> Bewildered, Eaton tried to grasp what she had just read: The judge was penalizing them because everyone — the state, the defense, the witnesses — agreed that

> Bewildered, Eaton tried to grasp what she had just read: The judge was penalizing them because everyone — the state, the defense, the witnesses — agreed that the Mazes committed no crime. This is especially upsetting. I don't understand how so many people can be so averse to new understandings and new science. The shaken baby conversation is extremely frustrating, because many of the people responsible for the past convictions that are now being shown to be based on faulty understandings still refuse to accept that it may have been wrong. Even worse, they frame it as a political issue or a culture war, rather than just more understanding and the progress of science. It's a weird, stubborn, obstinate conservatism for its own sake and it confuses me. Is it a defense mechanism or something, to protect yourself from having to confront the idea that you may have unjustly imprisoned many innocent grieving parents for life? The new science is wrong if it makes my own actions in the past wrong. The lack of impartiality and consideration from a judge is disturbing.