—————————————————————————————
PASSAGE OF THE DAY; "Vinaccia's case epitomizes the difficulties that courts have faced with competing scientific evidence. The two judges who shared the majority opinion that Vinaccia's appeal must fail appeared to see their role in part as choosing between the evidence given by three local experts and the new evidence - not heard at the original trial - give by three Swedish experts. The judges wrote: "Even if the evidence of the Scandinavian witnesses represents a respectable body of scientific opinion, which we doubt, it would do no more than stand against another respectable body of scientific opinion in the form of the evidence of…(three local expert witnesses.) As reported by Bachelard, a Swedish expert described the findings of these judges as "embarrassing."
———————————————————
PASSAGE TWO OF THE DAY: "The third judge - who interestingly has a background in science - in her minority opinion took a different view of the competing evidence. She held that if the jury had been exposed to the new (Swedish) evidence, including new evidence about a possible alternative diagnosis, their confidence in the case presented by the prosecution was likely to have been undermined to the extent that they could not have concluded guilt beyond reasonable doubt. This judge would have acquitted Jesse Vinaccia."
---------------------------------------------------------
GIST: "The international controversy has received little attention in Australian courts, faced with competing views of the Shaken Baby Syndrome, having been content to accept those held by local paediatric forensic physicians and forensic pathologists.This was most evident in a decision in Victoria in the case of Jesse Vinaccia, In 2016, Vinaccia was the carer for a 16-week-old baby boy whose death was attributed to violent shaking - the physical findings were those of the triad alone.
There were no bruises, abrasions or fractures, The alleged shaking was not witnessed and was denied by Vinaccia, In 2019, he was tried, found guilty of child homicide, and sentenced to eight and a half years imprisonment, He appealed the findings to the Victoria Court of Appeal where in 2022 the case was heard by three judges.
The judges were presented with two competing views of the :triad." the prosecution presented the pro- "shaking with or without impact: views if the staff of the Victorian Paediatric Forensic Medical Service with some supporting evidence from the Victoria Institute of Forensic Medicine.
The defence called Swedish experts to contest the validity of the science behind the conclusion of shaken baby syndrome based on the "triad" alone. Their evidence was backed by data from the above-imentionnned Swedish review.
Viaccia's case epitomizes the difficulties that courts have faced with competing scientific evidence. The two judges who shared the majority opinion that Vinaccia's appeal must fail appeared to see their role in part as choosing between the evidence given by three local experts and the new evidence - not heard at the original trial - give by three Swedish experts.
The judges wrote: "Even if the evidence of the Scandinavian witnesses represents a respectable body of scientific opinion, which we doubt, it would do no more than stand against another respectable body of scientific opinion in the form of the evidence of…(three local expert witnesses.)
As reported by Bachelard, a Swedish expert described the findings of these judges as "embarrassing."
The third judge - who interestingly has a background in science - in her minority opinion took a different view of the competing evidence.
She held that if the jury had been exposed to the new (Swedish) evidence, including new evidence about a possible alternative diagnosis, their confidence in the case presented by the prosecution was likely to have been undermined to the extent that they could not have concluded guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
This judge would have acquitted Jesse Vinaccia."
The entire article - following the above introductions - is well worth the read, and can be read at:
https://www.croakey.org/weighing-up-the-evidence-and-ethics-on-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;
-------------------------------------------------------------------
