zlacker

>>YeGobl+(OP)
Powerful article. What strikes me as a layman (non-lawyer, non-law enforcement), is how prevalent these methods of forensic science have become, without any solid scientific basis backing them up - such as peer reviewed studies with quantifiable evidence. You'd think that in order for the state to take the life of a human being, you'd need to prove it using means that are more thoroughly vetted than "[one doctor] who in 1971 suggested the cause might be violent shaking" (emphasis mine).

>>GlumWo+lb
SBS is well supported by the medical literature and extensive studies: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25616019/ (an overview)

This man was not committed to death row because of one doctor. He was found guilty because multiple people in his life testified he had a history of violently shaking and screaming at a child for crying.

>>vorpal+mm
>He was found guilty because multiple people in his life testified

Source?

>>Araina+ZG
https://www.texastribune.org/2016/06/17/appeals-court-halts-...

Yes, this article is from 2016 and yes it's in Texas which has a strong law which allows throwing out bad science.

The suspect forensic claim was such a small part of the evidence against the defendent that it didn't survive appeals.