Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 16 submissions in the queue.
posted by janrinok on Wednesday April 11 2018, @11:04PM   Printer-friendly
from the different-kind-of-courage dept.

Dr. John Plunkett died this week. He spent nearly 20 years arguing in court against bad forensic science, for which he was maliciously prosecuted and received false ethics complaints. Through his efforts, 300 innocent people were exonerated. (This sentence from fark.com)

Like a lot of other doctors, child welfare advocates and forensic specialists, John Plunkett at first bought into the theory of Shaken Baby Syndrome (SBS). It's a convenient diagnosis for prosecutors, in that it provides a cause of death (violent shaking), a culprit (whoever was last with the child before death) and even intent (prosecutors often argue that the violent, extended shaking establishes mens rea.) But in the late 1990s, Plunkett — a forensic pathologist in Minnesota — began to have doubts about the diagnosis. The same year his study was published, Plunkett testified in the trial of Lisa Stickney, a licensed day care worker in Oregon. Thanks in large part to Plunkett's testimony, Stickney was acquitted. District Attorney Michael Dugan responded with something unprecedented — it criminally charged an expert witness over testimony he had given in court. Today, the scientific consensus on SBS has since shifted significantly in Plunkett's direction.

[...] According to the National Registry of Exonerations, 16 SBS convictions have been overturned. Plunkett's obituary puts the figure at 300, and claims that he participated in 50 of those cases. I'm not sure of the source for that figure, and it's the first I've seen of it. But whatever the number, Plunkett deserves credit for being among the first to sound the alarm about wrongful SBS convictions. His study was the first step toward those exonerations.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 4, Informative) by aristarchus on Thursday April 12 2018, @12:29AM (2 children)

    by aristarchus (2645) on Thursday April 12 2018, @12:29AM (#665655) Journal

    Like alt-science, or alt-right science, or alt-sci-right racial science?

    Seems like there was an aristarchus submission on this not too long ago . . . .

    Ah, here it is! https://soylentnews.org/submit.pl?op=viewsub&subid=25710 [soylentnews.org]

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +2  
       Insightful=1, Informative=1, Total=2
    Extra 'Informative' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   4  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 12 2018, @12:32AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 12 2018, @12:32AM (#665659)

    The lizard-man never gives up, does he?

  • (Score: 3, Informative) by turgid on Friday April 13 2018, @12:16PM

    by turgid (4318) Subscriber Badge on Friday April 13 2018, @12:16PM (#666427) Journal

    That's a really nice submission. You should put it in your journal. It raises many important points about free speech and the importance of being able to challenge opinions freely in public. Which reminds me of something. I have made a few contributions to Hope Not Hate [hopenothate.org.uk] in recent months (since the alt-wrong travesty that is Brexit) particularly in their fight against false claims made by Nigel Farage [hopenothate.org.uk] who was saying nasty things about Brendan Cox [independent.co.uk], widower of murdered MP Jo Cox [soylentnews.org].