Score one for sanity, logic, reason, and science.
There has been a recent decision (October, 2014) by the Swedish Supreme Court that calls into question the scientific validity of the classic “triad” SBS diagnosis. According to the triad diagnosis, the symptoms of retinal hemorrhage, subdural hematoma, and diffuse edema of the brain are pathognomonic (exclusively indicative) of violent shaking or abusive head trauma. The “triad” has been the mainstay of SBS prosecutions for decades, but in recent years, has come under increasingly critical scrutiny.
These quotes from the testimony of experts before the Swedish court:
“It can be concluded that, in general terms, the scientific evidence for the diagnosis of violent shaking has turned out to be uncertain.”
“The controversy is not about whether it is harmful to shake a child violently. The issue under discussion is with what scientific certainty it can be established how various injuries found in a child have arisen. The claim that the occurrence of the triad is strong evidence that violent shaking has occurred goes back to the late 1960s; however, the medical evidence for it was relatively thin. But the claim became generally accepted and grew into medical truth over several decades, even though the situation in terms of evidence did not change. It is known that a very large share of fundus haemorrhages are not linked to violence and arise in another way. Nor has it been shown that nerve fibers are torn, and that the brain therefore begins to swell, in connection with violent shaking. It can also be asked whether violent shaking can occur without neck injuries arising… To sum up, it can be said that the scientific support for the diagnosis of violent shaking is uncertain.”
Sue Luttner, who edits the blog OnSBS, has done an excellent job of summarizing this decision and the case it involves, and has posted it on her blog here.
In case you haven’t been able to check in on the National Registry of Exonerations lately, here’s an excerpt from the most recent data. Note the total is now up to 1,512, and the trend line is definitely UP.
I won’t belabor you by pointing out some of the more obvious observations. Just a few minutes of study will (should) lead you to some very clear conclusions.
It has been reported that the folks at the Registry are hard at work trying to incorporate the exonerations being generated by the newly formed “conviction integrity units” (CIU’s). For these cases the prosecutors running the CIU’s may not be very motivated to have their exonerations logged into the Registry.
I can’t gush enough about how critical and important this data is. It is this kind of HARD DATA that will provide the foundation for much needed and long overdue justice system reform.
Posted in DNA, Editorials/Opinion, Exonerations, Eyewitness identification, False confessions, Forensic controls, Junk science, Police conduct (good and bad), Prosecutorial conduct (good and bad), Reforming/Improving the system, Snitching
We have previously reported on the Reneé Bailey case here.
Reneé Bailey, a day care provider in Greece, New York, was convicted in 2001 of shaking 2½ year old Brittney Sheets to death. She was confined in prison until NY State Supreme Court Justice James Piampiano granted an evidentiary hearing in the case to consider the new scientific findings regarding SBS. She was released without bail in December, 2014, and her conviction was reversed; the first SBS conviction reversal in New York state. See the Rochester Democrat & Chronicle story here.
Now, in a recent announcement, the Monroe County, NY District Attorney, Sandra Doorley, has declared her intention to appeal the conviction reversal.
See that Rochester Democrat & Chronicle story here.
While this is certainly not good news for Ms. Bailey, who has already served 13 years in prison, there could be a silver lining to this ominous dark cloud. If the conviction reversal is upheld on appeal, this will establish some substantial legal precedent in favor of true science, rather than outdated medical dogma, in the evaluation and disposition of SBS cases.
An Iowa District Judge has dismissed the case against Peter Ranke, who was accused of injuring his 3-week old baby by shaking. And further, the judge sharply criticized the diagnosing doctor for mishandling the investigation into the child’s injuries
This case highlights the proclivity of child abuse pediatricians to jump immediately to an SBS diagnosis; without giving due consideration to possible differential diagnoses.
See the Iowa City Press-Citizen story here.
Yesterday, Dec. 22, 2014, in a Monroe County, New York court, Rene’ Bailey was ordered released from prison without bail, and is expected to return home today. See the Rochester Democrat and Chronicle story here.
We highlighted the Rene’ Bailey case in a previous WCB post, “Shaken Baby Syndrome ……. Progress for True Science?” last January here.
She was convicted in 2002 of murdering a 2½ year old child in her care, and the conviction was based upon medical testimony of “shaken baby syndrome.”
The actual cause of death is believed to have been a short fall from a piece of play equipment onto a carpeted garage floor. The prosecution has yet to decide upon appeal or retrial.
See the New York Law Journal article here. Note: accessing the article requires registration with the site.
We’ve posted previously about Dr. Steven Hayne here. Hayne was the now-discredited, long-time medical examiner for the state of Mississippi; notorious for his questionable forensic testimony.
Dr. Hayne’s cases keep unraveling; however, this case does not center specifically on Hayne’s credibility, but rather on the defendant’s being denied the ability to hire an expert to challenge Hayne’s credibility in court.
See the story by Radley Balko of the Washington Post here.