Another of those shaken baby cases where no-one saw it happen and the convicted insists he didn't do anything

[BadGardener]

Here and, for those who distrust the DM, here.

Of course the chances are the verdict was correct and the events reconstructed by the prosecution are more or less what happened; however, it all sounds a bit odd especially when you read what he says about the baby and how completely he is insisting he didn't do anything. I haven't read anywhere that he had a history of violence, which most men who abuse children do apparently. However he would have to explain away all the injuries, which aren't just head injuries - in other cases broken ribs have been caused by attempts at resuscitation but I'm not sure if that would be enough to account for all the injuries described here.

If anyone wonders why on earth I am posting about this when of course there are many parents that abuse children, have a look at the item below - the first of the 'external links' on the wikipedia page - it seems there are many such cases where there is room for doubt.
The Next Innocence Project: Shaken Baby Syndrome and the Criminal Courts. Deborah Tuerkheimer. Washington University Law Review. Volume 87 Number 1,2009

How do you explain the 13 broken ribs though? This poor baby had severe injuries.

Shaken babies are usually the result of a frustrated parent who does not intend to harm a child - just stop a baby crying.

ok, but if we suggest for a moment that he didn't do it... who did? bear in mind the setting they were in

JollyPirate - obviously I know nothing about this case other than what is in these two articles. However, there have been cases where broken ribs have been caused by health professionals attempting to resuscitate a child and the broken ribs then get blamed on the person they think shook the baby. This poor child also had broken legs though and I don't know how that would be accounted for.

I don't think it's odd at all. I think he's quite sure he didn't do it because the reality that he did do it is too unpleasant for him to contemplate.

The Washington Law Review paper - which I can't cut and paste because it's a PDF - talks about what it calls '"mimics" of abuse - accidental injury and medical disorder manifesting as SBS', in other words, in other cases they argue that no-one caused the SBS triad of injuries in the period immediately before the death.

a baby who had choked to death on a feed/vomit or simply died as it were, would not have had those massive injuries

not the fractures Lulu, no, you're right - however there is a lot of controversy about whether the SBS diagnostic triad (brain swelling and brain and retinal hemorrhaging ) can actually result from old injuries or other causes.
The blog of the husband of the childminder who is in prison for murdering one of her mindees by shaking her (here has info about this controversy also.

yes and i do remember that case of the childminder, and i think that it is right that no syndrome is ever taken as 100% accurate in each and every case. like sally clarke, who was convicted on v dodgy medical evidence.

I feel so terribly, terribly sorry for the mother and the extended family, not just to lose a baby, but in the most horrific circumstances.

absolutely Lulu.
And to lose your partner (effectively) at the same time as your child must make it even harder.

Of course, the Innocence Project is looking at 'triad only' convictions, where there aren't the fractures etc present in this case.

With the childminder case I find it very hard to believe she did it. With this one I just have a tiny little doubt which could easily be dispelled by someone saying 'well actually he had a history of violence.'

yes, a total nightmare scenario for the mother

SBS is a hideous concern. I worked with a family in the past where the baby was admitted with suspected SBS. I can remember being shocked because no way could I believe for one moment the Dad had done anything. On the other hand his story and explanations were inconsistant and changed from day to day. Finally the Mum told a social worker and then police that he had in fact shaken the baby in frustration. The baby had fractured ribs, two bleeds in the brain and is blind as a result.

It works roughly like this - the baby is crying, the parent cannot calm the baby and in frustration gives the baby a shake. The baby stops crying (shock) and the parent thinks it worked (this thought might be quite sunconcious). The next time the baby is inconsolable the parent after muany other attempts to settle the baby shakes him/her again in frustration. This time there might be a small brain bleed and the baby becomes drowsy. The parent thinks again - it has worked.
Eventually the baby is shaken a third/fourth/fifthwhatever time and a serious bleed occurs, the baby collapses and a panicked parent calls for an ambulance. Then all hell breaks loose when scans and X-rays reveal brain bleeds, rib fractures etc.

The perpetrator panics and denies any wrongdoing (self-preservation) and might scarcely even recall the previous shakings.
It's not done maliciously to a baby in most cases, it's a parent tired, frustrated and desperate.

what a tragic story JollyPirate.