Shaken baby syndrome: Dodgy science is sending parents to jail

Source: None
Published: Sep 7, 2022
Author: Mike Rivero
Post Date: 2022-09-07 12:38:10 by Horse
Views: 292

Tasha Shelby, 47, has spent a quarter of a century — more than half her life — behind bars for a murder that the original medical examiner on the case says never happened. It was early morning on May 30, 1997, when two and a half year old Bryan Thompson was rushed to hospital after being discovered by his stepmother, Shelby, convulsing and gasping for breath. The child was placed on life support but was declared brain dead and died the following day.

Very quickly the doctors “diagnosed” Bryan, who was known as “Little” by his family, as having suffered from Shaken Baby Syndrome (SBS). As the last adult to care for him, Shelby was immediately assumed to be the perpetrator. To the medical professionals and police, it was a straightforward case of cranial trauma. Shelby was convicted of capital murder in a Mississippi court in 2000 and sentenced to life without parole.

Dr Leroy Riddick, who died in 2021, carried out Bryan’s autopsy and was the state’s forensic pathologist on the case. In 2018, amid mounting evidence questioning the scientific basis of SBS, Riddick changed the death certificate from “homicide” to “accident” caused by a hereditary disorder. He also testified in a 2016 affidavit that, given developing medical understanding, Bryan’s injuries were more likely the result of a combination of factors including falling a short distance and a seizure.


Poster Comment:

Or an adverse vaccine reaction!

Post Comment   Private Reply

#1: Esso    To: Horse, 4um (#0)

Or an adverse vaccine reaction

Vaxxes are 100% safe and effective. It's normal for people to just drop dead now, or get dementia at 60.

Esso posted on 2022-09-07 13:05:40   Reply   Private Reply


#2: Darkwing    To: Horse (#0)

This has been going on for years and a lot of people have been wrongly convicted but we must trust the science.

Darkwing posted on 2022-09-07 13:56:29   Reply   Private Reply


#3: StraitGate    To: Darkwing (#2)

"Beyond a reasonable doubt" means absolutely nothing to judges, prosecutors, or juries nowadays. Sometimes I wonder if it ever did.

Beyond a reasonable doubt is the legal burden of proof required to affirm a conviction in a criminal case. In a criminal case, the prosecution bears the burden of proving that the defendant is guilty beyond all reasonable doubt. This means that the prosecution must convince the jury that there is no other reasonable explanation that can come from the evidence presented at trial. In other words, the jury must be virtually certain of the defendant’s guilt in order to render a guilty verdict.

www.law .cornell.edu/wex/beyond_a_reasonable_doubt

StraitGate posted on 2022-09-07 16:41:54   Reply   Private Reply