6 ms·

Denial of Robert Roberson's Application for Relief in Shaken Baby Innocence Case

83 points by rossant 2y ago

darby_nine 2y ago
Heartbreaking.
tiahura 2y ago
[flagged]
- astura 2y ago
  Can you explain?
- postalcoder 2y ago
  without further explanation this is just a bottom of barrel type comment. the “science” of what convicted the man is as flimsy as it gets and yet you’d want to discredit the man’s case because his representation’s chosen post-nominal? Please, just refrain from your snark.
Supermancho 2y ago
> “Over the past two decades, since Mr. Roberson’s conviction and death sentence, the shaken baby hypothesis has been debunked by evidence-based science, a fact recognized by courts in at least 18 states that have exonerated parents and caregivers like Mr. Roberson who were wrongly convicted under the controversial theory. Brian Wharton, the Lead Detective who investigated Mr. Roberson’s case and testified against him, now believes Mr. Roberson’s daughter died of accidental and natural causes. Mr. Wharton has explained that he deferred to a doctor’s shaken baby diagnosis when he had Mr. Roberson arrested and testified against him. He now publicly urges for relief for Mr. Roberson and has written, ‘I am convinced that [Nikki] was not murdered. Mr. Roberson is innocent. There was no crime. <--- forgot to end the quotation with a closing quote mark.
- achileas 2y ago
  I can't even fathom the utter despair of losing a child, and then beyond that to be hounded, "investigated," and arrested for it, constantly forced to relive the worst moment of your life on top of the unbelievable grief of losing your child.
  - rossant 2y ago
    I can't either. And yet I know many of them personally. I realized there are hundreds if not thousands of grieving innocent parents locked up for years or decades because of this flawed theory. See also this book (https://jessicahenryjustice.com/smoke-but-no-fire-convicting-the-innocent-of-crimes-that-never-happened/ https://jessicahenryjustice.com/smoke-but-no-fire-convicting...).
throwway120385 2y ago
Yet another way in the US that we judge parents very harshly for anything that goes wrong with their children.
fakedang 2y ago
[flagged]
- throwway120385 2y ago
  Another reason they might not want to revisit it is because he can sue the state for wrongful conviction. Many county governments will try to block these kinds of actions because they can't afford the resulting wrongful conviction lawsuit.
- purpleflame1257 2y ago
  I think the death penalty should be on the books, but the practical application of it is so unworkable that it should effectively never be administered. The biggest problem, of course, is that there's no way to make a wrongfully sentenced person whole.
  - wildzzz 2y ago
    Why retain it as a potential punishment if the burden of proof to obtain it is impossible? There's always a chance the evidence is objectively incomplete and even if they confess, there's always a chance they were coerced. Putting an innocent person in prison for life is awful enough but at least there is time for them to appeal or for contrary evidence to surface some day. Condemning that innocent person to death puts a countdown on proving their innocence. Maybe someone else confesses to the crime or some other exculpatory evidence is uncovered years after the execution. What does the state do at this point? They can't reanimate the dead. How do you make family members whole when you've legally murdered their parent/spouse/child? Money doesn't replace a person. You also could end up with situations where a particular governor is indifferent to the plight of someone professing their innocence due to their own bias where next year, a new governor comes in that is more sympathetic that would have stayed the execution or pardoned that person. The world is just too complex to be 100% certain that someone must die for their alleged crime. The law needs to be applied fairly to everyone. You can't simply give some people the death penalty and others life in prison for the same crime just because a case seems more concrete (or more likely, they can afford a better lawyer that creates stronger doubt). And you know what's worse than death? Sitting in a little box for the rest of your life separated from friends and family while the world passes you by. People commit suicide for less.
rossant 2y ago
More context about the shaken baby hypothesis here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37650402 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37650402
zafka 2y ago
@Dang, @Paul Graham This is where it really helps when people who can affect state budgets can really help. I am guessing the Governor of Texas would like more Tech investment. This would be a great time to speak up and tell him that killing innocent people for political gain might keep some ethical people away. Sorry for my rant, but this kind of thing is so surreal it shakes me.
- iJohnDoe 2y ago
  This doesn’t deserve down votes. Any person that has a higher chance of making a difference should take action. E.g. The President could make a phone call, etc. If Texas is lobbying then why not urge those people to speak up.
  - krapp 2y ago
    The entire business case for Texas is its lack of ethics and regulation, that's the whole reason startups want to invest to begin with. For every 'ethical' company that might balk at Texas' brutal policing and justice system, there's ten in line behind them wanting to know who to pay to rough up unionists and troublemakers. And I promise you - earnestly, on a stack of Bibles if you want - that no amount of money can make Greg Abbott give a single rat fuck. This man's administration booby-trapped the Rio Grande with buoys outfitted with saw blades and razor wire then threatened civil war when the Biden administration complained about it. He once said the only reason Texas doesn't shoot anyone crossing the Mexican border on sight is that the federal government would consider it murder, and I strongly suspect he was making air quotes when he said "murder." Texas harbors neither the governor nor the government you come to appealing to common decency or empathy, and Big Tech is mostly fine with that. This whole line of inquiry is a farce.
    - db48x 2y ago
      [flagged]
      - dang 2y ago
whycome 2y ago
> The hospital staff did not know Mr. Roberson had autism and misinterpreted his non-neurotypical demeanor as a lack of concern for his daughter. The nightmare. Being calm and rational during a crisis gets interpreted as a "lack of concern"
- FireBeyond 2y ago
  Right? I've been a paramedic-firefighter for 15 years. I was one of the responders when the Amtrak Cascades train came off of a bridge at 85mph onto I-5. One of my partners admired traits in me is "how I always remain calm and logical, even in stressful situations". Hm.
- rossant 2y ago
  Yes. Same thing happened to me. They used this as an excuse to remove my baby from me. [1] [1] https://cambridgeblog.org/2023/05/a-journey-into-the-shaken-baby-syndrome-abusive-head-trauma-controversy/ https://cambridgeblog.org/2023/05/a-journey-into-the-shaken-...
  - Sakos 2y ago
    > I disturbingly realized that what I had been told at the hospital, namely that subdural and retinal hemorrhage in infants are almost always caused by violent shaking even in the absence of external evidence of trauma, was an assertion based on very weak scientific foundations. And yet, this “shaking hypothesis” (sometimes referred to as the theory of the “triad”, since encephalopathy is frequently associated with the other two signs, subdural and retinal hemorrhage) has been taught as though it was a proven fact to generations of physicians all over the world. Every year, thousands of children are removed from their parents, and thousands are prosecuted, convicted, and even incarcerated, on the basis of this assertion. Law professor Deborah Tuerkheimer qualifies SBS/AHT as a “medical diagnosis of murder”. The very least we should expect for an assertion this powerful is that it should be based on reliable scientific foundations. This is fucking maddening. It's so frustrating when we take things like this for granted as if it's scientific fact, especially when it's something that has such dire consequences for the parents.
lambdaone 2y ago
Scandalous. It's now up to the governor to act to stop this happening; let's hope common humanity prevails over politics.
- runamok 2y ago
  Read his record as Texas Governor and tell me how likely you think that is: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greg_Abbott https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greg_Abbott
  - lambdaone 2y ago
    My hope is still that common humanity and decency could be shown by him to save the life of this unfortunate man. I didn't say I thought it was likely.

83 points by rossant 2y ago

darby_nine 2y ago

Heartbreaking.

tiahura 2y ago

[flagged]

astura 2y ago
Can you explain?
postalcoder 2y ago
without further explanation this is just a bottom of barrel type comment. the “science” of what convicted the man is as flimsy as it gets and yet you’d want to discredit the man’s case because his representation’s chosen post-nominal? Please, just refrain from your snark.

Supermancho 2y ago

> “Over the past two decades, since Mr. Roberson’s conviction and death sentence, the shaken baby hypothesis has been debunked by evidence-based science, a fact recognized by courts in at least 18 states that have exonerated parents and caregivers like Mr. Roberson who were wrongly convicted under the controversial theory. Brian Wharton, the Lead Detective who investigated Mr. Roberson’s case and testified against him, now believes Mr. Roberson’s daughter died of accidental and natural causes. Mr. Wharton has explained that he deferred to a doctor’s shaken baby diagnosis when he had Mr. Roberson arrested and testified against him. He now publicly urges for relief for Mr. Roberson and has written, ‘I am convinced that [Nikki] was not murdered. Mr. Roberson is innocent. There was no crime. <--- forgot to end the quotation with a closing quote mark.

achileas 2y ago
I can't even fathom the utter despair of losing a child, and then beyond that to be hounded, "investigated," and arrested for it, constantly forced to relive the worst moment of your life on top of the unbelievable grief of losing your child.
- rossant 2y ago
  I can't either. And yet I know many of them personally. I realized there are hundreds if not thousands of grieving innocent parents locked up for years or decades because of this flawed theory. See also this book (https://jessicahenryjustice.com/smoke-but-no-fire-convicting-the-innocent-of-crimes-that-never-happened/ https://jessicahenryjustice.com/smoke-but-no-fire-convicting...).

throwway120385 2y ago

Yet another way in the US that we judge parents very harshly for anything that goes wrong with their children.

fakedang 2y ago

[flagged]

throwway120385 2y ago
Another reason they might not want to revisit it is because he can sue the state for wrongful conviction. Many county governments will try to block these kinds of actions because they can't afford the resulting wrongful conviction lawsuit.
purpleflame1257 2y ago
I think the death penalty should be on the books, but the practical application of it is so unworkable that it should effectively never be administered. The biggest problem, of course, is that there's no way to make a wrongfully sentenced person whole.
- wildzzz 2y ago
  Why retain it as a potential punishment if the burden of proof to obtain it is impossible? There's always a chance the evidence is objectively incomplete and even if they confess, there's always a chance they were coerced. Putting an innocent person in prison for life is awful enough but at least there is time for them to appeal or for contrary evidence to surface some day. Condemning that innocent person to death puts a countdown on proving their innocence. Maybe someone else confesses to the crime or some other exculpatory evidence is uncovered years after the execution. What does the state do at this point? They can't reanimate the dead. How do you make family members whole when you've legally murdered their parent/spouse/child? Money doesn't replace a person. You also could end up with situations where a particular governor is indifferent to the plight of someone professing their innocence due to their own bias where next year, a new governor comes in that is more sympathetic that would have stayed the execution or pardoned that person. The world is just too complex to be 100% certain that someone must die for their alleged crime. The law needs to be applied fairly to everyone. You can't simply give some people the death penalty and others life in prison for the same crime just because a case seems more concrete (or more likely, they can afford a better lawyer that creates stronger doubt). And you know what's worse than death? Sitting in a little box for the rest of your life separated from friends and family while the world passes you by. People commit suicide for less.

rossant 2y ago

More context about the shaken baby hypothesis here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37650402 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37650402

zafka 2y ago

@Dang, @Paul Graham This is where it really helps when people who can affect state budgets can really help. I am guessing the Governor of Texas would like more Tech investment. This would be a great time to speak up and tell him that killing innocent people for political gain might keep some ethical people away. Sorry for my rant, but this kind of thing is so surreal it shakes me.

iJohnDoe 2y ago
This doesn’t deserve down votes. Any person that has a higher chance of making a difference should take action. E.g. The President could make a phone call, etc. If Texas is lobbying then why not urge those people to speak up.
- krapp 2y ago
  The entire business case for Texas is its lack of ethics and regulation, that's the whole reason startups want to invest to begin with. For every 'ethical' company that might balk at Texas' brutal policing and justice system, there's ten in line behind them wanting to know who to pay to rough up unionists and troublemakers. And I promise you - earnestly, on a stack of Bibles if you want - that no amount of money can make Greg Abbott give a single rat fuck. This man's administration booby-trapped the Rio Grande with buoys outfitted with saw blades and razor wire then threatened civil war when the Biden administration complained about it. He once said the only reason Texas doesn't shoot anyone crossing the Mexican border on sight is that the federal government would consider it murder, and I strongly suspect he was making air quotes when he said "murder." Texas harbors neither the governor nor the government you come to appealing to common decency or empathy, and Big Tech is mostly fine with that. This whole line of inquiry is a farce.
  - db48x 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - dang 2y ago

whycome 2y ago

> The hospital staff did not know Mr. Roberson had autism and misinterpreted his non-neurotypical demeanor as a lack of concern for his daughter. The nightmare. Being calm and rational during a crisis gets interpreted as a "lack of concern"

FireBeyond 2y ago
Right? I've been a paramedic-firefighter for 15 years. I was one of the responders when the Amtrak Cascades train came off of a bridge at 85mph onto I-5. One of my partners admired traits in me is "how I always remain calm and logical, even in stressful situations". Hm.
rossant 2y ago
Yes. Same thing happened to me. They used this as an excuse to remove my baby from me. [1] [1] https://cambridgeblog.org/2023/05/a-journey-into-the-shaken-baby-syndrome-abusive-head-trauma-controversy/ https://cambridgeblog.org/2023/05/a-journey-into-the-shaken-...
- Sakos 2y ago
  > I disturbingly realized that what I had been told at the hospital, namely that subdural and retinal hemorrhage in infants are almost always caused by violent shaking even in the absence of external evidence of trauma, was an assertion based on very weak scientific foundations. And yet, this “shaking hypothesis” (sometimes referred to as the theory of the “triad”, since encephalopathy is frequently associated with the other two signs, subdural and retinal hemorrhage) has been taught as though it was a proven fact to generations of physicians all over the world. Every year, thousands of children are removed from their parents, and thousands are prosecuted, convicted, and even incarcerated, on the basis of this assertion. Law professor Deborah Tuerkheimer qualifies SBS/AHT as a “medical diagnosis of murder”. The very least we should expect for an assertion this powerful is that it should be based on reliable scientific foundations. This is fucking maddening. It's so frustrating when we take things like this for granted as if it's scientific fact, especially when it's something that has such dire consequences for the parents.

lambdaone 2y ago

Scandalous. It's now up to the governor to act to stop this happening; let's hope common humanity prevails over politics.

runamok 2y ago
Read his record as Texas Governor and tell me how likely you think that is: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greg_Abbott https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greg_Abbott
- lambdaone 2y ago
  My hope is still that common humanity and decency could be shown by him to save the life of this unfortunate man. I didn't say I thought it was likely.