witness that the defendant may be keeping the truth of the events leading to the infant’s injuries from her, which she adamantly denied.
“I do not believe for one second that [the defendant] has hurt him at all.”
On Monday, the Crown alleged the defendant applied a “crushing force” to the infant’s torso while the baby was in his care, resulting in 13 fractures.
The Crown contended the injuries were inflicted recklessly by “deliberately applied force”.
Defence counsel Anne Stevens KC rejected that claim, suggesting other medical explanations, including vitamin D deficiency or a possible bone-density disorder.
Over the course of the trial, which is scheduled for up to three weeks before Judge David Robinson and a jury of 12, the Crown is set to call medical specialists, family members, neighbours, and police officers.
The trial continues.
Ben Tomsett is a multimedia journalist based in Dunedin. He joined the Herald in 2023.
