3 ms·

>> debunked "shaken baby syndrome" theory > Are you telling me that shaking babies doesn't kill them? It sure can, and a number of babies diagnosed with SBS h

>> debunked "shaken baby syndrome" theory > Are you telling me that shaking babies doesn't kill them? It sure can, and a number of babies diagnosed with SBS have been abused or killed. However, the way shaking is typically inferred from a small set of supposedly characteristic medical findings (radiological and pathological evidence of blood in the layers surrounding the brain and at the back of the eyes) has a weak scientific evidence based — determining abuse requires a far more sophisticated approach. [1] [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37650402 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37650402

lupusreal 2y ago
In the case being discussed above, there was also witness testimony saying the accused was seen to shake the baby on several occasions. If that testimony hasn't been recanted (has it?) and we're expected to think that SBS didn't kill the baby then a theory of this man's innocence is in effect a theory about that witness trying to murder him using the legal system, or that shaking the baby on several occasions and the baby dying are entirely unrelated (extremely dubious.) Maybe the state has failed to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt but unless that witness has recanted I think he's more likely than not to be guilty.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- NoMoreNicksLeft 2y ago
  > saying the accused was seen to shake the baby on several occasions. When my son was small, say I don't know, 10 or 11 months, I'd pick him up under his arms, hold him at arm's length, and (gently) shake him while chanting "shake the baby! shake the baby!" and he'd start giggling so uncontrollably he'd be gasping for breath before he stopped. My wife always gave me the stink-eye. I think he still wanted me to do that until he was 3 or 4, he was getting too heavy to be able to do it very well. Think what would have happened if I'd been dumb enough to do it in public.
  - thaumasiotes 2y ago
    My sister's favorite thing as a baby was getting tossed into the air. Holding her head in position was her responsibility.
- sfink 2y ago
  A witness reported observing the accused shaking the baby, therefore you find it safe enough to assume that the baby was killed by shaking. Safe enough that you would murder him with the legal system? Despite knowing that the baby had severe pneumonia at the time of death, and that many cases of SBS that were "proven" by the standards of the time are known to be incorrect? Dear God, I hope I never get into legal trouble and have you on my "jury of peers". I'd be better off being judged by a panel of... sorry, I can't finish that sentence without venturing into ad hominem territory. Do believe that every Karen has a legitimate beef, then? Every parent who goes out in public and has their child {have a tantrum, demand to have something, make a loud noise} knows that they are being judged, often harshly, by someone with less than a full picture. It is not hard at all to imagine a very concerned and upset observer deciding that what they think they are seeing is in fact what is happening, and it's horrible and must be stopped and they are a noble savior for calling it out. And be full of crap. It happens all the time. It may or may not be what happened here, I don't know enough and I doubt you do either.
musha68k 2y ago
That was the point clearly made in both articles above just to be crystal clear here. Shaking baby syndrome is very real and deadly of course. This is all about the criminal case and the evidence here though. I also edited my comment to make it very clear as I had just been echoing on what was to read there; no room for confusion in these matters. Fully agreed.
everforward 2y ago
As a direct example, note the lack of neck trauma in the indications. You would generally expect neck trauma to be involved in shaking a baby so hard their brain starts to bleed. Their necks lack musculature, and are nearly limp. Their vertebrae are what’s eating the force of their head shaking. There would likely be obvious trauma to the neck if the baby had been shaken.
- rossant 2y ago
  Absolutely. [1] [1] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1878875022003977 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S18788...

lupusreal 2y ago

In the case being discussed above, there was also witness testimony saying the accused was seen to shake the baby on several occasions. If that testimony hasn't been recanted (has it?) and we're expected to think that SBS didn't kill the baby then a theory of this man's innocence is in effect a theory about that witness trying to murder him using the legal system, or that shaking the baby on several occasions and the baby dying are entirely unrelated (extremely dubious.) Maybe the state has failed to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt but unless that witness has recanted I think he's more likely than not to be guilty.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
NoMoreNicksLeft 2y ago
> saying the accused was seen to shake the baby on several occasions. When my son was small, say I don't know, 10 or 11 months, I'd pick him up under his arms, hold him at arm's length, and (gently) shake him while chanting "shake the baby! shake the baby!" and he'd start giggling so uncontrollably he'd be gasping for breath before he stopped. My wife always gave me the stink-eye. I think he still wanted me to do that until he was 3 or 4, he was getting too heavy to be able to do it very well. Think what would have happened if I'd been dumb enough to do it in public.
- thaumasiotes 2y ago
  My sister's favorite thing as a baby was getting tossed into the air. Holding her head in position was her responsibility.
sfink 2y ago
A witness reported observing the accused shaking the baby, therefore you find it safe enough to assume that the baby was killed by shaking. Safe enough that you would murder him with the legal system? Despite knowing that the baby had severe pneumonia at the time of death, and that many cases of SBS that were "proven" by the standards of the time are known to be incorrect? Dear God, I hope I never get into legal trouble and have you on my "jury of peers". I'd be better off being judged by a panel of... sorry, I can't finish that sentence without venturing into ad hominem territory. Do believe that every Karen has a legitimate beef, then? Every parent who goes out in public and has their child {have a tantrum, demand to have something, make a loud noise} knows that they are being judged, often harshly, by someone with less than a full picture. It is not hard at all to imagine a very concerned and upset observer deciding that what they think they are seeing is in fact what is happening, and it's horrible and must be stopped and they are a noble savior for calling it out. And be full of crap. It happens all the time. It may or may not be what happened here, I don't know enough and I doubt you do either.

musha68k 2y ago

That was the point clearly made in both articles above just to be crystal clear here. Shaking baby syndrome is very real and deadly of course. This is all about the criminal case and the evidence here though. I also edited my comment to make it very clear as I had just been echoing on what was to read there; no room for confusion in these matters. Fully agreed.

everforward 2y ago

As a direct example, note the lack of neck trauma in the indications. You would generally expect neck trauma to be involved in shaking a baby so hard their brain starts to bleed. Their necks lack musculature, and are nearly limp. Their vertebrae are what’s eating the force of their head shaking. There would likely be obvious trauma to the neck if the baby had been shaken.

rossant 2y ago
Absolutely. [1] [1] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1878875022003977 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S18788...