[HN Gopher] Retired detective: We got it wrong in Robert Roberso...
___________________________________________________________________
Retired detective: We got it wrong in Robert Roberson's death
penalty case
Author : rossant
Score : 105 points
Date : 2024-05-23 19:08 UTC (1 days ago)
(HTM) web link (www.dallasnews.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.dallasnews.com)
| rossant wrote:
| Texas may well execute soon an innocent man on the false premise
| of "shaken baby syndrome". [1] He would be the first in US
| history.
|
| This article was written by the police officer who helped send
| Robert Roberson to the death row in 2003. He changed his mind
| since then.
|
| John Grisham has also written about this case. [2]
|
| Please spread the word. As the retired police officer wrote:
|
| > It would be a terrible legacy for all of us to be associated
| with executing an innocent man based on a rush to judgment and
| bad science. We must prevent Texas from making a tragic,
| irreversible mistake.
|
| [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37650402
|
| [2] https://www.wsj.com/articles/texas-may-execute-a-man-
| based-o...
|
| [3] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/sep/24/texas-death-
| ro...
|
| [4]
| https://eu.statesman.com/story/opinion/columns/guest/2024/05...
| bryanrasmussen wrote:
| I always find the phrasing of these posts weird, as if we have
| to pretend that Texas has not executed innocent people before
| and this would be a first.
|
| on edit: not just the post, but the articles, we must pretend
| that of course this would be a first time event that would
| otherwise sully the fine nature of the criminal justice system
| with accidentally murdering someone.
| rossant wrote:
| It would be the first execution of someone _accused of SBS_ ,
| not the first execution of an innocent individual.
| philipov wrote:
| The phrasing takes pains to make it sound like the latter
| rather than the former, unless you're paying attention.
| DiggyJohnson wrote:
| How would you phrase it better. Sorry if it sounds
| confrontational to ask this question, but I can't think
| of spot anything out of sorts with this phrasing.
| rustcleaner wrote:
| The criminal justice system is fundamentally criminal in
| nature.
|
| (Unless you accept the self-reinforcing circular definitions
| of crime and state authority based on neighbors individually
| not having power over you but collectively having authority,
| and that somehow you consent to this by being born and not
| running away to another patch of dirt also under a similar
| tyranny of a different cloth.)
| afthonos wrote:
| I'm not sure what definition of "criminal" you're using to
| make that assessment. All the ones I know are based on
| laws, which are enacted by states. You have to accept the
| very framing you're decrying to call _anything_ criminal.
| behringer wrote:
| Criminals often have a series of codes or personal rules
| that guide them. It doesn't make them any less criminal.
| immibis wrote:
| We can start with "killing an innocent person is
| criminal"...
| manquer wrote:
| What has innocent to do with it ?
|
| Innocent under whose eyes ? one man's revolutionary is
| another man's terrorist. what morality and code stands
| the test of time ?
|
| actions which was legal and moral say 200 years ago would
| be illegal and amoral now , who is to say how 200 years
| in future would see our framework for ethics from now ?
|
| Taking any sentient life is a crime against nature and
| humanity.
|
| Societies supporting death penalty are not civilized for
| the same reasons any cannibals are not.
|
| Killing is killing, what difference does it make if you
| were hungry or felt scared or vengeance or merely
| sadistic to justify it .
| dustfinger wrote:
| > It would be a terrible legacy for all of us to be
| associated with executing an innocent man based on a rush to
| judgment and bad science. We must prevent Texas from making a
| tragic, irreversible mistake.
|
| I believe that this statement is making specific reference to
| this particular case. (I miss-read this next part, but will
| leave my mistake here with this comment. See below
| conversation. Sorry for the confusion) Earlier in the article
| it is made very clear that this has not been the only
| execution of an innocent person wrongly accused of shaken
| baby syndrome:
|
| > According to the National Registry of Exonerations, there
| have been at least 32 exonerations of those wrongfully
| convicted under the shaken baby hypothesis.
| Thorrez wrote:
| Were any of those 32 people executed?
| dustfinger wrote:
| Oh, I completly miss-read the word "Exonerations" as
| executions. Thank you for correcting me.
| RajT88 wrote:
| From what I understand, Texas executes
| possibly/probably/definitely innocent people with regularity.
| MisterBastahrd wrote:
| Texas doesn't give two craps about innocence. The state pardon
| board voted to pardon a white supremacist who had bragged about
| wanting to drive up to a crowd of BLM protestors and shoot some
| of them, then actually did it in 2020. They said that because
| the military vet he murdered was legally carrying a gun, even
| though witnesses say he never raised or pointed it at this
| individual, that the assailant was within his rights under the
| state's "stand your ground" laws.
|
| And by the way, for people who think I'm being hyperbolic about
| the racist stances of said murderer, here's a link to an
| article which repeats some of his social media posts:
|
| https://www.texastribune.org/2023/04/14/daniel-perry-racist-...
| FrustratedMonky wrote:
| So if two people have legal guns.
|
| They can start shooting at each other.
|
| Completely legally because they are both standing their
| ground?
|
| Texas is wild west. Of course they would probably dig that
| characterization and think nothing is wrong with this
| situation.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| Shoot before the other guy does. Bonus points if your
| politics align with the Governor.
| moshun wrote:
| Considering who the Governor just pardoned, you don't
| need the other guy to be armed or threatening, just shoot
| and you're good.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| I agree that pardon is deplorable, but the other person
| _was_ armed in that case.
| MisterBastahrd wrote:
| Yes, but the particulars of the case are that the guy
| decided to seek out a BLM crowd, drove his car up to a
| side street where the crowd was, shot into the crowd, and
| managed to kill a guy with a gun. Even WITH clear motive,
| his behavior to even get into that situation, eyewitness
| testimony, and a jury conviction, he was pardoned anyway.
| knodi123 wrote:
| > drove his car up to a side street where the crowd was,
| shot into the crowd, and managed to kill a guy with a gun
|
| Not EXACTLY how it played out.
|
| He was upset the crowd was blocking an intersection. So
| he ran a red light, driving into the crowd, and then shot
| a guy who yelled at him for it because the yelling guy
| was carrying a gun.
| vidarh wrote:
| "Texas" means crazy/outlandish in Norwegian. Like "Det var
| helt Texas" - "It was completely crazy". And, yes, it
| refers to the state.
| Cyphase wrote:
| Had to check this to be sure. Wow, that's pretty Texas.
|
| https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/texas-slang-crazy-
| norway/
|
| https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-34622478
| FireBeyond wrote:
| And then you go to Supreme Court, and SCOTUS says:
|
| > The Constitution, Scalia wrote, does not prevent the
| government from executing a person who new evidence indicates
| might be "actually innocent" -- that is, someone with the
| potential to legally demonstrate they did not commit the crime
| for which they were convicted.
|
| And have locked in on this:
|
| > In Shinn v. Ramirez, the court voted 6 to 3 to overrule two
| lower courts and disregard the innocence claims of Barry Lee
| Jones, a prisoner on Arizona's death row. Importantly, the
| majority did not rule that it found Jones's innocence claims
| unpersuasive. Instead, it ruled that the federal courts are
| barred from even considering them. Thomas wrote the opinion.
| Mathnerd314 wrote:
| https://capitalpunishmentincontext.org/resources/casesummari.
| ..
|
| > A proper remedy for claim of actual innocence based on new
| evidence, which is discovered too late to file a new trial
| motion, would be not federal habeas relief, but rather to
| file for executive clemency with the state.
|
| https://www.pullanyoung.com/blog/dont-panic-over-shinn-v-
| ram...
|
| > Shinn does not affect "new factual predicate" claims. If a
| witness changes their story 5 years after trial, you can
| still validly raise that claim both as a subsequent state
| writ and as a 2254 federal petition. Same goes for new
| scientific evidence, Brady violations, etc. None of those
| things can be characterized as the defendant's fault for not
| raising them earlier.
|
| https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/06/01/arizona-d.
| ..
|
| > federal courts should show enormous deference to the
| states, even when federal judges believe a state court is
| wrong.
|
| These decisions seems more about federalism? I mean, if you
| want to blame someone, blame the involved state for not
| considering the exculpatory evidence. For example Barry Lee
| Jones is out now - but it is because of an Arizona judge, not
| a federal one.
| burutthrow1234 wrote:
| The Supreme Court is extremely selective about what cases
| should be deferred to states and which should be the realm
| of the federal courts. They needed to federally abolish
| affirmative action in college admissions, but when a person
| is being put to death unjustly that's a state issue. If a
| website designer hypothetically refuses to design a website
| for a gay couple that's a federal issue.
| FireBeyond wrote:
| > I mean, if you want to blame someone, blame the involved
| state for not considering the exculpatory evidence.
|
| I do. But I also wonder about the role of the "highest
| court in the land", when other courts, state or federal,
| "decline" to hear appeals with factual evidence of
| innocence.
|
| I don't think "Too bad, that's the law, just lobby to have
| it changed" is an acceptable response to someone facing
| capital punishment.
| jprete wrote:
| The federalist system is more complicated than that. To
| justify taking a case to the federal court system, it has
| to affect relations between US states, relations between
| any US entity and a foreign entity, events and actions
| that take place across state lines, federal laws, or
| Constitutional amendments. IANAL so the specifics aren't
| perfectly accurate, but that's roughly where the line is.
|
| If the Supreme Court routinely interferes in matters
| purely inside of a US state where it has no jurisdiction
| because no national-level question exists, it could well
| provoke a constitutional crisis.
| quesera wrote:
| The Interstate Commerce clause seems to be available to
| SCOTUS whenever they want it.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > These decisions seems more about federalism?
|
| They are in part about federalism and in part about the
| absence of a right to have a verdict reviewed if it was
| arrived at properly, irrespective of new evidence
| discovered later.
|
| Were such a right to exist under the Constitutiom,
| federalism would no longer require the federal courts to
| stay out of state cases involving such claims, since there
| would br a justiciable question of federal law.
| joering2 wrote:
| If that was his real stance, and someone who does believe in
| up and down, I think he is burning in hell for being in
| position of power to stop, but went on to kill innocent
| people.
|
| Also in subject of death row, recently watched rather good
| movie based on true events: Trial by Fire. Interesting how
| that case was based on pseudo-science and even thought the
| governor knew he still let Cameron to be executed.
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_by_Fire_(2018_film)
| csours wrote:
| I think he (and others) have a strong belief that is how
| the _judicial_ system should work -- that appeals courts do
| not re-examine evidence.
|
| The _executive_ system can grant clemency, etc.
| bee_rider wrote:
| Worth noting that this was a party-line vote in the 2022
| court, so it doesn't really tell us much about what the law
| is suppose to mean.
| giantg2 wrote:
| There are plenty of other people wrongly convicted of shaken
| baby crimes too. Seems more common than most people think.
| anamax wrote:
| Several innocent people die from being imprisoned every day.
|
| No one cares, because they die in the prison infirmary, but
| they're just as dead and they were killed because of their
| conviction, just like they were executed. (No, I'm not talking
| about folks on death row, although innocents on death row also
| die in the infirmary.)
|
| Not only do we kill more innocents that way in absolute
| numbers, it's also greater in percentage numbers. (Death
| penalty cases get lots of review. We can argue about whether
| it's enough, but it's far more review than life without parole,
| not to mention lesser sentences which end up being life.)
| neonate wrote:
| John Grisham's article about this is readable at
| https://archive.ph/0CmxS
|
| original is https://www.wsj.com/articles/texas-may-execute-a-man-
| based-o...
| WillPostForFood wrote:
| _Dr. John Ross, the pediatrician who examined Nikki the day she
| died, testified that she had bruising on her chin, as well as
| along her left cheek and jaw. Dr. Ross said she also had a large
| subdural hematoma, which he described as "bleeding outside the
| brain, but 3 inside the skull." He said there was edema on the
| brain tissue, and that her brain had actually shifted from the
| right side to the left. He said that, in his opinion, Nikki_
|
| _Courtney said that she once witnessed [Roberson] shake Nikki by
| the arms in an attempt to make her stop crying. Rachel Cox then
| testified that [Roberson] had a "bad temper," and that she had
| witnessed him shake and spank Nikki when she was crying. Rachel
| said she had seen this happen about ten times. She also recalled
| a time that [Roberson] threatened to kill Nikki._
|
| This case was reviewed under Texas' Junk Science law. It's a more
| complicated case than a cheap conviction on bad science.
|
| You can read the prosecution's brief. There is ample evidence of
| terrible behavior.
|
| https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22-7546/272085/202...
| defrost wrote:
| > There is ample evidence of terrible behavior.
|
| What about actual hard evidence that Robertson definitely
| delibrately killed Nikki?
|
| Or is "looks like it" good enough for a death penalty in the
| US?
|
| It's nortoriously hard to undead people, eg: had Kathleen
| Folbigg lived in Texas it seems likely she'd be dead by now.
| Kathleen Folbigg, who on only circumstantial evidence was
| famously convicted of killing her four young children and
| jailed 2 decades ago, had just been pardoned by New South Wales
| and set free.
|
| https://www.science.org/content/article/how-geneticist-led-e...
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kathleen_Folbigg
| DaiPlusPlus wrote:
| > There is ample evidence of terrible behavior.
|
| (IANAL, etc.)
|
| I assume you're referring to the claims made by the prosecution
| listed in the Introduction of the document? AFAIK, that's not
| "evidence" of abuse, but what the prosecution is alleging. Big
| difference.
|
| ...but even if that were the case, being a shitty parent - even
| to the point of physical abuse, doesn't justify the end result
| here _given_ that the evidence cited in TFA makes a solid
| argument that the conviction is unsound.
|
| Ever seen "12 Angry Men"? If not, you should.
|
| -----
|
| (Also, as someone on the spectrum with low-affect, even before
| reading about this case a few years ago, I was (and still am)
| terrified of being falsely convicted of something solely on my
| mannerisms - so I suppose I'm biased towards the defendent
| here)
| mordechai9000 wrote:
| I often fail to emote properly, for whatever reason, and more
| than one person has told me I'm obviously lying (usually
| about something trivial) because of it. I can't watch the
| show Unbelievable - it makes me too upset.
| jimbob45 wrote:
| _Ever seen "12 Angry Men"? If not, you should._
|
| The kid was guilty in that movie though. The only other
| possible explanation is that he had a brother that no one
| ever mentions or interrogates with video game-like levels of
| precognition to know perfectly how to frame his brother.
|
| https://scholarship.kentlaw.iit.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?arti.
| ..
| bmacho wrote:
| > The kid was guilty in that movie though.
|
| .. you mean.. in your opinion? I don't remember the
| narrator stating the kid was guilty. Heck, even a flashback
| about the kid murdering his father wouldn't make it canon,
| since it can have inworld refutation, such as robots,
| aliens, shapeshifters, FBI hypnosis program or such.
|
| > The only other possible explanation is that he had a
| brother
|
| No, there are several possible different explanations, with
| varying levels of likeliness. The murderer had an identical
| knife, the murderer stole or picked up the kids knife, the
| murderer wanted to frame the kid specifically, the murderer
| wanted to kill someone else and frame someone (for example,
| one of the eye witnesses, or both of them were the
| murderer), and the kid and his father were a good
| candidate, and so on.
| vitus wrote:
| I disagree with that argument for many reasons.
|
| > Let's start with the fact that there was no other known
| suspect.
|
| That's not for a jury to decide. There was no other suspect
| presented.
|
| > Yet there was no sign of a forced break-in and no
| indication of robbery or theft.
|
| Is that actually mentioned in the movie? I'm rereading the
| screenplay [0], and the only mention of any motive is the
| fight between the dad and the kid, which seems to be
| undisputed. The prosecution isn't going to tell us about
| all the other pieces of evidence that don't fit the case
| they're trying to present. The defense could have done so,
| but let's be honest, it was probably some overworked public
| defender because a 16-year-old is probably not the sort who
| can afford a first-rate criminal defense lawyer.
|
| The claim that you can take these pieces of circumstantial
| evidence and do some math on them to arrive at some
| probability above 90% is... not really how arguments are
| constructed. Juror #8 had serious concerns with each of the
| core pieces of testimony, which could have been enough to
| consider each of the witnesses untrustworthy. If the jury
| is not willing to accept any of the evidence, then there's
| simply no case.
|
| > This "demonstration" hardly diminishes the strong
| inference of guilt raised by the fact that the defendant
| could remember nothing at all about the movie he claimed to
| have just seen. And nobody saw him at the theater. His
| alibi, therefore, is highly suspect.
|
| Sure, his alibi (along with the rest of the cited testimony
| from the defendant) is not very believable. But the absence
| of an alibi does not automatically prove guilt.
|
| [0] e.g. https://thescriptlab.com/wp-
| content/uploads/scripts/12AngryM...
| rossant wrote:
| Exactly. I can relate. I am like you, and I was once
| suspected of shaking my nanny (the nanny would later be
| prosecuted before being cleared after 4 years). After the
| interview with social services, where they said with a smile
| "everything would be okay", they wrote I had a one stringed
| voice, showed little emotion and didn't cry while talking.
| They wrote it was suspicious of abuse and used that to
| recommend removing my 5 month old baby for a couple of years.
| The judge followed. That's the most devastating thing I ever
| had to endure. I was lucky enough that the lawyer was so
| pissed off by this that he fought like hell to bring us our
| baby back in less than a month. But that specific episode
| made me swear on my child that I would spend the rest of my
| life undoing this wrong somehow. I'm still here 8 years
| later.
| renewiltord wrote:
| > _I was once suspected of shaking my nanny_
|
| Ah, _by my nanny_. I didn 't understand this sentence at
| first.
| rossant wrote:
| Woops sorry. No, "my baby"!
| banana_feather wrote:
| This misses the point. What you wrote is essentially "witness
| testifies defendant once shook child in their presence, child
| died".
|
| The magic third ingredient is that the state was allowed to
| bring in an expert witness to tell the jury that there's a
| causal link between shaking of the kind observed by the fact
| witness and the infliction of fatal injuries like those seen in
| the child.
|
| If it turns out no such link actually exists, you sort of have
| a problem, because the jury heard it either way. Also fwiw,
| that brief is still an adversarial motion, you cannot expect to
| get a balanced recounting of the facts by reading the state's
| motion in opposition.
| coldtea wrote:
| > _The magic third ingredient is that the state was allowed
| to bring in an expert witness to tell the jury that there 's
| a causal link between shaking of the kind observed by the
| fact witness and the infliction of fatal injuries like those
| seen in the child. If it turns out no such link actually
| exists, you sort of have a problem_
|
| That medical description of physical symptoms sounds fine as
| a "magic third ingredient" between "shaking of the kind
| observed" and the kid dying.
|
| Except if someone who treats a baby like that (as described
| by the witness) be beyond beating it, or if "bruising on her
| chin, as well as along her left cheek and jaw, and large
| subdural hematomas" develop spontaneously...
| marmadukester39 wrote:
| Except if she had a clotting disorder as indicated that
| might make her bruise and get edemas with much less trauma
| and say she fell on her face/chin, all of those could
| happen comparatively easily. I don't know what happened
| here and thats the point.
| everforward wrote:
| You mean the ex who was in a bitter custody battle at the
| time of the death, whose own sister testified against her?
| The same one whose parents called him to pick up the child
| the night before she died?
|
| Doesn't sound like a family that thought he was a child-
| beating monster.
|
| She had no neck trauma when she died. CT scans showed a
| single blunt impact to the back right of her head,
| consistent with a fall and strange for a beating.
|
| More than all of that, the medical evidence doesn't even
| look like she died from the blunt force trauma.
|
| She showed up to the ER blue lips, a telltale sign of
| hypoxia. She had severe undiagnosed viral pneumonia,
| despite having been to the doctor because we didn't look at
| the strain until COVID. Pneumonia impacts breathing
| function. On top of that, she was prescribed phenergan, an
| opioid that now carries a warning not to prescribe it to
| children _because it can make them stop breathing_. On top
| of that, the day before she died she was prescribed
| codeine, which now also carries a warning label not to
| prescribe it to respiratory-depressed children _because it
| can make them stop breathing_.
|
| Lab results show what we now know to be a fatal dose of
| Phenergan.
|
| She died, sadly, as a result of multiple respiratory
| depressing factors due to a societal failure to ensure
| medications were safe for children in her situation. The
| blunt trauma isn't even relevant; the phenergan and
| pneumonia would have killed her anyways.
|
| This is just the usual villification of an easy target:
| he's poor and autistic, he was never going to look good to
| a jury. They probably could have gotten a conviction for
| murdering Amelia Earhart if they'd tried.
| lupusreal wrote:
| > _You mean the ex who was in a bitter custody battle at
| the time of the death_
|
| If her allegations are true, then being in a bitter
| custody dispute would be the moral and responsible
| position to take. Anyway, was her sister there?
| everforward wrote:
| Neither of them was there, the ex testified that she had
| seen him yell and shake the child at _other times_. Her
| sister testified that she had seen never seen that kind
| of behavior.
|
| Also, if the ex's allegations are true, why the hell
| would her grandparents call him to demand that he pick
| her up that night? She was supposed to be at her maternal
| grandparents that night, they called him. Why not call
| the baby's mom? Why not just keep the baby anyways? Why
| not take it to the hospital themselves if they were
| concerned?
|
| I'm not disparaging them for deciding to break up, nor
| for being in a custody dispute. These things happen. I
| just don't trust either party in a custody dispute;
| people get very emotional and the ends start to justify
| the means. If she is lying, it would be far from the
| first time false abuse allegations were made in a custody
| dispute.
|
| I defer to facts here. There were no medical indications
| of abuse, nor any direct evidence of abuse of any kind.
| The child had pneumonia, a lethal dose of opioids, and
| hypoxia at the hospital. The likely biased testimony of
| an ex doesn't negate any of that.
| lupusreal wrote:
| > _she had seen him yell and shake the child at _other
| times__
|
| Which she was there for... Her sister never seeing that
| means nothing.
|
| Being in a custody dispute also means nothing; it's a
| wash between _" she would lie because she was fighting
| for custody"_ and _" she was fighting for custody because
| she wasn't lying"_. I think it can neither lend nor
| detract from her credibility, so we're left with default
| credibility of an eye witness. And although eye witness
| testimony often fumbles details like the order of events,
| I think seeing somebody shake a baby is probably pretty
| credible testimony; not something that could be
| innocently mistaken. If it really didn't happen then
| she's essentially attempting to murder him using the
| courts.
|
| Assuming it did happen several _other_ times, it was
| probably going to happen again and each time it happens
| is another round of Russian Roulette. You can get lucky
| once, or even a few times, but somebody who shakes a baby
| on several different occasions is very likely to
| eventually kill that baby.
| everforward wrote:
| You're welcome to believe whatever you want, but no,
| eyewitness testimony is not very credible.
|
| Go look up Aaron Scheerhorn; 6 eyewitnesses testified
| that he stabbed someone to death in public and he was
| convicted... right up until they did DNA tests.
|
| Or look at the Satanic Panic [1]. ~12,000 people made
| allegations that they were involved in some kind of
| satanic abuse or ritual, and police haven't found any
| evidence for any of them. Several claimed that they
| watched someone die, and then it turns out that person is
| still alive.
|
| Eyewitnesses are wrong in far more significant ways than
| misordering events. Psychology studies have repeatedly
| shown that it is trivial to implant memories in
| eyewitnesses, and that eyewitness recall accuracy floats
| around 85% even for events they did actually see.
| Seriously, Google it. There are hundreds of cases made on
| eyewitness testimony that were later overturned by direct
| evidence like DNA, it's not hard to find one.
|
| She may not even be lying, just wrong.
|
| Even presuming "default credibility of an eyewitness",
| that's a very, very low standard of evidence. ChatGPT
| will answer you correctly more often than eyewitnesses
| recall things correctly.
|
| 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satanic_panic
| giantg2 wrote:
| "Assuming it did happen several other times, it was
| probably going to happen again"
|
| Yes, and that assumption is the big question. The factors
| you think make it a wash might be reasonable doubt to
| another. Lies run rampant in domestic issues or family
| court. Without real evidence to back up a person, I would
| have a doubt that anything unverifiable is likely a
| lie/exaggeration/etc.
| giantg2 wrote:
| "Why not call the baby's mom? Why not just keep the baby
| anyways? Why not take it to the hospital themselves if
| they were concerned?"
|
| Because many abusers pass off the kid to blame it on
| others. That's why childcare providers tend to assess (or
| are supposed to) the condition at drop off. Otherwise
| it's a finger pointing game that could result in serious
| criminal charges based on who was more believable.
| everforward wrote:
| While generally possible, it seems unlikely to me given
| that the baby had been to the hospital 2 days before she
| died, and to a pediatrician the day before (maybe the day
| of, the wording is unclear).
|
| It's possible that something happened in that day or two,
| or that two separate medical facilities missed signs of
| abuse, but it seems less likely than that the child just
| wasn't abused.
|
| The autopsy didn't show clear signs of abuse either.
| Again, it's possible there were no indications, but we're
| starting to stack up an awful lot of unlikely events.
|
| I won't deny a possibility, but I would deny a
| probability and would certainly deny that it meets the
| "reasonable doubt" standard.
| giantg2 wrote:
| That's one of many possible reasons. Many custody issues
| are financial in nature due to the way the government
| mandates support, divides assets, etc. Then there's stuff
| like wrongful death suits. So there could be other
| motives. That's why the evidence is so important.
| rossant wrote:
| For fairness you should also point to the defense's petition.
|
| https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22-7546/266633/202...
|
| It states, for example:
|
| > _The Dallas hospital records indicate that Nikki also had a
| clotting disorder of unclear origin, which made her susceptible
| to bruising and likely increased the bleeding inside her
| skull._
| thebeardisred wrote:
| "Ample evidence" isn't the legal burden. It's a lack of
| reasonable doubt.
| Aloisius wrote:
| _> Courtney said that she once_
|
| An 11 year old child.
|
| _> Rachel Cox then testified_
|
| A 10 year old child.
| greenyoda wrote:
| Here's what the Innocence Project has to say about this case:
|
| _What to Know About Robert Roberson on Texas Death Row for a
| Crime That Never Occurred_
|
| https://innocenceproject.org/what-to-know-about-robert-rober...
| musha68k wrote:
| Not only convicted under the highly controversial shaken baby
| syndrome theory (not straightforward to prove; hence erronous)
| and ignoring medical evidence but his undiagnosed autism led to
| unfair judgments of his behavior... irreversible errors in the
| US justice system.
|
| Maybe it's high time to overthink the death penalty?
| lupusreal wrote:
| > _debunked "shaken baby syndrome" theory_
|
| Are you telling me that shaking babies doesn't kill them?
|
| > _undiagnosed autism_
|
| I think autism mild enough to not be diagnosed cannot
| possibly excuse somebody for shaking a baby, and as somebody
| with autism so mild that it went undiagnosed for 30 years I'm
| personally offended that anybody could believe otherwise.
| rossant wrote:
| >> _debunked "shaken baby syndrome" theory_
|
| > _Are you telling me that shaking babies doesn 't kill
| them?_
|
| It sure can, and a number of babies diagnosed with SBS have
| been abused or killed.
|
| However, the way shaking is typically inferred from a small
| set of supposedly characteristic medical findings
| (radiological and pathological evidence of blood in the
| layers surrounding the brain and at the back of the eyes)
| has a weak scientific evidence based -- determining abuse
| requires a far more sophisticated approach. [1]
|
| [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37650402
| lupusreal wrote:
| In the case being discussed above, there was also witness
| testimony saying the accused was seen to shake the baby
| on several occasions. If that testimony hasn't been
| recanted (has it?) and we're expected to think that SBS
| didn't kill the baby then a theory of this man's
| innocence is _in effect_ a theory about that witness
| trying to murder him using the legal system, or that
| shaking the baby on several occasions and the baby dying
| are entirely unrelated (extremely dubious.)
|
| Maybe the state has failed to prove it _beyond a
| reasonable doubt_ but unless that witness has recanted I
| think he 's more likely than not to be guilty.
| NoMoreNicksLeft wrote:
| > saying the accused was seen to shake the baby on
| several occasions.
|
| When my son was small, say I don't know, 10 or 11 months,
| I'd pick him up under his arms, hold him at arm's length,
| and (gently) shake him while chanting "shake the baby!
| shake the baby!" and he'd start giggling so
| uncontrollably he'd be gasping for breath before he
| stopped. My wife always gave me the stink-eye. I think he
| still wanted me to do that until he was 3 or 4, he was
| getting too heavy to be able to do it very well.
|
| Think what would have happened if I'd been dumb enough to
| do it in public.
| musha68k wrote:
| That was the point clearly made in both articles above
| just to be crystal clear here. Shaking baby syndrome is
| very real and _deadly_ of course. This is all about the
| criminal case and the evidence here though.
|
| I also edited my comment to make it very clear as I had
| just been echoing on what was to read there; no room for
| confusion in these matters. Fully agreed.
| everforward wrote:
| As a direct example, note the lack of neck trauma in the
| indications.
|
| You would generally expect neck trauma to be involved in
| shaking a baby so hard their brain starts to bleed. Their
| necks lack musculature, and are nearly limp. Their
| vertebrae are what's eating the force of their head
| shaking. There would likely be obvious trauma to the neck
| if the baby had been shaken.
| rossant wrote:
| Absolutely. [1]
|
| [1] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii
| /S18788...
| A1kmm wrote:
| I think they are saying that the autism explains his
| emotional response to the death of his child, not that he
| shook the baby but the autism 'excuses' it.
| rossant wrote:
| Absolutely.
| musha68k wrote:
| That was neither the point of the posted article, nor the
| other one shared in comment above. Merely that it's hard to
| prove and especially so in this case with other medical
| issues / evidence found.
|
| > Robert Roberson's case is riddled with unscientific
| evidence, inaccurate and misleading medical testimony, and
| prejudicial treatment. In 2002, Mr. Roberson's two-year
| old, chronically ill daughter, Nikki, was sick with a high
| fever and suffered a short fall from bed. Hospital staff
| did not know Mr.
|
| > Roberson had autism and judged his response to his
| daughter's grave condition as lacking emotion. Mr. Roberson
| was prosecuted, convicted, and sentenced to death under the
| now-discredited "shaken baby syndrome" (SBS) hypothesis.
|
| Anyways edited and reworded it just to be crystal clear
| here and keep closer to how article(s) put it in context of
| a criminal investigation:
|
| > highly controversial shaken baby syndrome theory (not
| straightforward to prove; hence erronous)
| Davidzheng wrote:
| I don't think shaking a baby to death should be punished by
| death, even if it were intentional. Murder of a single
| individual in general in the US is not usually punished by
| death even in Texas right?
| adrianmonk wrote:
| You're right that there are qualifiers. Multiple murders
| is one of them, but there are others:
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_in_Texas
| #Ca...
|
| In this case, it's presumably because the (supposed)
| murder victim was under 15.
| ChrisMarshallNY wrote:
| I don't think that the autism had anything to do with the
| crime, itself. It had _everything_ to do with how he was
| perceived by the cops.
|
| Many cops tend to rely on getting a "feel" for the suspect.
| High-functioning autistic folks often have "resting bitch
| face." They don't come across as "likable," and people can
| "get their back up" over it.
|
| I'm a bit "on the spectrum," and, as anyone in my shoes can
| tell you, we're bully magnets. My grade school days were
| absolute hell. I got the shit kicked out of me, on a
| regular basis, for no other reason, than "I don't like the
| way you're looking at me!". I spent many years, training my
| "resting face" to be fairly open and friendly. People seem
| to think I look like an idiot, but that's OK, because they
| also tend to underestimate me. At least, they don't think
| I'm being hostile.
| petsfed wrote:
| I have what I believe to be an adequate criteria for
| inflicting the death penalty:
|
| 1. A person has to commit and be convicted of, and sentenced
| for a (potentially) capital crime. 2. That person has to
| escape from their final prison. 3. That person must then
| commit, and be convicted of _another_ capital crime (probably
| with some mitigating circumstances, like murders that are
| arguably part of the escape and evasion don 't qualify for
| the death penalty, but escaping, then going out of your way
| to murder a civilian do).
|
| For most _bad_ crimes, life without parole is more than
| adequate. And if you escape and dedicate yourself to keeping
| your nose clean, then the worst you should face is an
| extended sentence. The death penalty should be reserved for
| people who pose such a proven, dire risk to society that the
| goal of the punishment is risk mitigation for society, not
| justice. Ted Bundy is the best real-world example I can think
| of.
| saulpw wrote:
| That set of criteria makes sense to me!
|
| Also, another case in which the death penalty could be
| warranted:
|
| The person has confessed to the crime, does not recant
| their confession, and accepts (or even desires) the death
| penalty in lieu of lifetime imprisonment. (Yes, there are
| cases like this.)
|
| Of course, this reads a bit more like suicide, and may not
| be necessary if we had appropriate "right-to-die"
| provisions in general (such that they also applied to
| prisoners). Maybe we should just give all such prisoners
| access to a seppuku knife once a year.
| klyrs wrote:
| > Maybe we should just give all such prisoners access to
| a seppuku knife once a year.
|
| Honestly, I don't understand the desire to make the death
| additionally torturous. If we must kill, just give people
| a gram of fentanyl. They'll enjoy the last few moments of
| their life, a grace that's traditionally afforded in the
| form of a last meal, and simply forget to breathe.
| FireBeyond wrote:
| > 2. That person has to escape from their final prison.
|
| Tangentially, in some Scandinavian (I believe?) countries,
| escaping from prison is not a punishable offense. To be
| clear, you will be looked for, and taken back to prison
| when found, but their legal system has ruled that the
| craving for freedom is a natural human urge, and that it's
| punishing human behavior to punish escapees for escaping.
| petsfed wrote:
| That's explicitly why I called out crimes committed as
| part of the escape and evasion as a potential example of
| "subsequent crimes that don't qualify for the death
| penalty". There are too many valid mitigating
| circumstances to just blanket say "he's a convicted
| murder, and he escaped, now we get to kill him".
|
| I'm not sure I'd go so far as to say that escape
| shouldn't be treated as a crime (one way to view crime is
| an explicit rejection of the idea that a government can
| or should dictate our actions, so in that light, trying
| to get out of a legal punishment is itself a rejection of
| that government's right to issue punishments). But
| certainly, if the only additional crime is the escape
| itself, then the death penalty is entirely unwarranted.
| rustcleaner wrote:
| Life imprisonment in many US prisons is actually _worse_
| than killing them quickly, because we believe we must spend
| a tech worker salary per prisoner per year to make sure
| they are stripped of dignity and comforts so as to make
| their imprisonments miserable. Imagine being put in a
| concrete cage with only dudes, you are literally regimented
| by force to someone else 's early-morning schedule, it
| takes 3 hours of prison work to buy a bag of chips or make
| a 10 minute collect phone call to a loved one, your only
| escape is solitary confinement with _nothing but your
| cloths, hands, and mind_ , and you are stuck in this
| building or others like it _until you die_.
|
| Only politicians and judges should face that possibility,
| only because they wield the flaming sword of the state!
| NoMoreNicksLeft wrote:
| > to make sure they are stripped of dignity and comforts
| s
|
| That's the point. You speak as if we do this mistakenly.
|
| > Imagine being put in a concrete cage with only dudes,
| you are literally regimented by force to someone else's
| early-morning schedule,
|
| Yes. I can imagine this. My imagination acts as a
| deterrent. I implore you to continue to urge others to
| imagine it, particularly those at risk of becoming
| criminals themselves.
| msm_ wrote:
| To clarify, and especially in context of this article:
|
| 1. A person has to ~~commit and~~ be convicted of, and
| sentenced for a (potentially) capital crime. 2. That person
| has to escape from their final prison. 3. That person must
| then ~~commit, and~~ be convicted of another capital crime
|
| Of course if a person remorselessly commits a capital crime
| it changes a lot of things. But one big problem is that
| justice system can't reliably always determine who
| committed the crime (or was it committed at all).
| petsfed wrote:
| Fair point.
|
| And a good criticism to my concept is that if a person is
| falsely convicted of one heinous crime, then escapes and
| is accused of some other heinous crime, the original
| conviction would likely be used as evidence towards
| motive and means.
|
| I'm not sure of a good solution to that problem, although
| it would certainly shrink the number of executions of
| innocent people, it would not completely eliminate them.
| nolongerthere wrote:
| The main lesson here is science changes, no matter how
| incontrovertible it appears. No matter how many experts
| corroborate your hypothesis and claims, science is evergreen.
| Don't let people tell you "it's settled" it almost never is,
| especially when it comes to areas that are highly politicized
| (like SBS was).
| qingcharles wrote:
| And sadly the US justice system isn't designed for post-
| conviction changes. Typically whatever happened at trial is set
| in stone, even if it's inherently absurd. Errors of law are
| easier to get fixed than errors of fact which are normally not
| touched by appellate courts.
| rossant wrote:
| Yes, see e.g.
| https://www.law.ua.edu/resources/pubs/lrarticles/Volume%2062...
| nottorp wrote:
| > science changes
|
| _medicine changes_
|
| Law should change, perhaps.
|
| If him showing no emotion was a factor in the conviction does
| that mean that you're not safe with the law if you have self
| control?
| nolongerthere wrote:
| > _If him showing no emotion was a factor in the conviction
| does that mean that you 're not safe with the law if you have
| self control?_
|
| It means humans expect to see what they perceive to be human
| responses. 99% of people when faced with an accusation of
| murdering their own child will have an emotional response,
| not only is it not normal not to, its not admirable and is
| unhealthy. Its not called self control to not exhibit
| distress when you're accused of being a monster, that is a
| time where its very rational to show emotion.
| r2_pilot wrote:
| Lord forbid you ever have an abnormal emotional response
| during a stressful time.
| _DeadFred_ wrote:
| The US Justice system is built on precedent. Once precedent
| is set in a case the science is settled as far as future
| court rulings. The two systems don't interface together very
| well.
| _DeadFred_ wrote:
| The US Justice system is built on precedent. If something has
| been ruled scientifically admissible in court precedent has
| been set, it is the settled science as far as the US Justice
| system is concerned. Look at what it took to get lie detectors
| out of the system (oh wait, they aren't, and while not
| admissible in court are routinely used as a condition of
| parole/probation).
| Jimmc414 wrote:
| https://archive.is/twqkI
| musha68k wrote:
| Capital punishment is amoral also because it is inherently
| ignorant.
| skirge wrote:
| It's not only US. Many justice systems depend on direct witness
| or experts and expert who can say anything. Witness can be
| prosecuted for lying, experts not because they only have
| opinions.
| qingcharles wrote:
| That's why technically both sides should have experts. A lot of
| trials where experts are called devolve into simply a "battle
| of the experts" as the evidence is too close or too
| complicated.
|
| Sadly, the prosecution often has an unlimited budget for
| experts and the defendant often has zero. The judge can rule
| that the state put up some funds for a defense expert, but this
| is usually a fraction of the cost that the prosecution spend.
|
| Additionally, if you are being defended by a public defender or
| a cheap defense attorney then they will rarely file a motion
| for expert fees as they don't have the time to coordinate with
| an expert and go through the evidence to create a narrative for
| trial.
|
| Furthermore, lawyers are trained in the law, not in things like
| forensic science, so if your lawyer knows nothing about the
| techniques being used to convict you then they won't be able to
| adequately cross-examine the prosecution's expert nor question
| their own expert (if they have one).
| rossant wrote:
| In France it's even worse as the State experts are assumed to
| be Right and there is no intended procedure for the defense
| to hire their own experts, at least not in a way where both
| sides would discuss on an equal foot.
|
| There's even an obscure article of the law stating that a
| trial can be adjourned if a witness contradicts a State
| expert that testified before them.
| frenchman_in_ny wrote:
| Though, unlike in the US, the investigators in France are
| required to seek evidence of both innocence and guilt [0].
| So theoretically there's no need for defense experts.
|
| [0] https://www.justice.gouv.fr/justice-france/justice-
| penale/pr....
| rossant wrote:
| That's the theory. According to my experience in these
| particular cases, that's rarely how it works in reality.
| _DeadFred_ wrote:
| The public defenders' office should have the same amount of
| funding as public prosecutors'.
| giantg2 wrote:
| You could punish an expert, but you'd have to prove that they
| intentionally provided false info, which is nearly impossible
| to prove for opinions unless you can prove some form of
| collusion or get a confession.
| albert_e wrote:
| Currently getting Access Denied error:
|
| >> Access Denied You don't have permission to access
| "http://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/commentary/2024/05/23/reti..."
| on this server. Reference #18.2d503617.1716531531.49adf
|
| https://errors.edgesuite.net/18.2d503617.1716531531.49adf
| srge wrote:
| Although I'm not an expert on this case, it's wise to remain
| skeptical when hearing only one party's perspective on a court
| decision. The science in question might be dubious, but there
| could be other evidence, or the story might be more complex than
| it appears.
|
| I tend to root for the underdog against an institution, but we've
| already witnessed significant exaggerations and manipulations
| from the defense in public cases. The Serial podcast comes to
| mind, as well as the series Making a Murderer.
| rossant wrote:
| Anyone can make their own opinion by reading the petition [1]
| and the opposition to the petition. [2]
|
| [1]
| https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22-7546/266633/202...
|
| [2]
| https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22-7546/272085/202...
| jjulius wrote:
| >I tend to root for the underdog against an institution, but
| we've already witnessed significant exaggerations and
| manipulations from the defense in public cases. The Serial
| podcast comes to mind, as well as the series Making a Murderer.
|
| None of what you're referring to is new at all, and, unless
| this idea/concept is new to you (which is OK!), shouldn't
| really cause a shift in worldview. Parties on each side of
| cases such as these will often exaggerate and attempt to
| manipulate the court of public opinion, have done so for eons,
| and will continue to do so.
| willyt wrote:
| Any parent knows that toddlers are constantly bashing thier heads
| off things because they're top heavy and learning to walk they
| constantly fall over and tumble off things. One of my daughters
| used to constantly have a lump on her head from smacking it off
| something. My friends son used to run full tilt into things like
| brick walls given half a chance, the noise it made was awful. I
| stand to be corrected on this but if I remember rightly the male
| scientist who came up with shaken baby syndrome didn't have kids
| and hadn't considered the possibility that these types of
| injuries could be self inflicted.
| rossant wrote:
| I don't know if Norman Guthkelch and John Caffey had kids, but
| Caffey wrote in his 1972 paper:
|
| > _Rhythmic whiplash habits of the infant himself during the
| first months of life, such as head-rolling, body-rocking, and
| head-banging may be traumatically pathogenic to his brain and
| its veins._
|
| More generally, Caffey considered many types of mild shaking to
| be potentially dangerous, including "toys and recreational
| contraptions", "playful practices" etc. The notion that shaking
| _had_ to be "abusive" to be pathogenic came in the 10 years
| afterwards.
| aaomidi wrote:
| Death sentence in this case made literally no sense either.
|
| Was this person at risk of going and shaking other babies?
| giantg2 wrote:
| "Justice" is used rather loosely when talking about the
| "justice system". Many people explicitly leave the "justice"
| part off for accuracy. It's just a system. Punishment is more
| likely than actual justice or rehabilitation.
| rustcleaner wrote:
| Life sentences should be capped at a decade, and all charges
| related to an incident must always be concurrently served
| (discourages charge stacking). Criminal records should also ghost
| after 10 years from release (like a credit report).
|
| The death penalty should be abolished; outside of war the state
| should not possess the legal ability to execute anybody. Reason
| being is the state screws up; just because the state can pass a
| law doesn't mean those it victimizes under said law deserve it.
| Homosexuality and cannabis are great examples of this dynamic.
| You cannot give back years taken, you can only make them very
| wealthy and cost taxpayers for continuing to elect unrepentant
| jailers.
|
| None of these protections should apply to oath-taking elected
| office holders convicted of treason or other high crimes against
| the people. Other than for said oath takers: criminal punishment
| should be made optional, with the other option being expatriation
| from the nation with the punishment on pause in the event you
| return. The fact we have a system which acts to make the
| 'offender' actively miserable, rather than separate the
| 'offender' but otherwise treat them with dignity, shows we are
| still a very barbaric society in the West.
| tgv wrote:
| There are some seriously deranged people out there. You cannot
| just release them into society. I think you're looking for
| solutions to problems caused elsewhere.
| moshun wrote:
| The most deranged people should be in well regulated mental
| hospitals, not for profit prisons. It's insane to acknowledge
| that there are people too maladjusted to operate in society,
| then send them to the one place where you know they'll get no
| help.
| nickff wrote:
| The vast majority of prisons are run by governments, and
| even private prisons are regulated. Using hospitals as a
| substitute for prisons will result in harm to treatable
| individuals, as well as more stigmatization of mental
| illness.
| tonyarkles wrote:
| As well as treating mental hospitals as potentially
| permanent prisons even if the crime itself has a finite
| sentence. In a world with no bad actors it might make
| sense but it only takes one bad psychiatrist (or
| psychiatric facility) to punish a perfectly sane
| individual indefinitely (or drive them to actual insanity
| after prolonged confinement and unnecessary psychiatric
| treatment)
| thebytefairy wrote:
| Would be interested to hear what constitute 'high crimes' that
| should allow more than ten year sentences? On repatriation, I
| don't know who's going to want to accept each others' criminal
| exiles. Though perhaps there would be, we do have armies
| promising freedom in exchange for conscription.
| fortran77 wrote:
| The nurses and doctors who testified in these cases about their
| "shaken baby syndrome" theories should be sentenced to life in
| prison
| NegativeLatency wrote:
| > Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life.
| Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out
| death in judgement.
| cesarb wrote:
| For those who don't know it yet (https://xkcd.com/1053/):
| that's a quote from The Lord of the Rings.
|
| (And IIRC, the character being talked about ends up being very
| important later on, so it was good that they weren't killed.)
| neallindsay wrote:
| The death penalty should be abolished. You don't get sentenced to
| death for harming others, you get sentenced to death for being
| unsympathetic to the jury (because of racism or, as in this case,
| because you don't appear to exhibit the right emotions) and for
| not having enough money to afford a good lawyer.
|
| You can die from being poor in a bunch of different ways in this
| country, but this is one we could easily eliminate.
| mateus1 wrote:
| Death penalty in the US seems like a remnant of slavery more
| than anything else. I guess the same could be said for much of
| the US government (polices, judicial system, etc)
| doctoboggan wrote:
| I thought the judge handles sentencing and the jury are fact
| finders only deciding innocent or guilty. Is that not true for
| the death penalty?
| halestock wrote:
| It depends on the state, but it is common for the jury to
| vote on the death penalty as well.
| LeroyRaz wrote:
| I find it strange how being killed when innocent is considered so
| much worse than being wrongly incarcerated.
|
| The state has already taken prime years of life (age 36-56). The
| potential execution just seems like salt in that wound.
| aamargulies wrote:
| This isn't the first time Texas has done something like this.
|
| https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/stories/was-an-innocent-man-exe...
| ars wrote:
| If you want to understand more about how the science on Shaken
| Baby changed, this is a great place to start:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37650402
|
| That HN post links to
| https://www.cambridgeblog.org/2023/05/a-journey-into-the-sha...
| which explains in detail how the "triad" or symptoms that has
| been assumed to mean Shaken Baby actually can happen from a
| variety of other medical causes.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-05-24 23:01 UTC)