https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/shaken-baby-s...
[UPDATE] To those of you downvoting me, would you kindly explain why? It seems like a reasonable question to me.
"We can't explain this trio of internal head/brain/eye trauma with lack of corresponding external trauma, but don't you dare make the reasonable claim that shaking a baby can/does nominally cause the symptoms we see when a baby is, in fact, shaken."
> to make that bullshit even worse, Texas continued to use hypnosis induced testimony until 2021.
That is a sentiment with which I sympathize. But then...
> It makes me wonder when the last death penalty sentence for "shaken baby syndrome" was in Texas.
This I don't get. Shaken baby syndrome is a real thing, and it seems to me that if someone shakes a baby to death they are guilty of murder (or at least negligent homicide) and should be treated no differently than if their victim had been older. What does it have to do with hypnosis?
[1] https://shakenbaby.science
[2] https://www.cambridgeblog.org/2023/05/a-journey-into-the-sha...
[3] https://cyrille.rossant.net/introduction-shaken-baby-syndrom...
The original comment to which I was responding still makes absolutely no sense to me. And getting downvoted because I asked for clarification is making even less sense to me. I must be missing something fundamental here. (Either that or HN has jumped the shark, which I fervently hope is not the case.)
[1] https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/blog/2016/09/20/pcast-r...
[2] https://innocenceproject.org/misapplication-of-forensic-scie...
[3] https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/the-problem-wi...
Because 4th/5th amendment issues aside, if an interrogation or testimony via hypnosis is verifiable, who cares if hypnosis is 'real' or 'junk science'?
If a man shakes a baby and that baby dies, who cares if 'SBS' is 'junk science'? It's still murder.
The label shouldn't automatically validate (or invalidate/discredit) the underlying information/ action/ admission.
So saying it’s ‘shaken baby syndrome’ just because there are internal injuries is junk science.
As far as I understand, the claim is that internal head/brain/eye trauma can have many causes, so these symptoms do not automatically mean that the baby was necessarily shaken. Sadly, this combination of symptoms have been named "Shaken Baby Syndrome", which means that people naturally assume that the baby has been shaken, which is apparently a crime in Texas.
Had this same syndrome been named "Guthkelch Syndrome", or anything else, the man currently on death row might have been deemed innocent.
I, for one, find this scary. Just as (in a very different domain) the "movie piracy == slavery" equation I've seen float in Blockbusters many years ago. When people who don't know better start believing in names/PR/..., this can have very real (in this case, deadly) consequences.
It may well be that the evidence for SBS in this particular case was bogus, but it does not follow that SBS is bogus in general.
According to the Mayo Clinic you can:
"While sometimes there's bruising on the face, you may not see signs of physical injury to the child's outer body."
Although SBS is a highly disputed and contested diagnosis, most medical authorities (Mayo Clinic, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the CDC...) do not recognize any legitimate controversy associated with it. The most notable exception is the Swedish Agency for Health Technology Assessment and Assessment of Social Services which published a systematic review in 2016 criticizing the scientific reliability of SBS diagnoses made on the so-called "triad" of subdural hematoma, retinal hemorrhage, and encephalopathy [1]. This report itself generated intense debates.
The difficulty here is that definitions are generally vague and change over time. What does "shaken baby syndrome" mean? An abusive gesture, a medical theory, something else? That alone is unclear.
What is being really contested is the idea that you can reliably infer shaking whenever you observe this "triad" of findings in an infant with no history of major trauma, and no other evidence of trauma (no bruises, no fractures, no neck injury...). This idea was universally accepted between the 1980s and the 2000s. But the science has shifted, to such a point that medical authorities no longer officially support this theory — however, diagnoses are still being made by inertia of clinical practice and criminal justice. Yet, authorities still claim there is no controversy on the existence and severity of abusive head injuries, which isn't really the point. More on this issue here [2] and in this paper [3].
[1] https://www.sbu.se/en/publications/sbu-assesses/traumatic-sh...
[2] https://cyrille.rossant.net/introduction-shaken-baby-syndrom...
[3] https://wlr.law.wisc.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/1263/2020/...
It doesn't get into the nuance, nor is intended as a validation for facile forensic based witch-hunting.
But almost all have corresponding external trauma.
The cases that don't have matching external trauma narrow it down considerably.
Restrained in a car seat in a rollover wreck? Maybe.
Rolled out of her bed? Not really plausible. But might seem like a good excuse for someone looking to cover up abuse.
Sort of agree with it being scary that a diagnosis implies a crime, but this is a case where the girl died from bad parenting, whether you call it SBS or not.
Hell, even his excuses are giving a 2-year old too many opiates and letting her sleep somewhere she could fall from while sick. Plus lying about the pneumonia, which wasn't present on autopsy.
Many forms of trauma can cause these injuries (especially 'trio'), but alone and without matching external trauma, shaking becomes the most likely cause.
Which isn't to say that shaking couldn't also cause some external trauma.
The reference to Texas is because the subject of the article is a particular case in Texas (with references to other laws/cases in Texas like the "junk science writ" and Kosoul Chanthakoummane whose case had nothing to do with SBS). The reference to hypnosis is sort of orthogonal to SBS, it's used as another example of junk science in the article.
This section of the article is probably the most relevant:
Paradoxically, Texas is a leader in countering junk science. In 2013, the state introduced a first-in-the-nation “junk science writ” that allowed prisoners – especially those on death row – to challenge sentences on grounds of misused forensic science. It was under this law that in 2016 Sween saved Roberson from imminent death by securing a stay of execution four days before his scheduled lethal injection.
But the hope generated by the new junk science law in Texas has proven a chimera. There have been about 70 attempts by death row inmates to utilize the law and of those the number that have obtained relief is zero.
Kosoul Chanthakoummane was one of those who appealed through the junk science law. He had been put on death row on the back of three different types of junk science: hypnosis of a witness to obtain identification, bitemark analysis and a discredited form of DNA testimony.
In August 2022, Texas executed him anyway.
Thanks for the details!
Just the fact it’s on mayoclinic doesn’t mean all that much.
Moreover, the Syndrome was used to justify suspicion of deliberate harm in cases where the triad was not observed at all, as I think in Roberson's case, if you read between the lines - no article about the case mentions the triad, only generic injuries that could, allegedly, only be caused by shaking.
You have absolutely no way to place any certainty on this "might" at all.
As you say in your article, there must be hundreds, if not thousands of people in jail for having shaken their babies to death. I can't imagine any harm more horrible that our society can perpetrate than punishing someone for the death of their loved ones when they had nothing to do with it. To think that this is done systematically is inconsolable, insufferable to contemplate.
For example, the Wikipedia article on SBS has a section on "Legal Issues" that gives some details. Or you may find informative Wikipedia's article about Waney Squier, a doctor who was involved in SBS cases as an expert witness:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waney_Squier
The "Legal Issues" section on the SBS also mentions Waney Squire's case.
____________________
[1] Btw, this is a "controversy" in the sense of often acrimonious debate between experts and not in the sense of the "controversy" that Young Earth Creationists demand be taught in schools. It's a controversy about methodology and medical and science ethics; the kind of thing that gets up some scientists' noses.
I totally agree. This is insufferable.
This is not just a virtual, academic subject to me. I've cofounded an association of French families [1] that has been contacted by 1300+ people in the past 8 years or so. I see parents losing their baby to foster care for 6, 12, 24 months or more. To say they are broken for life is an understatement. I see fathers, mothers, nannies maintain their innocence for years until they are convicted to 5 to 15 years of jail, because medical experts have certified that no other explanation than shaking could have ever caused the child's findings. Three more people I know have been convicted in the past couple of weeks. I feel so absolutely desperate and hopeless seeing people going to jail one after the other, week after week, while I can't do anything about it. All cases are not illegitimate, of course, but there are serious reasons to be doubtful when there is no external evidence of trauma, strong and sustained denials, and no antecedent of abuse.
For sure, we have tried to alert medical authorities, doctors, politicians, institutions, judges, celebrities, scientists, journalists for years, and almost no one actually cares, while those who do will do everything in their power to cancel and suppress us (Waney Squier is one among many other examples, Chapter 1 of our Cambridge book provides more examples). I see no other example in our modern history of an active, systematic endeavor that has been so destructive to so many people for so long.
Thanks! Although I just saw it and didn't have the chance to upvote it when it was posted. Let's hope it gets on the second chance queue. It's a good article, well written and level-headed.
>> This is not just a virtual, academic subject to me.
I can tell. Thank you for your indefatigable advocacy.
I read about Shaken Baby Syndrome some time ago and since then I've kept bookmarks of cases I see in the news that seem to be false convictions. I remember one in particular of a British man who was accused of having murdered his baby daughter by shaking. The case has stuck in my mind because the press reported how a Playstation was found on the living room table and the prosecution alleged that the daughter's crying had disturbed the father's playing, and so he had shaken her so he could continue playing. I could not believe that such a far-fetched conjecture, virtually impossible to falsify, would be accepted by judges and juries and thought that for the prosecution to be grasping for straws like that they must really have nothing concrete to go on, but the father was put in jail nonetheless. I don't have my bookmarks at hand now so I can't look up his name.
I suspect that when legal and medical experts claim that SBS cases don't only take the evidence of the triad into account, that's the kind of "evidence" that they mean they also consider: just-so stories that stop only short of calling the family pet as a witness.
Edit: I just realised - your association is called "adikia". "Injustice" in my native language, Greek.
The problem is: 1. The science seems to point towards ‘Shaken Baby Syndrome’ being able to be caused by several different things, including ones that don’t even involve physical trauma, so physical shaking is only one cause amongst many whereas most doctors and the justice system still mostly confidentially assert it’s always from shaking. Saying SBS is always a result of shaking is junk science.
2. Hypnosis is a way to extract confessions, but it’s probably extremely likely to extract false confessions. Hence why it’s generally disallowed, because it’s pseudoscience.
3. The particular case involving (1) assuming SBS is always from shaking and (2) a false confession from hypnosis happened in Texas.
So that’s the link.
I would recommend contacting ProPublica and TheGuardian to raise awareness.
Edit: My cousin is similar to a nurse at an adolescent lockdown facility in N. Texas for serious mental healthcare and physical safety needs that no parent could reasonably hope to provide. The standard is so high and the beds so few, the kids in the facility are the most desperate cases and pretrial diversions that would otherwise go unaddressed in carceral situations. It takes a special, brave, and trained caregiver to meet the needs that medication, godly patience and tolerance, and love alone cannot provide.