The concept of shaken baby syndrome has come under scrutiny over the last decade. It’s obviously true that shaking too hard can kill a fragile newborn—that’s not disputed. But prosecutors have become reliant on the idea that if a trio of specific symptoms are found in a dead child, the death could only have been caused by violent shaking. Those symptoms are bleeding at the back of the eye, bleeding in the protective area of the brain, and brain swelling.
This is a convenient diagnosis, since it provides prosecutors with a method of homicide (shaking), a likely suspect (the last person alone with the child), and intent (it is assumed that babies only die this way after exceptionally violent shaking). Yet new research has shown that falls, blows to the head, and even some illnesses and genetic conditions can cause the same set of symptoms. Many medical and legal authorities have therefore concluded that the trio of symptoms shouldn’t be the sole basis of a conviction. Even the doctor who first came up with the theory has now expressed doubts about it.
In the new issue of Reason, Radley Balko tells the story of Jeffrey Havard, a man who remains on death row for shaking 6-month-old Chloe Britt to death despite evidence that the claims made against him by Mississippi medical examiner Steven Hayne and others were based on inadequate science and carried out in a broken forensics system. The tale is drawn from his new book, The Cadaver King and the Country Dentist, which was released today.
from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/2FBXTNu
via IFTTT