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
I don't even think it matters if he shook this infant or not.

The doctors failed to diagnose the infant with severe pneumonia and prescribed it medications that are no longer considered safe for children. This seems like plenty of doubt to not convict him.

>>alrigh+Mq
The child did not have pneumonia. Roberson CLAIMS the child had pneumonia.

You know the issue with that claim? It would have shown up in autopsy. There would still be inflammation in the lungs.

The child had breathing problems because of SBS. SBS can pinch off the airway.

This is a kid that was repeatedly in a hospital. Not for a diagnosed issue such as Asthma but because SBS damage kept occuring because Roberson kept shaking the child hard enough for her to pass out on multiple occasions.