Tuesday, July 14, 2009
Shaken Baby Baloney
"So-called 'shaken baby syndrome' is another area where it increasingly appears that flawed forensic testimony helped secure numerous false convictions over the years. ... According to an essay by Maurice Posley at The Crime Report: ... 'If research shows that the physical conditions that once automatically resulted in a prosecution could actually have been the result of an accident, the implications are enormous. "Given the scientific developments ... we may surmise that a sizeable portion of the universe of defendants convicted of SBS-based crimes is, in all likelihood, factually innocent," [Deborah] Tuerkheimer writes, adding that a far greater number of defendants among the group were likely convicted on legally insufficient evidence.' ... Convictions are still being obtained based on this forensic theory even though 'there is no consensus among medical professional as to whether the symptions that have traditonally been attributed to SBS are necessarily indicative of intentional shaking'," Grits for Breakfast, 22 June 2009, link: http://gritsforbreakfast.blogspot.com/2009/06/science-undermining-shaken-baby.html.
The real world is not that of CSI NY's Gary Sinese. Much "forensic evidence" is nonsense which prosecutors get "made as instructed". Lawyers are among those least capable of detecting such nonsense. That's why we have cases like Massachusetts' Amirault and California's McMartin preschool case. It's shameful what prosecutors can get away with.