————————————————————————————
PETITION:
INNOCENCE PROJECT: "Robert would be the first person in the U.S. executed based on the discredited shaken baby syndrome hypothesis unless the courts or Gov. Abbott intervenes. Sign the petition now!"
https://innocenceproject.org/petitions/justice-for-robert-roberson/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
QUOTE OF THE DAY: "Shortly before he died, Dr. Guthkelch told The Washington Post in 2015 that he was struck by the high proportion of diagnoses of shaken baby syndrome he reviewed that were attributable to natural causes and not abuse: “I was absolutely horrified when I came back 20 years later to hear all this rubbish about incarcerating mothers, et cetera, et cetera.”
—————————————————————------------
PASSAGE ONE OF THE DAY: "Yet researchers have challenged the hypothesis since the 1980s. Some studies have concluded that shaking cannot biomechanically cause the injuries Dr. Guthkelch described. A 2016 systematic review by the Swedish Agency for Health Technology Assessment and Assessment of Social Services concluded that there is “limited scientific evidence that the triad and therefore its components can be associated with traumatic shaking (low quality evidence),” and that there is “insufficient scientific evidence on which to assess the diagnostic accuracy of the triad in identifying traumatic shaking (very low quality evidence).” A study published last year in Forensic Science International found that a significant number of patients were misdiagnosed with abusive head trauma, citing other conditions that can cause clinical and imaging “findings commonly associated with AHT.”
—————————————————————————————
PASSAGE TWO OF THE DAY: "It will take a long time for the medical establishment to fix its scientific sloppiness and groupthink. In the meantime, prosecutors and courts should avoid cases based on uncertain scientific theories, regardless of pronouncements by members of the medical profession, to prevent the incarceration of innocent people. Unlike a research paper, the government cannot retract a person's wrongful execution."
------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENTARY: "Texas may execute a man based on flawed science. Will Abbott intervene?, by Dr. Jeffrey Singer, published by USA Today, on September 24, 2024. (Dr. Jeffrey A. Singer practices general surgery in Phoenix and is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute.)
SUB-HEADING: Shaken baby syndrome is at best rare yet remarkably overdiagnosed. However, enough research has been done to place the hypothesis in doubt."
GIST: "In 2003, a Texas court sentenced Robert Roberson to death after he was convicted of murdering his 2-year-old daughter, Nikki, by shaking her so forcefully that he caused irreversible brain damage and death from so-called shaken baby syndrome, also called abusive head trauma.
Roberson’s appeal is based on new evidence that doctors misdiagnosed the cause of death and scientific doubts on whether shaken baby syndrome even exists.
The government plans to put Roberson to death on Oct. 17 unless he is granted clemency. Last week, a bipartisan majority of legislators in the Texas House asked the state Board of Pardons and Paroles to recommend clemency. The final decision will rest with Gov. Greg Abbott.
Pronouncements from the medical establishment strongly influence politicians and courts, leaving lasting marks on public policy. In less than a month, such pronouncements may cause the first-ever execution of a man based on dubious medical science.
Science of shaken baby syndrome is questionable;In a 1971 British Medical Journal article, pediatric neurosurgeon Norman Guthkelch hypothesized that aggressively shaking a baby can cause what has come to be known as "the triad” of intracranial hemorrhage, brain swelling and bleeding behind the retinas.
His hypothesis gradually became accepted wisdom by the medical establishment. The National Center on Shaken Baby Syndrome claims that law enforcement authorities process at least 1,300 cases of SBS/AHT per year.
The center points to a consensus among elite medical institutions, from the American Academy of Pediatrics to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to the World Health Organization, that shaken baby syndrome is genuine and a significant problem. Mayo Clinic and Cleveland Clinic websites explain the syndrome to lay readers.
Yet researchers have challenged the hypothesis since the 1980s. Some studies have concluded that shaking cannot biomechanically cause the injuries Dr. Guthkelch described.
A 2016 systematic review by the Swedish Agency for Health Technology Assessment and Assessment of Social Services concluded that there is “limited scientific evidence that the triad and therefore its components can be associated with traumatic shaking (low quality evidence),” and that there is “insufficient scientific evidence on which to assess the diagnostic accuracy of the triad in identifying traumatic shaking (very low quality evidence).”
A study published last year in Forensic Science International found that a significant number of patients were misdiagnosed with abusive head trauma, citing other conditions that can cause clinical and imaging “findings commonly associated with AHT.”
Shaken baby syndrome 'too often' diagnosed
Dr. Guthkelch himself called to rethink the shaken baby syndrome. In 2011, the pediatric neurosurgeon told a National Public Radio reporter that he “worries that it is too often applied by medical examiners and doctors without considering other possible causes for a child's death or injury.”
Writing in the Houston Journal of Health Law & Policy in 2012, Guthkelch called his hypothesis into question and disparaged the medical community’s “level of emotion and divisiveness on shaken baby syndrome/abusive head trauma interfered with our commitment to pursue the truth.”
In that same journal, an article by legal and medical scholars concluded: “Over the past decade, we have learned that this hypothesis fits poorly with the anatomy and physiology of the infant brain, that there are many natural and accidental causes for these findings, and that the onset of symptoms does not reliably indicate timing.”
Shortly before he died, Dr. Guthkelch told The Washington Post in 2015 that he was struck by the high proportion of diagnoses of shaken baby syndrome he reviewed that were attributable to natural causes and not abuse: “I was absolutely horrified when I came back 20 years later to hear all this rubbish about incarcerating mothers, et cetera, et cetera.”
Opinion:Texas lawmakers halting Melissa Lucio's execution was the right call
A decade later, the medical establishment and the law have yet to catch up with the science. At best, shaken baby syndrome is rare yet remarkably overdiagnosed. However, enough research has been done to place the hypothesis in doubt.
In 2005, Stanford professor John Ioannidis published his landmark study, “Why Most Published Research Findings Are False.” The distinguished scientific journal Nature reported a record 10,000 published papers were retracted in 2023, and that may just be "the tip of the iceberg.”
Nature separately reported on researchers’ propensity to fudge or falsify data, claiming that in some fields, “at least one-quarter of clinical trials might be problematic or even entirely made up.”
Despite these facts, “narrative inertia” can mean years before medical organizations change their positions on diagnoses and treatments.
During the COVID-19 public health emergency, the public learned the hard way how dogma, groupthink and the suppression of scientific debate describe the culture of the modern medical establishment.
One year after the CDC declared the public health emergency was over, people still suffer from collateral damage to mental and physical health, education and socioeconomic conditions caused by the pandemic policies.
It will take a long time for the medical establishment to fix its scientific sloppiness and groupthink. In the meantime, prosecutors and courts should avoid cases based on uncertain scientific theories, regardless of pronouncements by members of the medical profession, to prevent the incarceration of innocent people.
Unlike a research paper, the government cannot retract a person's wrongful execution.The entire commentary can be read at:
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;
