Questions About Shaken Baby Syndrome

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/14/us/shaken-baby-syndrome-a-diagnosis-that-divides-the-medical-world.html

by hackuser • 11 years ago

33 17 11 years ago

barking• 11 years ago

The video is constantly buffering for me, wish it was on youtube

The sad truth is that shaken baby syndrome may simply be par for the course when it comes to modern forensic science. For various reasons, society has allocated more resources towards testing medicines for erectile dysfunction than confirming the veracity of tests used to end men's lives!

My involvement with one tragic case has forever marred my perception of both law enforcement and the District Attorney's office. Before, I always believed that I would cooperate with detectives if I witnessed a crime. Now, I think I would keep my mouth shut, because there's too much risk of an idiotic prosecutor charging you for saying absolutely nothing. At best, your reputation is ruined; at worst, you spend the rest of your life in prison.

Welcome to America.

wmeredith• 11 years ago

I agree. Forensic "science" is a load of horsehit much more concerned with conviction rates than truth.

rayiner2• 11 years ago

The "welcome to America" bit is gratuitous. What do they do in other countries when they find a baby with "brain swelling, bleeding on the surface of the brain and bleeding behind the eyes?" http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1382290/At-half-pa...

Forensic "science" is definitely horseshit though. The National Academy of Sciences took a look at the field a few years ago and released a report: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/228091.pdf. If you look past the diplomacy, what you see is barely-concealed horror and the conclusion that basically only DNA testing is at all "scientific."

throwaway1967• 11 years ago

Not even DNA is safe from lies:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/crime/fbi-overstated-fo...

Forensic "science" is definitely horseshit though.

Of course it is! Any adjectivized Science shall be horse shit. There's only one Science, the one individuals can try and reproduce the findings of others.

Forensic Science, also known as "Good enough for the courts' interests".

EDIT: rayiner:

How are lay judges going to go and make the determination of when a seemingly legitimate "science" is legitimate enough for admissibility in court?

Shouldn't they have thought of that before they created the Courts and named themselves Judges?

How did that happen and no one asked themselves "but what if we're not experts in a scientific specialty and the decision requires knowing that field?"

It's kind of late to ask this question now. Goes to show what a sham this circus really is, that they don't have a method to cope with a daily occurrence.

gosub• 11 years ago

don't talk to police

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc

ScottBurson• 11 years ago

It's been some time since I watched that video, but my recollection is that it deals entirely with situations where you know you are a suspect, or at least think you could be. I don't recall it addressing situations where you witnessed a crime in which you had no involvement, and therefore it doesn't even occur to you that you might be a suspect.

gmarx• 11 years ago

I was doing a medical examiner rotation in the early 1990s and a woman (not a pathologist, some kind of advocate) gave a presentation in which she asserted that this set of findings is always shaken baby. At the time it struck me, how could you possibly no that when it is impossible to test your conclusion against the facts in almost all cases. Pretty much every discussion of forensic science ignores that. It's pretty scary. Instead of scientific rigor you accept the expert who states her opinion most emphatically. Why did they never cross examine about sources and methodology? Is it not allowed?

graeham• 11 years ago

Interesting in such cases that the focus seems to be so much on retribution, whereas many other proceedings are more on deterrence (steal something = go to jail) or prevention (murder = locked up to prevent future crimes).

Here, the crime seems to be usually without motive, except perhaps a short-term rage. Presumably, the accused was unable to stop their actions (no point in deterrence) and would rarely be in such a position again (compared to serial criminals or crimes caused by incompetence).

s_kilk• 11 years ago

What can be said? The mob is irrational. When they hear of a child dying it doesn't much matter who, what, how or why, somebody's got to pay.

toothbrush• 11 years ago

(murder = locked up to prevent future crimes)

I find it a particular pity that more correctional institutions aren't focused on exactly that: correction. I have the impression that even the examples you cite of "other proceedings more on [sic] deterrence .. or prevention" are rather retribution-based. I would be in favour of less incarceration and more rehabilitation and reinsertion into society as happy/useful participants. Aside from a minority of actual sociopaths and/or sadists which might or might not be a result of nature as opposed to nurture, i believe that most people would not commit the crimes they commit if they had access to better welfare/education/neighbourhoods/etc. It seems like much (even violent) crime is more of a symptom than an end in itself...

But i may be wrong there.

scrupulusalbion• 11 years ago

I would be in favour of less incarceration and more rehabilitation and reinsertion into society as happy/useful participants

While I agree that mere incarceration is often fruitless in terms of helping the person being incarcerated, one must be careful to not replace prison with brainwashing, to put it bluntly. That is, rehabilitation might work with narcotic addictions, but social issues (I am categorizing violence as a social issue, because it necessarily involves interaction between two or more persons) revolve around opinions, beliefs, conscious and unconscious assumptions about others, etc.

I recall movies and TV show episodes revolving around the totalitarian nature of some criminal justice system that seeks to fix inmates's behavior through overt (torture) or covert (therapy, interviewing, social engineering, etc.) means.

I believe that most people would not commit the crimes they commit if they had access to better welfare/education/neighbourhoods/etc.

This is essentially the idea that poverty causes crime, which is a controversial position. This might be why you have gotten downvoted.

Lawtonfogle2• 11 years ago

Here, the crime seems to be usually without motive, except perhaps a short-term rage. Presumably, the accused was unable to stop their actions (no point in deterrence) and would rarely be in such a position again (compared to serial criminals or crimes caused by incompetence).

This also covers a lot of cases of murder. For example, someone who kills their spouse having caught them cheating... as long as they stay out of relationships they won't be in that same situation again. We do reduce the penalty if done in a fit of rage (second degree murder instead of first degree), but we often still add a lengthy sentence still.

Questions About Shaken Baby Syndrome

Related Stories