- The John Laverty-Baby Casey Investigation goes wrong from the
beginning
- How investigations and interrogations go wrong
- Shaken Baby Syndrome, Abusive Head Trauma, and
Actual Innocence Getting It Right
1.) In the John Laverty investigation, a pediatrician
got revenge on an angry, disgusted, untrusting, confrontational father
by accusing him of child abuse, altering a clinic record and writing
a false report. Two more doctors falsified reports. All of the doctors
misdiagnosed symptoms of illness for signs of abuse. The lead investigator
withheld exculpatory evidence, misdirected the investigation to hide
information favorable to the suspects, falsified his police report
and gave perjured testimony in court. Two more investigators falsifed
their reports, and one of them gave false testimony in court. The
forensic officer falsified his report and someone switched forensic
photos. A prosecutor withheld evidence. The PSI writer repeated false
information, contradicted himself or herself (unreadable signature)
and presented opinion as fact. A court clerk neglected to give defense
lawyers information critical to their defense and derailed a trial,
and the judge made grave errors. Added to that, the defense attorney
lied to his client, failed to study the case and provided no defense,
and those are just the highlights of a case gone terribly wrong.
2.)
HOW INVESTIGATIONS AND INTERROGATIONS GO WRONG
http://tinyurl.com/bsuhjr
(the yellow highlights are from key words used in a Google search)
3.) http://medicalmisdiagnosisresearch.wordpress.com/2012/05/02/shaken-baby-syndrome-abusive-head-trauma-and-actual-innocence-getting-it-right/
Shaken Baby Syndrome, Abusive Head Trauma, and Actual Innocence Getting
It Right
Univ. of Wisconsin Legal Studies Research Paper No. 1195
Full Report http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2048374#captchaSection
Abstract:
In the past decade, the existence of shaken baby syndrome (SBS) has
been called into serious question by biomechanical studies, the medical
and legal literature, and the media. As a result of these questions,
SBS has been renamed abusive head trauma (AHT). This is, however,
primarily a terminological shift: like SBS, AHT refers to the two-part
hypothesis that one can reliably diagnose shaking or abuse from three
internal findings (subdural hemorrhage, retinal hemorrhage and encephalopathy)
and that one can identify the perpetrator based on the onset of symptoms.
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. In the last issue
of this journal, Dr. Sandeep Narang marshaled the arguments and evidence
that he believes support the diagnostic specificity of the medical
signs that are used to diagnose SBS/AHT. Dr. Narang does not dispute
the alternative diagnoses but nonetheless argues that, in the absence
of a proven alternative, the SBS/AHT hypothesis is sufficiently reliable
to support criminal convictions. The cited studies do not, however,
support this position since they assume the validity of the hypothesis
without examining it and classify cases accordingly, often without
considering alternative diagnoses. To address this problem, Dr. Narang
argues that, in diagnosing SBS/AHT, we should rely on the judgment
of child abuse pediatricians and other clinicians who endorse the
hypothesis. Reliance on groups that endorse a particular hypothesis
is, however, antithetical to evidence-based medicine and Daubert,
which require an objective assessment of the scientific evidence.
In the past decades, thousands of parents and caretakers have been
accused “and many convicted” of abusing children based
on a hypothesis that is not scientifically supported. While we must
do everything in our power to protect children, we must refrain from
invoking abuse as a default diagnosis for medical findings that are
complex, poorly understood and have a wide range of causes, some doubtlessly
yet unknown. To this end, we are calling for collaboration between
the medical and legal communities for the sole purpose of “getting
it right.”