5 ms·

Well I'm against death penalty, and surely some things seem to have gone wrong in this court case, but the case is not as clear as the Guardian makes it look. W

Well I'm against death penalty, and surely some things seem to have gone wrong in this court case, but the case is not as clear as the Guardian makes it look. When you read a bit more about the case, you find for instance this: > At trial, witnesses also testified that Roberson had a bad temper and would shake and spank Nikki when she wouldn’t stop crying.

chakintosh 3y ago
That's circumstantial evidence.
boomboomsubban 3y ago
The Guardian's original article before the appeal was denied covered this I think >Its argument cites testimony from Teddie, Roberson’s estranged girlfriend, who said he had a bad temper and would yell at Nikki and hit her. Roberson’s legal team counter that Teddie was not a credible witness. Her own sister testified for Roberson, insisting she had never seen him mistreat Nikki and telling the jury Teddie had a problem with telling the truth. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/sep/24/texas-death-row-robert-roberson-supreme-court-shaken-baby-syndrome https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/sep/24/texas-death-ro...
meheleventyone 3y ago
Even if he was an abusive father that doesn’t mean he murdered the kid. Let alone that the evidence used to convict him of doing so was sound. Whilst I think that sort of physical abuse of children is repugnant it alone isn’t reason for the guy to be facing the death penalty. Which is a really long winded way of saying that this sort of muddying of the waters isn’t a great argument.
- sharperguy 3y ago
  When it comes to babies, doing ANYTHING irresponsible with them is a huge risk because if the baby were to die, you would immediatedy be under suspicion and have difficulty proving your innocence even if the death was just by chance.
pimlottc 3y ago
You should really include the source when you post a quote like that.
michaelmrose 3y ago
It is exactly as clear as it makes it look. He was convicted virtually entirely on junk science, because that testimony from his ex, if you even believe it, only slightly modifies the prior probability that he is capable of committing the crime it doesn't much change the fact that the child pretty clearly died of illness. It certainly doesn't without the fallacious forensic fantasy establish that he or anyone abused the child to death. If you don't have evidence a crime exists its pretty meaningless to speak to someone's motivation to commit it.
- akoboldfrying 3y ago
  >the child pretty clearly died of illness Do you know more about this case than was written in the article? Because as far as I know, shaking remains a possible explanation for our observations -- what was "junk" about the science was that it jumped to conclusions too hastily. >If you don't have evidence a crime exists its pretty meaningless to speak to someone's motivation to commit it. This claim doesn't hold up to scrutiny. We don't know if a crime exists, because there are multiple possible explanations for our observations, but that certainly doesn't imply that a crime did not occur. Motivation is important here. (Based on other comments, the defence claimed the partner is unreliable, which is also important here, if true. But the point remains that if a credible witness made such a claim about him, that would be important in determining the likelihood that a crime took place.)
  - michaelmrose 3y ago
    > shaking remains a possible explanation for our observations This means the standard to investigate and gather evidence. The standard for conviction is beyond a shadow of a doubt. The question was never ever can we reverse the burden of proof and prove that he is innocent. The point is we never proved his guilt because we initially met that standard based on pseudoscience. > This claim doesn't hold up to scrutiny. We don't know if a crime exists, because there are multiple possible explanations for our observations, but that certainly doesn't imply that a crime did not occur. Again this is the standard to investigate a crime and you are affirming my claim that we don't know that a crime occured. >if a credible witness made such a claim about him, that would be important in determining the likelihood that a crime took place. Again no this is completely backwards. It WOULD be relevant if and only if the child has a cause of death wherein we had to decide if he could have done it. If the question was did the child fell or did he push her it would be extremely relevant but if we can't convince ourselves that something happened it is meaningless to ask why something happened. They are properly independent questions. Lets make it simpler if we weren't sure he was actually in Texas would you say a witness to his character was relevant to the question of his location like his motivation could go back in time and teleport him in space to another locale? I'm not asking for your fuzzy judgement where we just stack positives and negatives on either side and user our gut to figure out which side is heavier I'm asking for you to exercise logical reasoning. Logical reasoning is that we never met our burden of proof in the first place and covered over that lack with prejudice and pseudoscience.

chakintosh 3y ago

That's circumstantial evidence.

boomboomsubban 3y ago

The Guardian's original article before the appeal was denied covered this I think >Its argument cites testimony from Teddie, Roberson’s estranged girlfriend, who said he had a bad temper and would yell at Nikki and hit her. Roberson’s legal team counter that Teddie was not a credible witness. Her own sister testified for Roberson, insisting she had never seen him mistreat Nikki and telling the jury Teddie had a problem with telling the truth. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/sep/24/texas-death-row-robert-roberson-supreme-court-shaken-baby-syndrome https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/sep/24/texas-death-ro...

meheleventyone 3y ago

Even if he was an abusive father that doesn’t mean he murdered the kid. Let alone that the evidence used to convict him of doing so was sound. Whilst I think that sort of physical abuse of children is repugnant it alone isn’t reason for the guy to be facing the death penalty. Which is a really long winded way of saying that this sort of muddying of the waters isn’t a great argument.

sharperguy 3y ago
When it comes to babies, doing ANYTHING irresponsible with them is a huge risk because if the baby were to die, you would immediatedy be under suspicion and have difficulty proving your innocence even if the death was just by chance.

pimlottc 3y ago

You should really include the source when you post a quote like that.

michaelmrose 3y ago

It is exactly as clear as it makes it look. He was convicted virtually entirely on junk science, because that testimony from his ex, if you even believe it, only slightly modifies the prior probability that he is capable of committing the crime it doesn't much change the fact that the child pretty clearly died of illness. It certainly doesn't without the fallacious forensic fantasy establish that he or anyone abused the child to death. If you don't have evidence a crime exists its pretty meaningless to speak to someone's motivation to commit it.

akoboldfrying 3y ago
>the child pretty clearly died of illness Do you know more about this case than was written in the article? Because as far as I know, shaking remains a possible explanation for our observations -- what was "junk" about the science was that it jumped to conclusions too hastily. >If you don't have evidence a crime exists its pretty meaningless to speak to someone's motivation to commit it. This claim doesn't hold up to scrutiny. We don't know if a crime exists, because there are multiple possible explanations for our observations, but that certainly doesn't imply that a crime did not occur. Motivation is important here. (Based on other comments, the defence claimed the partner is unreliable, which is also important here, if true. But the point remains that if a credible witness made such a claim about him, that would be important in determining the likelihood that a crime took place.)
- michaelmrose 3y ago
  > shaking remains a possible explanation for our observations This means the standard to investigate and gather evidence. The standard for conviction is beyond a shadow of a doubt. The question was never ever can we reverse the burden of proof and prove that he is innocent. The point is we never proved his guilt because we initially met that standard based on pseudoscience. > This claim doesn't hold up to scrutiny. We don't know if a crime exists, because there are multiple possible explanations for our observations, but that certainly doesn't imply that a crime did not occur. Again this is the standard to investigate a crime and you are affirming my claim that we don't know that a crime occured. >if a credible witness made such a claim about him, that would be important in determining the likelihood that a crime took place. Again no this is completely backwards. It WOULD be relevant if and only if the child has a cause of death wherein we had to decide if he could have done it. If the question was did the child fell or did he push her it would be extremely relevant but if we can't convince ourselves that something happened it is meaningless to ask why something happened. They are properly independent questions. Lets make it simpler if we weren't sure he was actually in Texas would you say a witness to his character was relevant to the question of his location like his motivation could go back in time and teleport him in space to another locale? I'm not asking for your fuzzy judgement where we just stack positives and negatives on either side and user our gut to figure out which side is heavier I'm asking for you to exercise logical reasoning. Logical reasoning is that we never met our burden of proof in the first place and covered over that lack with prejudice and pseudoscience.