Father gets 18 months for infant's shaking death

[SomeIdiot]

Originally Posted by bmorenewb

i thought it was pretty much a medical fact.

No, it's on the way to being totally disproved.

http://reason.com/archives/2009/09/2...-to-the-system

[FatBoy]

The punishment doesn't fit the crime IMO.

A person who does something like this has anger issues and will likely reoffend.

[bmorenewb]

Originally Posted by SomeIdiot

No, it's on the way to being totally disproved.

http://reason.com/archives/2009/09/2...-to-the-system

hmm very interesting. i would still maintain that vigorously shaking a baby will damage it. However that was a really eye opening article. The question now becomes- if all those babies died and it wasn't SBS, then what actually did kill them? I would guess that it was actually physically striking the kid on the head.

[unclesharkey]

Originally Posted by SomeIdiot

No, it's on the way to being totally disproved.

http://reason.com/archives/2009/09/2...-to-the-system

First of all it is not on its way to being disproved. Shaken baby syndrome is a real and serious thing. That article just said that there is some concern about how the investigations were done and who was present at the time when the child started to have symptoms. You have to look at the evidence.

Also doing a study and shaking a baby doll is not the same thing as shaking a real baby.

Also this guy admitted to shaking the baby. The story has to fit the crime. If you have a baby who has been shaken and the parents say he was dropped on the bed then there is no way is that going to cause damage to a baby or even kill a baby.

There are specific injuries that happen to a baby when they are shaken. Now if the family was in a car accident and then took the baby home then they could say hey we were in a car accident. But if they are at home and never went out then what caused the baby's brain to bounce off the back of his skull.....certainly not from his bouncy seat. Also you have to consider the parents. Are they young and naive or do they have a history of child abuse with their other children.

I have seen children who were blinded, had skull fractures, and who were shaken and abused. Some of the cases were hard to prove because no one would admit they did it and so many people had access to the child. But in the end what didn't add up was the parents story. Even in those cases it is hard to prove.

So I will tell you my friend that this is very real and no it will not be disproved. Yes it will remain controversial in some cases where there is a lack of evidence or suspicion that that injury was cased by some thing else. But in the end hopefully the truth will prevail. Too many children suffer at the hands evil people.

[CountessMeout]

Originally Posted by mythoughts

Once again we see the real terrorists in America are the Judges.
I wonder how much the Attorney had to pay off the Judge to get such a light sentence.

Michael Vick is wondering why he spent 23 months in prison when he could've only spent 18.

You should consider a plea bargain was in effect. The judge had to consider that. The state gambled and lost.

[SomeIdiot]

Originally Posted by unclesharkey

First of all it is not on its way to being disproved. Shaken baby syndrome is a real and serious thing. That article just said that there is some concern about how the investigations were done and who was present at the time when the child started to have symptoms. You have to look at the evidence.

Also doing a study and shaking a baby doll is not the same thing as shaking a real baby.

Also this guy admitted to shaking the baby. The story has to fit the crime. If you have a baby who has been shaken and the parents say he was dropped on the bed then there is no way is that going to cause damage to a baby or even kill a baby.

There are specific injuries that happen to a baby when they are shaken. Now if the family was in a car accident and then took the baby home then they could say hey we were in a car accident. But if they are at home and never went out then what caused the baby's brain to bounce off the back of his skull.....certainly not from his bouncy seat. Also you have to consider the parents. Are they young and naive or do they have a history of child abuse with their other children.

I have seen children who were blinded, had skull fractures, and who were shaken and abused. Some of the cases were hard to prove because no one would admit they did it and so many people had access to the child. But in the end what didn't add up was the parents story. Even in those cases it is hard to prove.

So I will tell you my friend that this is very real and no it will not be disproved. Yes it will remain controversial in some cases where there is a lack of evidence or suspicion that that injury was cased by some thing else. But in the end hopefully the truth will prevail. Too many children suffer at the hands evil people.

I never said no baby had ever been shaken or abused to death, only that "Shaken Baby Syndrome" as currently diagnosed is probably on its way out along with a lot of other suspect forensic science. You also didn't address the article I posted which doesn't have to do with shaking a baby doll but an actual lack of consensus on diagnosis. See also:

http://discovermagazine.com/2008/dec...e-really-exist

Unfortunately I can't post the law review articles because I doubt anyone other than me has access to them. I'm not sure what abstract notions of "evil" have to do with the article I was posted. I was simply replying to the incorrect assumption that what has been generally described as "Shaken Baby Syndrome" is sound science capable of determining one's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. I wasn't applying it necessarily to this case.

[unclesharkey]

Originally Posted by SomeIdiot

I never said no baby had ever been shaken or abused to death, only that "Shaken Baby Syndrome" as currently diagnosed is probably on its way out along with a lot of other suspect forensic science. You also didn't address the article I posted which doesn't have to do with shaking a baby doll but an actual lack of consensus on diagnosis. See also:

http://discovermagazine.com/2008/dec...e-really-exist

Unfortunately I can't post the law review articles because I doubt anyone other than me has access to them. I'm not sure what abstract notions of "evil" have to do with the article I was posted. I was simply replying to the incorrect assumption that what has been generally described as "Shaken Baby Syndrome" is sound science capable of determining one's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. I wasn't applying it necessarily to this case.

Probably on its way out? You said "No, it's on the way to being totally disproved."

What does that sound like to you when you read that? You should think about how other readers might react to your post and think carefully before you go making such a bold statement.

There are specific symptoms when a baby is shaken. Just make a trip up to the child protection team at Hopkins and ask them about it.

They still call it shaken baby syndrome.

http://www.hopkinschildrens.org/tpl_...p.aspx?id=3674

It did mention shaking dolls.....did we read the same article?

"research completed in 2003 using lifelike infant dolls suggested that vigorous human shaking produces bleeding similar to that of only a 2-foot to 3-foot fall. Furthermore, the shaking experiments failed to produce symptoms with the severity of those typically seen in SBS deaths."

I know what you are tying to say and I say that most of the time these cases can be proven not only with the evidence of abuse but also by the BS stories that the parents make up.

No you can't prove guilt by just saying this is shaken baby without having clear and concise evidence.

We also get cases with children who have broken bones and the parents deny doing anything. The xrays and scans often show old breaks that have healed. The parents claim that the child must have brittle bones....we have never had a case where the child had a medical condition that would cause the child's bones to break. Also the parents stories never add up.

[SomeIdiot]

Originally Posted by unclesharkey

Probably on its way out? You said "No, it's on the way to being totally disproved."

What does that sound like to you when you read that? You should think about how other readers might react to your post and think carefully before you go making such a bold statement.

There are specific symptoms when a baby is shaken. Just make a trip up to the child protection team at Hopkins and ask them about it.

They still call it shaken baby syndrome.

http://www.hopkinschildrens.org/tpl_...p.aspx?id=3674

It did mention shaking dolls.....did we read the same article?

"research completed in 2003 using lifelike infant dolls suggested that vigorous human shaking produces bleeding similar to that of only a 2-foot to 3-foot fall. Furthermore, the shaking experiments failed to produce symptoms with the severity of those typically seen in SBS deaths."

I know what you are tying to say and I say that most of the time these cases can be proven not only with the evidence of abuse but also by the BS stories that the parents make up.

No you can't prove guilt by just saying this is shaken baby without having clear and concise evidence.

We also get cases with children who have broken bones and the parents deny doing anything. The xrays and scans often show old breaks that have healed. The parents claim that the child must have brittle bones....we have never had a case where the child had a medical condition that would cause the child's bones to break. Also the parents stories never add up.

Well my whole response just got eaten by technology so I'm putting up a brief version of what it said.

Suffice to say that a lot of this stuff is coming into question. The original article I referred to was this one, not the one the other poster put up:

http://reason.com/archives/2009/09/2...-to-the-system

One of those references was this one which mentions the doll experiment but also a misinterpretation of an experiment involving monkeys and some studies on the criminal justice element of this.

http://discovermagazine.com/2008/dec...tart:int=0&-C=

Finally, though not having to do specifically with SBS, there is this on the National Academy of Science's report noting a lack of robustness and verified scientific methodology in the field of forensics.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/05/us...sics.html?_r=1

I have several more articles on the issue but unless you have access to West Law or Lexis Nexis I can't get them to you since the sites require passwords. I'm not denying child abuse or even that some infants are shaken to death, only that SBS (along with other things like bite mark verification and fringer-printing) is coming under serious scrutiny. I'm questioning a specific syndrome, not all child abuse. Sorry my word choice was so upsetting to you, but in answer to your comment I don't anticipate my posts to trigger Nancy Grace type reactions.

Here is my clarification. SBS is not disproved. It is at best unverified science of dubious value when it comes to accurate diagnoses and at worst junk science absolutely inappropriate for a court room. I hope that is sufficient. I'm not interested in what the people at any child protective team have to say about these matters. I'm interested in peer reviewed research establishing reliable diagnoses done by people who don't have an interest in the outcome of criminal litigation.

[LadyHollman]

If you shake something whose bones have not fully developed, you don't think you can break its neck?

[manofthecrowd]

There is a special place in hell for a-holes like this guy. He deserves to suffer 100X worse than this innocent child suffered. As I have said before there should be certain crimes that should be 1 strike and you are out.

He deserves to be removed from society for good.

[ybnormal]

Originally Posted by sonofboh

"father"

My thoughts exactly. Classification of the POS aside, when one gets more jail time for an oz. of marijuana than killing a one-month old child to death, intentionally or not, there's a REAL problem with the judicial system in this freakin' town.

[ichy]

Originally Posted by Chesterthomas2

18 years should be the outer limit for a retroactive abortion. Sorry, Kid, you're just not working out.

The so-called father in this case should be subjected to a post-birth abortion.

[songfourone]

"I had a bad day, and she would not stop crying" Spoken like a true sociopath.

[unclesharkey]

Originally Posted by SomeIdiot

Well my whole response just got eaten by technology so I'm putting up a brief version of what it said.

Suffice to say that a lot of this stuff is coming into question. The original article I referred to was this one, not the one the other poster put up:

http://reason.com/archives/2009/09/2...-to-the-system

One of those references was this one which mentions the doll experiment but also a misinterpretation of an experiment involving monkeys and some studies on the criminal justice element of this.

http://discovermagazine.com/2008/dec...tart:int=0&-C=

Finally, though not having to do specifically with SBS, there is this on the National Academy of Science's report noting a lack of robustness and verified scientific methodology in the field of forensics.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/05/us...sics.html?_r=1

I have several more articles on the issue but unless you have access to West Law or Lexis Nexis I can't get them to you since the sites require passwords. I'm not denying child abuse or even that some infants are shaken to death, only that SBS (along with other things like bite mark verification and fringer-printing) is coming under serious scrutiny. I'm questioning a specific syndrome, not all child abuse. Sorry my word choice was so upsetting to you, but in answer to your comment I don't anticipate my posts to trigger Nancy Grace type reactions.

Here is my clarification. SBS is not disproved. It is at best unverified science of dubious value when it comes to accurate diagnoses and at worst junk science absolutely inappropriate for a court room. I hope that is sufficient. I'm not interested in what the people at any child protective team have to say about these matters. I'm interested in peer reviewed research establishing reliable diagnoses done by people who don't have an interest in the outcome of criminal litigation.

I appreciate your candor. And I agree with you on some points. I am aware that there is a lot of junk science out there but I also think we don't want to throw the baby out with the bath water.

In regards to your initial post, I stand by my Nancy Grace reaction....


"No, it's on the way to being totally disproved."

Say that about evolution, God, the big bang, just about anything and I think people are going to react.

Also I don't want stupid people to get the idea that it is ok to shake a baby becuase it was totally disproved.

[MR.WINDSTREAM]

Originally Posted by unclesharkey

I appreciate your candor. And I agree with you on some points. I am aware that there is a lot of junk science out there but I also think we don't want to throw the baby out with the bath water.

In regards to your initial post, I stand by my Nancy Grace reaction....


"No, it's on the way to being totally disproved."

Say that about evolution, God, the big bang, just about anything and I think people are going to react.

Also I don't want stupid people to get the idea that it is ok to shake a baby becuase it was totally disproved.

Common sense would tell you violently shaking a baby would have the same effect as bring in a car accident. Your head stops suddenly... but your brain doesn't. It's absolutely rediculous to say this is almost completely disproven.

Stories like this make me furious as a father.

[unclesharkey]

Originally Posted by MR.WINDSTREAM

Common sense would tell you violently shaking a baby would have the same effect as bring in a car accident. Your head stops suddenly... but your brain doesn't. It's absolutely rediculous to say this is almost completely disproven.

Stories like this make me furious as a father.

That was my knee jerk reaction too but that is not what SomeIdiot meant. He was just pointing out that there have been some cases where people were convicted using junk science/forensics and that there is evidence that some of these injuries to babies can be caused by other things and that we need to be careful passing judgement so quickly.

[SomeIdiot]

Originally Posted by unclesharkey

I appreciate your candor. And I agree with you on some points. I am aware that there is a lot of junk science out there but I also think we don't want to throw the baby out with the bath water.

In regards to your initial post, I stand by my Nancy Grace reaction....


"No, it's on the way to being totally disproved."

Say that about evolution, God, the big bang, just about anything and I think people are going to react.

Also I don't want stupid people to get the idea that it is ok to shake a baby becuase it was totally disproved.

I agree, people should not be shaking babies. I just am very concerned about how some of this stuff ends up being used in our court systems. Also I apologize for my terseness last evening. I'm in the middle of some case research involving this kind of stuff (not particularly SBS) and I got a bit heated and misunderstood what your position was. No offense was intended.

[MR.WINDSTREAM]

Originally Posted by unclesharkey

That was my knee jerk reaction too but that is not what SomeIdiot meant. He was just pointing out that there have been some cases where people were convicted using junk science/forensics and that there is evidence that some of these injuries to babies can be caused by other things and that we need to be careful passing judgement so quickly.

Than I misread.
Sorry.