How Many ‘Shaken Baby Syndrome’ Convictions Will Be Overturned?
“Shaken Baby Syndrome” (SBS) — which is pretty much exactly what it sounds like, and has landed literally thousands of people in prison on murder, child abuse, and other charges since it was first defined in the early ’70s — may be more difficult to diagnose than once thought. A story at The Crime Report describes the unfortunate case of Audrey Edmunds, a former daycare provider sentenced to an 18 year prison term in 1995 based on testimony that suggested she had shaken a seven-month-old baby to death. Last year, however, one of the experts in her trial came forward and reversed his story — the baby may not have died from SBS. Edmunds was granted a new trial and released this year. Does this set a new precedent for old SBS cases? More:
A soon-to-be-published analysis of shaken baby cases and recent developments in the medical community by University of Maine School of Law professor Deborah Tuerkheimer presents persuasive evidence and raises troubling questions about whether many of these convictions were of innocent people who were found guilty on the basis of faulty science.
There’s much additional coverage in the July 2009 edition of Madison Magazine:
Coined in 1972, the term ‘Whiplash Shaken-Baby Syndrome’ described children, typically under three years of age, who were violently shaken but often showed no visible signs of harm. Because their brains and neck muscles weren’t fully developed, their internal injuries were severe — the typical ‘triad’ included brain swelling and brain and retinal hemorrhaging, much like being in a serious car accident or falling several stories. The one positive, the theory went, was that a victim immediately becomes unresponsive, making it a snap to figure out who’s guilty: the last person with the child. This was still the view held by most medical experts in October 1995, when Audrey Edmunds ran outside her house screaming, clutching an unresponsive infant.”
Is Edmunds’ release a fluke? Or the first splash in a gargantuan wave of overturned cases?
Post Your Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment
T/S Members
Log in with your True/Slant account.
While I agree with Maurice Possley — whom I respect and admire — that mistaken diagnoses of SBS have sent many innocent people to prison, I must clarify the course of exoneration for Audrey Edmunds. The original medical examiner, forensic pathologist Dr. Robert Huntington, DID change his mind on the cause of infant Natalie Beard’s death and testified to that at a state habeas proceeding. In addition, 5 more forensic pathologists testified that the evidence originally offered in the case was scientifically invalid. The state presented 2 medical doctors whose careers have been built on testifying for the prosecution in SBS cases, Dr. Betty Spivack and Dr. William Perloff, who stuck to the original SBS diagnosis. Dane County Circuit Judge Daniel Moeser, who heard all this testimony, DENIED Audrey’s bid for a new trial. He said that the experts CANCELLED EACH OTHER OUT, and based his decision on his recollection of Audrey’s demeanor at her 1996 trial. It was the Court of Appeals that vacated Audrey’s conviction, not the trial judge who heard the state habeas. While I understand the need for brevity in recounting a case that took 11 years in the courts, it is misleading to leave out the fact of the judge’s intractable prejudice against Audrey Edmunds. Like so many other judges (and prosecutors), Judge Moeser has never seen a defendant who is not guilty.
The Madison Magazine article, which is solely about Audrey’s case, goes into greater detail and is well written. It is worth reading, in addition to Maurice’s articles, which covers a broader base.