A Texas prisoner who is facing execution having been sent to death row on the basis of “shaken baby syndrome”, a child abuse theory that has been widely debunked as junk science, has had his petition to the US supreme court denied.
The country’s highest court issued its denial on Monday morning giving no explanation. Robert Roberson, 56, who was sent to death row in 2003 for shaking his two-year-old daughter Nikki to death, had appealed to the justices to take another look at his case focusing on the largely discredited forensic science on which his conviction was secured.
The court’s decision leaves Roberson’s life in jeopardy. Having come within four days of execution in 2016, he has already exhausted appeals through Texas state courts and must now rely on the mercy of the Republican governor Greg Abbott who rarely grants clemency.
“Robert Roberson is an innocent father who has languished on Texas’s death row for 20 years for a crime that never occurred and a conviction based on outdated and now refuted science,” the prisoner’s lawyer, Gretchen Sween, said.
Sween added: “To lose a child is unimaginable. To be falsely convicted of harming that child is the stuff of nightmares.” Nikki died in hospital on 1 February 2002 after she fell into a comatose state in Roberson’s home in Palestine, Texas. Pediatric doctors detected symptoms including brain swelling which at the time were considered to be certain proof of child abuse and violent shaking.
Largely on the basis of that evidence, Roberson was sentenced to death.
In the intervening years, however, new evidence has been uncovered that suggests that not only is Roberson potentially innocent but that the crime for which he was convicted of never took place. Leading scientists have questioned the reliability of shaken baby syndrome, both as a medical diagnosis and as a forensic tool in criminal prosecutions, pointing to more than 80 alternative causes that can explain the symptoms without violence having occurred.
At least 32 people have been exonerated for crimes based on shaken baby syndrome forensics. Last month, an appeals court in New Jersey ruled that the theory was “junk science” and “scientifically unreliable”.
In Nikki’s case, several of the alternative causes that scientists have identified for the symptoms linked to shaken baby syndrome have been found to apply to the toddler. The girl had been ill with a fever of 104.5F (40.3C) shortly before she collapsed, had undiagnosed pneumonia, and had been given medical pills that are no longer considered safe for children as they can be life-threatening.
At his 2003 trial, Roberson was portrayed by prosecutors as a cold and calculating father who displayed no emotion. After his conviction, though, the inmate was diagnosed with autism which put those qualities in a completely different light. …
Shaking a child can cause the symptoms.
The symptoms can also have other causes.
That means the symptoms being used as a basis of conviction without supporting evidence that the person actually shook the baby is the junk science. Like how a stress detector does measure stress, but it is not a lie detector because stress does not indicate whether someone is lying.
to cause the symptoms by shaking a child, one would have to shake the child extremely violently, with forces comparable to being in a car crash. You really have to have the intent to kill to cause the levels of brain injuries described in SBS.
A lot of these kinds of convictions are because a parent or caretaker admitted to trying to shake the baby to wake it up after it was already unconscious, due to an accident or the baby just falling ill suddenly. in the particular case, the baby slipped from the fathers hands after a bath and hit its head against the toilet. a terrible tragedy, but not murder. and since he was autistic and didn’t display the “proper” emotional response, nurses even went so far as accusing him of sexually assaulting the baby beforehand on no other evidence than the fact they didn’t like the cut of his jib. Now the state will murder him for that
Sure. But " a child abuse theory that has been widely debunked as junk science" is over-egging the case. Shaken baby syndrome itself does not appear to be junk science. In this case, however it appears that the symptoms observed could quite possibly have other causes. I don;t know enough about the case to judge.
yes, but the “junk science” behind it was that they were throwing anyone who’s child has those symptoms in jail because the law said there couldn’t be any other cause. that’s what’s been thrown out.
Honestly this is why I hate the skeptic community, because it is no longer about removing hobsters from positions of power, but about becoming hucksters declaring anything that you don’t like in as junk science.
Did either of you even read what the person wrote?
They said shaken baby syndrome is real, but you need to be violently shaken. Like a car crash.
They said nothing about SBS being junk science. The junk science is claiming that brain swelling in baby = SBS 100% of the time. That’s the part that was disproven, and junk.
Good god read, people.