4 ms·

Questions About Shaken Baby Syndrome

33 points by hackuser 11y ago

barking 11y ago
The video is constantly buffering for me, wish it was on youtube
ClintEhrlich 11y ago
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 11y ago
  I agree. Forensic "science" is a load of horsehit much more concerned with conviction rates than truth.
- rayiner 11y 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-parents-tried-shaken-baby-syndrome-wrongly-convicted-expert-warns.html 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 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 11y ago
    Not even DNA is safe from lies: https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/crime/fbi-overstated-forensic-hair-matches-in-nearly-all-criminal-trials-for-decades/2015/04/18/39c8d8c6-e515-11e4-b510-962fcfabc310_story.html 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.
    - rayiner 11y ago
      That's visual hair comparison, not DNA analysis from hair follicles. It's a hard problem for the courts to tackle. How are lay judges going to go and make the determination of when a seemingly legitimate "science" is legitimate enough for admissibility in court? Reputable universities give out degrees in forensic science. Ultimately they're the root cause of this mess. IMHO higher education has a social obligation to curate these disciplines.
    - dragonwriter 11y ago
      > Shouldn't they have thought of that before they created the Courts and named themselves Judges? Well, (a) that's not how it happened (judges didn't create the courts, and judges don't name themselves judges), and (b) they do have a method for dealing with matters requiring expertise. Now, its a mechanism that is highly susceptible to resource imbalances between the litigating parties (in which respect it is hardly unique -- lots of things in the legal system are susceptible to that), and its one that has been very effectively abused in the case of forensic (particularly, e.g., fiber analysis) science by the biggest-resource litigant around, the government. But its not a question that has been ignored and not addressed.
- gosub 11y ago
  don't talk to police https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc
  - ScottBurson 11y 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.
    - marssaxman 11y ago
      Since you cannot know in advance whether you are a suspect, the idea is that in order to be safe one must assume that the police always consider you to be a suspect and limit your interactions with them accordingly.
- gmarx 11y 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 11y 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 11y 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 11y 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 11y 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.

33 points by hackuser 11y 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 11y ago
I agree. Forensic "science" is a load of horsehit much more concerned with conviction rates than truth.
rayiner 11y 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-parents-tried-shaken-baby-syndrome-wrongly-convicted-expert-warns.html 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 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 11y ago
  Not even DNA is safe from lies: https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/crime/fbi-overstated-forensic-hair-matches-in-nearly-all-criminal-trials-for-decades/2015/04/18/39c8d8c6-e515-11e4-b510-962fcfabc310_story.html 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.
  - rayiner 11y ago
    That's visual hair comparison, not DNA analysis from hair follicles. It's a hard problem for the courts to tackle. How are lay judges going to go and make the determination of when a seemingly legitimate "science" is legitimate enough for admissibility in court? Reputable universities give out degrees in forensic science. Ultimately they're the root cause of this mess. IMHO higher education has a social obligation to curate these disciplines.
  - dragonwriter 11y ago
    > Shouldn't they have thought of that before they created the Courts and named themselves Judges? Well, (a) that's not how it happened (judges didn't create the courts, and judges don't name themselves judges), and (b) they do have a method for dealing with matters requiring expertise. Now, its a mechanism that is highly susceptible to resource imbalances between the litigating parties (in which respect it is hardly unique -- lots of things in the legal system are susceptible to that), and its one that has been very effectively abused in the case of forensic (particularly, e.g., fiber analysis) science by the biggest-resource litigant around, the government. But its not a question that has been ignored and not addressed.
gosub 11y ago
don't talk to police https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc
- ScottBurson 11y 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.
  - marssaxman 11y ago
    Since you cannot know in advance whether you are a suspect, the idea is that in order to be safe one must assume that the police always consider you to be a suspect and limit your interactions with them accordingly.
gmarx 11y 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 11y 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 11y 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 11y 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 11y 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.