PASSAGE OF THE DAY: "Roberson’s advocates and attorneys are watching and waiting for a response from the state’s highest court that could soon rule on this. It could reject the request, grant the new trial, or do nothing. It’s unheard of that the state would give Roberson an execution date while he has a pending appeal. This leads many to think that the state of Texas is dead set on this execution and public pressure is needed to make sure an innocent man isn’t put to death on Oct 16."
--------------------------------------------------------
STORY: "Texas Matters: Robert Roberson, death row and shaken baby syndrome," by David Martin Davies, published by National Public Radio, on September 12, 2025. ("David Martin Davies is a veteran journalist with more than 30 years of experience covering Texas, the border and Mexico. Davies is the host of "The Source," an hour-long live call-in news program that airs on KSTX at noon Monday through Thursday. Since 1999 he was been the host and producer of "Texas Matters," a weekly radio news magazine and podcast that looks at the issues, events and people in the Lone Star State. Davies' reporting has been featured on National Public Radio, American Public Media's "Marketplace" and the BBC. He has written for The San Antonio Light, The San Antonio Express-News, The Texas Observer and other publications.")
————————————————————————
GIST: "October 16, 2025— that’s the scheduled execution date for Robert Roberson, a man on Texas death row. He was convicted of killing his 2-year-old daughter, Nikki Curtis, by shaken baby syndrome. And that’s the issue. His conviction rests on that scientific theory that’s now widely discredited.
But what does that mean that shaken baby syndrome is “discredited"? That doesn’t mean it’s okay to shake a baby. Never shake a baby. Shaken Baby Syndrome was a theory. It was never supported by scientific studies. It was invented to help law enforcement determine what happens when a baby is injured or killed but there are no outward signs of physical harm.
In 1971 British neurosurgeon, Dr. Norman Guthkelch published an article suggesting that whiplash-type shaking could cause bleeding in the brain in infants, even without external signs of trauma. He was looking for an explanation for cases of infants with brain bleeding when there was no obvious blunt impact injury.
Although it was just a theory it was accepted as fact and beginning in the 1970s and 80s, doctors were trained to recognize shaken baby syndrome with a “classic triad” of symptoms in infants:
- Subdural hematoma (bleeding on the brain)
- Retinal hemorrhage (bleeding in the eyes)
- Brain swelling
The theory was that if a baby showed these three symptoms, it must have been violently shaken, even if there were no other injuries or witnesses. It didn’t take into account that there were other causes that could create these same symptoms that were not caused by shaking.
Nevertheless, police and prosecutors used this medical theory to arrest and convict hundreds of parents and caregivers of child abuse and murder.
It was thought that if an infant has these three symptoms, then that is conclusive proof of child abuse.
But that is wrong. Science has improved, and even Guthkelch admitted that.
The problem is there are other conditions that can also create the classic shaken baby syndrome signs.
Minor household accidents like a baby rolling off a couch or bed or falling a few feet can sometimes cause brain bleeding and swelling. Infants born prematurely or with complicated deliveries can develop chronic subdural hematomas that later re-bleed with minimal stress. These old injuries were often misinterpreted as new signs of abuse.
Medical and natural conditions can also cause these issues.
- Infections (like meningitis or sepsis) can inflame blood vessels, leading to bleeding in the brain and eyes.
- Metabolic or genetic disorders can make children prone to brain hemorrhages.
- Blood-clotting disorders can cause spontaneous bleeds.
Lack of oxygen from choking, asthma, pneumonia, or even unsafe sleeping environments can lead to brain swelling and retinal hemorrhages that look similar to shaken baby syndrome.
The American Academy of Pediatrics is standing by the theory. Texas Public Radio reached out to The AAP for comment. They wouldn’t agree to an interview, but they provided this statement:
“There is in fact no debate in the medical field that shaken baby syndrome is a real and devastating injury that can lead to lifelong brain damage or death. The diagnosis is now called “abusive head trauma” to include a broader range of injuries and is well documented in scientific studies. The diagnosis doesn’t place blame on who caused the injury or why.”
It’s important to note that the AAP has not commented directly on the Robert Roberson shaken baby syndrome evidence or conviction.
The AAP's position is that “the diagnosis doesn’t place blame on who caused the injury or why” — but that’s how shaken baby syndrome is used in criminal prosecution, and it’s been proven to put innocent people in prison.
That’s what happened to Josh Burns, an airline pilot who was wrongfully convicted in Michigan of shaking his infant daughter and spent ten years fighting to obtain official recognition of his innocence.
Burns signed an open letter with 20 shaken baby syndrome exonerees calling for the state of Texas to halt Robert Roberson’s execution.
According to the National Registry of Exonerations, there have been “at least 34 people convicted based on a shaken baby syndrome diagnosis have been exonerated.”
One high-profile case in Texas is that of Andrew Wayne Roark. He was exonerated in October 2024, after being convicted in 2000 under shaken baby theory. His exoneration was based on updated medical/scientific research which the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals said no longer supports the SBS theory in the way it was used in his trial.
Roberson’s attorneys point to this case in their current on-going appeal. They argue that the science supporting that diagnosis is no longer valid, and that newly evolved scientific evidence should have been considered.
So when Roberson showed up at the Palestine Regional Hospital in 2002 with an unconscious Nikki in his arms, shaken baby syndrome was treated as iron-clad medical fact.
Brian Wharton, the Palestine police detective, who arrested Roberson that day said he had never received any training about shaken baby syndrome, but he knew about it vaguely.
Wharton recounted being summoned to the hospital, where he was immediately informed of Roberson's peculiar behavior. Roberson displayed a flat affect and did not react to the chaotic scene as a typical father might.
But Roberson had undiagnosed autism, which led to him being arrested.
Wharton now believes Roberson is innocent. He says confirmation bias led him astray. He said he saw what he expected to see.
Wharton is now a minister, and he visits Robert in prison. And he’s now openly opposed to the death penalty, calling humans “too fallible” to carry it out fairly. He’s also advocating for Roberson to stop the execution and overturn the guilty verdict.
There is new medical evidence that Nikki had pneumonia and was prescribed inappropriate medication when she was brought to the same hospital days earlier with respiratory issues. During that initial hospital visit she had a fever of over 104 degrees.
The jury at Roberson’s trial was never informed about Nikki’s chronic medical issues, her undiagnosed pneumonia or her dangerously high temperature just days before her death.
Roberson’s own defense attorney didn’t challenge the shaken baby syndrome assessment. Instead, he conceded it and argued Robert simply “lost control.”
This is all new evidence that Roberson’s attorney Gretchen Sween would like to present in a new trial if the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals grants one.
Roberson’s advocates and attorneys are watching and waiting for a response from the state’s highest court that could soon rule on this.
It could reject the request, grant the new trial, or do nothing.
It’s unheard of that the state would give Roberson an execution date while he has a pending appeal. This leads many to think that the state of Texas is dead set on this execution and public pressure is needed to make sure an innocent man isn’t put to death on Oct 16."
The entire story can be read at:
https://www.tpr.org/podcast/texas-matters/2025-09-12/texas-matters-robert-roberson-death-row-and-shaken-baby-syndrome
PUBLISHER'S NOTE: I am monitoring this case/issue/resource. Keep your eye on the Charles Smith Blog for reports on developments. The Toronto Star, my previous employer for more than twenty incredible years, has put considerable effort into exposing the harm caused by Dr. Charles Smith and his protectors - and into pushing for reform of Ontario's forensic pediatric pathology system. The Star has a "topic" section which focuses on recent stories related to Dr. Charles Smith. It can be found at: http://www.thestar.com/topic/charlessmith. Information on "The Charles Smith Blog Award"- and its nomination process - can be found at: http://smithforensic.blogspot.com/2011/05/charles-smith-blog-award-nominations.html Please send any comments or information on other cases and issues of interest to the readers of this blog to: hlevy15@gmail.com. Harold Levy: Publisher: The Charles Smith Blog.
SEE BREAKDOWN OF SOME OF THE ON-GOING INTERNATIONAL CASES (OUTSIDE OF THE CONTINENTAL USA) THAT I AM FOLLOWING ON THIS BLOG, AT THE LINK BELOW: HL:
https://www.blogger.com/blog/post/edit/120008354894645705/4704913685758792985
———————————————————————————————
FINAL WORD: (Applicable to all of our wrongful conviction cases): "Whenever there is a wrongful conviction, it exposes errors in our criminal legal system, and we hope that this case — and lessons from it — can prevent future injustices."
Lawyer Radha Natarajan:
Executive Director: New England Innocence Project;
—————————————————————————————————
FINAL, FINAL WORD: "Since its inception, the Innocence Project has pushed the criminal legal system to confront and correct the laws and policies that cause and contribute to wrongful convictions. They never shied away from the hard cases — the ones involving eyewitness identifications, confessions, and bite marks. Instead, in the course of presenting scientific evidence of innocence, they've exposed the unreliability of evidence that was, for centuries, deemed untouchable." So true!
Christina Swarns: Executive Director: The Innocence Project;
-------------------------------------------------------------------
