Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

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This discussion has been archived.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: 2) by frojack on Thursday April 12 2018, @04:00AM (2 children)

    by frojack (1554) on Thursday April 12 2018, @04:00AM (#665740) Journal

    I actually went out of my way not to cite money grubbing sites like don'tshake.

    I was pretty sure all of those I cited were reasonably reputable. Yet the first comment assumes a profit motive among the medical community is the reason SBS still exists. Unbefuckinglievable!

    Like doctors have no better way to make money.

    --
    No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 2) by tfried on Thursday April 12 2018, @10:05AM

    by tfried (5534) on Thursday April 12 2018, @10:05AM (#665831)

    Yes, the first comment to your post was a bit uninspired in ascribing to "money", what can better be explained by vindictiveness (on several levels). But other than that it was spot on. So you're trying to top this by holding on to your misapprehension that SBS was "disproven", somehow?

    Unbefuckinglievable

    And still you wanted to believe it so much...

  • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday April 12 2018, @02:00PM

    by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Thursday April 12 2018, @02:00PM (#665920) Journal

    a profit motive among the medical community

    I didn't necessarily ascribe the money motive to doctors. Mayo Clinic is a great place, and the doctors there are also great. But, doctors don't exactly run Mayo, either. There are managers, accountants, as well as hoards of other staff. Doctors mostly do doctor stuff, and those hoards to hoard stuff. Among the hoard stuff is hoarding money. If some charitable organizations, individual donors, and/or gubbermint are making funds available for SBS research, then SBS will be done. You know the facts of life, man.

    I have been to places where the doctors decide what happens, when, and how, and establish their own rates. These places are generally called "clinics", and they are generally small businesses, run as a partnership, or some such arrangement. The doctors call all the shots, and no one else gets a vote.