COMMENTARY: "Martha Coakley, stop lauding bad science," by Lee Scheier, published by the Boston Globe, on October 16, 2014. Lee Scheier is an investigative journalist who
has written extensively for the Chicago Tribune and many other
publications. He has spent the last eight years researching a book on
shaken-baby syndrome. (Thanks to the Wrongful Convictions Blog for bringing this insightful commentary to our attention. HL);
PHOTO CAPTION: "Martha Coakley, right, embraced Deborah Eappen on Oct. 3. Eappen
is the mother of Matthew Eappen, who died in 1997 at the age of 8
months."
GIST: "Coakley’s odd invocation of
this case demands that we look at the facts. What cannot be lost in all
of this political maneuvering is the truth about the Woodward case and
all the thousands of shaken-baby cases before and since Woodward. The
truth is that Martha Coakley’s deft misuse of science actually came very
close to sending an innocent caretaker to prison for life. At
the heart of the Woodward prosecution — and many others like it — is
the pseudoscience of the shaken-baby syndrome diagnosis. Anecdotal
studies by pediatric neurosurgeon Norman Guthkelch in 1971 and
radiologist John Caffey in 1972 and 1974 asserted that the presence of
the so-called “triad” — subdural and retinal bleeding plus brain
swelling — in an infant constituted certain proof that the last
caretaker to hold a baby had “shaken” that child to death. Under
Guthkelch and Caffey’s theory, this could be the only cause of death.
Because of these studies — and because nearly all shaking cases are have
no eyewitness — the presence of the triad was the only evidence
necessary to prove murder. In recent years, however, experts have become
increasingly skeptical. “The problem lies with Caffey’s level of
certainty that subdural bleeding along with bleeding in the eyes could
only be caused by shaking,” says Louis Fogg, a professor at Rush
University and the former president of the Chicago chapter of the
American Statistical Association.........Perhaps
most tellingly, Dr. Gulthkelch himself — one of the scientists who
first posited the theory — has since voiced concerns about its
application in the criminal justice system. Nonetheless,
in the face of rigorous scientific evidence to the contrary, many in
the medical community still claim that shaken baby syndrome is a valid
diagnosis because so many within the medical community support it. But
science is not a popularity contest. After all, Galileo was the only
scientist of his day who believed that the earth revolved around the
sun. And this consensus does nothing to
alter the fact that, to this day, there has never been an experiment
that proves a causal link between shaking a baby and death. “An
association alone between shaking and the triad contains so much
inherent doubt that no jury in good conscience should convict on that
evidence alone,” says Fogg. “You need strong experimental evidence of
causation if you’re going to send someone to prison.” This
lack of strong experimental evidence of causation did not stop Coakley
from trying to send Woodward to prison for life. And despite the growing
chorus of scientists casting doubt on shaken baby syndrome, such
prosecutions continue: In Middlesex County, nanny Aisling Brady McCarthy currently stands accused of shaking 1-year old Rehma Sabir to death. Prosecutors should hang their heads in shame for blindly accepting bad science and bringing these cases to court.
The entire commentary can be found at:
Indeed,
Coakley nearly sending a young, innocent woman to prison is nothing to
be proud of. It is certainly not worthy of a photo shoot in a political
election."
http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2014/10/16/martha-coakley-stop-using-bad-science/HHSGMlgwZMV2cWVhX7QZ4O/story.html
See related Wrongful Convictions Blog post by Phil Locke; "In an op-ed piece that will appear in tomorrow’s (10/19) print edition of the Boston Globe, Lee Scheier takes former prosecutor Martha Coakley to task for her “deft misuse of science” in the SBS conviction of Louise Woodward, a British nanny who was working for the Eappen family when their 8-month-old son Matthew died in 1997. Coakley is currently running for governor of Massachusetts, and recently set up a photo op with Deborah Eappen, Matthew’s mother, trying to defend her record on “protecting children.” This quote from the article: “Coakley’s odd invocation of this case demands that we look at the facts. What cannot be lost in all of this political maneuvering is the truth about the Woodward case and all the thousands of shaken-baby cases before and since Woodward. The truth is that Martha Coakley’s deft misuse of science actually came very close to sending an innocent caretaker to prison for life.”
http://wrongfulconvictionsblog.org/2014/10/18/shaken-baby-syndrome-sbs-bad-science-and-the-race-for-massachusetts-governor/
PUBLISHER'S NOTE:
Dear Reader. Keep your eye on the Charles Smith Blog. We are following this case.
I have added a search box for content in this blog which now encompasses several thousand posts. The search box is located near the bottom of the screen just above the list of links. I am confident that this powerful search tool provided by "Blogger" will help our readers and myself get more out of the site.
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/
Information on "The Charles Smith Blog Award"- and its nomination process - can be found at:
http://smithforensic.blogspot.ca/2013/12/the-charles-smith-award-presented-to_28.html
I look forward to hearing from readers at:
hlevy15@gmail.com.
Harold Levy: Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog;
