8 ms·

This misses the point. What you wrote is essentially "witness testifies defendant once shook child in their presence, child died". The magic third ingredient i

This misses the point. What you wrote is essentially "witness testifies defendant once shook child in their presence, child died". The magic third ingredient is that the state was allowed to bring in an expert witness to tell the jury that there's a causal link between shaking of the kind observed by the fact witness and the infliction of fatal injuries like those seen in the child. If it turns out no such link actually exists, you sort of have a problem, because the jury heard it either way. Also fwiw, that brief is still an adversarial motion, you cannot expect to get a balanced recounting of the facts by reading the state's motion in opposition.

coldtea 2y ago
>The magic third ingredient is that the state was allowed to bring in an expert witness to tell the jury that there's a causal link between shaking of the kind observed by the fact witness and the infliction of fatal injuries like those seen in the child. If it turns out no such link actually exists, you sort of have a problem That medical description of physical symptoms sounds fine as a "magic third ingredient" between "shaking of the kind observed" and the kid dying. Except if someone who treats a baby like that (as described by the witness) be beyond beating it, or if "bruising on her chin, as well as along her left cheek and jaw, and large subdural hematomas" develop spontaneously...
- marmadukester39 2y ago
  Except if she had a clotting disorder as indicated that might make her bruise and get edemas with much less trauma and say she fell on her face/chin, all of those could happen comparatively easily. I don’t know what happened here and thats the point.
- everforward 2y ago
  You mean the ex who was in a bitter custody battle at the time of the death, whose own sister testified against her? The same one whose parents called him to pick up the child the night before she died? Doesn’t sound like a family that thought he was a child-beating monster. She had no neck trauma when she died. CT scans showed a single blunt impact to the back right of her head, consistent with a fall and strange for a beating. More than all of that, the medical evidence doesn’t even look like she died from the blunt force trauma. She showed up to the ER blue lips, a telltale sign of hypoxia. She had severe undiagnosed viral pneumonia, despite having been to the doctor because we didn’t look at the strain until COVID. Pneumonia impacts breathing function. On top of that, she was prescribed phenergan, an opioid that now carries a warning not to prescribe it to children _because it can make them stop breathing_. On top of that, the day before she died she was prescribed codeine, which now also carries a warning label not to prescribe it to respiratory-depressed children _because it can make them stop breathing_. Lab results show what we now know to be a fatal dose of Phenergan. She died, sadly, as a result of multiple respiratory depressing factors due to a societal failure to ensure medications were safe for children in her situation. The blunt trauma isn’t even relevant; the phenergan and pneumonia would have killed her anyways. This is just the usual villification of an easy target: he’s poor and autistic, he was never going to look good to a jury. They probably could have gotten a conviction for murdering Amelia Earhart if they’d tried.
  - lupusreal 2y ago
    > You mean the ex who was in a bitter custody battle at the time of the death If her allegations are true, then being in a bitter custody dispute would be the moral and responsible position to take. Anyway, was her sister there?
    - everforward 2y ago
      Neither of them was there, the ex testified that she had seen him yell and shake the child at _other times_. Her sister testified that she had seen never seen that kind of behavior. Also, if the ex's allegations are true, why the hell would her grandparents call him to demand that he pick her up that night? She was supposed to be at her maternal grandparents that night, they called him. Why not call the baby's mom? Why not just keep the baby anyways? Why not take it to the hospital themselves if they were concerned? I'm not disparaging them for deciding to break up, nor for being in a custody dispute. These things happen. I just don't trust either party in a custody dispute; people get very emotional and the ends start to justify the means. If she is lying, it would be far from the first time false abuse allegations were made in a custody dispute. I defer to facts here. There were no medical indications of abuse, nor any direct evidence of abuse of any kind. The child had pneumonia, a lethal dose of opioids, and hypoxia at the hospital. The likely biased testimony of an ex doesn't negate any of that.
      - lupusreal 2y ago
        > she had seen him yell and shake the child at _other times_ Which she was there for... Her sister never seeing that means nothing. Being in a custody dispute also means nothing; it's a wash between "she would lie because she was fighting for custody" and "she was fighting for custody because she wasn't lying". I think it can neither lend nor detract from her credibility, so we're left with default credibility of an eye witness. And although eye witness testimony often fumbles details like the order of events, I think seeing somebody shake a baby is probably pretty credible testimony; not something that could be innocently mistaken. If it really didn't happen then she's essentially attempting to murder him using the courts. Assuming it did happen several other times, it was probably going to happen again and each time it happens is another round of Russian Roulette. You can get lucky once, or even a few times, but somebody who shakes a baby on several different occasions is very likely to eventually kill that baby.

coldtea 2y ago

>The magic third ingredient is that the state was allowed to bring in an expert witness to tell the jury that there's a causal link between shaking of the kind observed by the fact witness and the infliction of fatal injuries like those seen in the child. If it turns out no such link actually exists, you sort of have a problem That medical description of physical symptoms sounds fine as a "magic third ingredient" between "shaking of the kind observed" and the kid dying. Except if someone who treats a baby like that (as described by the witness) be beyond beating it, or if "bruising on her chin, as well as along her left cheek and jaw, and large subdural hematomas" develop spontaneously...

marmadukester39 2y ago
Except if she had a clotting disorder as indicated that might make her bruise and get edemas with much less trauma and say she fell on her face/chin, all of those could happen comparatively easily. I don’t know what happened here and thats the point.
everforward 2y ago
You mean the ex who was in a bitter custody battle at the time of the death, whose own sister testified against her? The same one whose parents called him to pick up the child the night before she died? Doesn’t sound like a family that thought he was a child-beating monster. She had no neck trauma when she died. CT scans showed a single blunt impact to the back right of her head, consistent with a fall and strange for a beating. More than all of that, the medical evidence doesn’t even look like she died from the blunt force trauma. She showed up to the ER blue lips, a telltale sign of hypoxia. She had severe undiagnosed viral pneumonia, despite having been to the doctor because we didn’t look at the strain until COVID. Pneumonia impacts breathing function. On top of that, she was prescribed phenergan, an opioid that now carries a warning not to prescribe it to children _because it can make them stop breathing_. On top of that, the day before she died she was prescribed codeine, which now also carries a warning label not to prescribe it to respiratory-depressed children _because it can make them stop breathing_. Lab results show what we now know to be a fatal dose of Phenergan. She died, sadly, as a result of multiple respiratory depressing factors due to a societal failure to ensure medications were safe for children in her situation. The blunt trauma isn’t even relevant; the phenergan and pneumonia would have killed her anyways. This is just the usual villification of an easy target: he’s poor and autistic, he was never going to look good to a jury. They probably could have gotten a conviction for murdering Amelia Earhart if they’d tried.
- lupusreal 2y ago
  > You mean the ex who was in a bitter custody battle at the time of the death If her allegations are true, then being in a bitter custody dispute would be the moral and responsible position to take. Anyway, was her sister there?
  - everforward 2y ago
    Neither of them was there, the ex testified that she had seen him yell and shake the child at _other times_. Her sister testified that she had seen never seen that kind of behavior. Also, if the ex's allegations are true, why the hell would her grandparents call him to demand that he pick her up that night? She was supposed to be at her maternal grandparents that night, they called him. Why not call the baby's mom? Why not just keep the baby anyways? Why not take it to the hospital themselves if they were concerned? I'm not disparaging them for deciding to break up, nor for being in a custody dispute. These things happen. I just don't trust either party in a custody dispute; people get very emotional and the ends start to justify the means. If she is lying, it would be far from the first time false abuse allegations were made in a custody dispute. I defer to facts here. There were no medical indications of abuse, nor any direct evidence of abuse of any kind. The child had pneumonia, a lethal dose of opioids, and hypoxia at the hospital. The likely biased testimony of an ex doesn't negate any of that.
    - lupusreal 2y ago
      > she had seen him yell and shake the child at _other times_ Which she was there for... Her sister never seeing that means nothing. Being in a custody dispute also means nothing; it's a wash between "she would lie because she was fighting for custody" and "she was fighting for custody because she wasn't lying". I think it can neither lend nor detract from her credibility, so we're left with default credibility of an eye witness. And although eye witness testimony often fumbles details like the order of events, I think seeing somebody shake a baby is probably pretty credible testimony; not something that could be innocently mistaken. If it really didn't happen then she's essentially attempting to murder him using the courts. Assuming it did happen several other times, it was probably going to happen again and each time it happens is another round of Russian Roulette. You can get lucky once, or even a few times, but somebody who shakes a baby on several different occasions is very likely to eventually kill that baby.