zlacker

No, not really. Let's say the testimony was reliable, which it wasn't. What's the proper inference: that he kept going with bad parenting and escalated to murder? Or, that he recognized what he did was unhelpful and problematic so never did it again? How do you choose between inferences? In this way, the "evidence" comes back, again, to something alarmingly like a popularity contest which turns, quite unacceptably, on these people's presuppositions about a socially awkward dad trying to raise the child solo.

>>unytti+(OP)
> What's the proper inference: that he kept going with bad parenting and escalated to murder?

The path is this: he is known to have shook at least one kid before, so maybe that's that happened again with the kid who died in his care. Doesn't mean there was an intent. Just that he shook too hard or the wrong way. So you ask a doctor you check for signs. Doctor says yup, totally SBS. The end.

At no point did he need to "escalate to murder", so there is no leap needed. It's all very straightforward.