[nolongerthere]

The main lesson here is science changes, no matter how incontrovertible it appears. No matter how many experts corroborate your hypothesis and claims, science is evergreen. Don’t let people tell you “it’s settled” it almost never is, especially when it comes to areas that are highly politicized (like SBS was).

[qingcharles]

And sadly the US justice system isn't designed for post-conviction changes. Typically whatever happened at trial is set in stone, even if it's inherently absurd. Errors of law are easier to get fixed than errors of fact which are normally not touched by appellate courts.

[gregw2]

It’s not the US justice system, but Texas has a 2013 law to allow for review when science has changed, and shaken baby syndrome was one of the reason for that law.

Still, when this case was reviewed under that law, the apellate court didn’t reverse the judgement. Having read many additional facts of the case, I am not wise enough in 30 minutes to judge and am happy others have taken time to do so (on both sides).

[qingcharles]

You make a good point -- my answer actually lacked nuance. States are slowly allowing for post-conviction review of factual matters. Sadly, these steps usually only start once the regular chain (primarily law-based challenges) of appellate review is complete, so it can be five or ten years before you get to make your case.

A lot of this stems from the swathe of exonerations that happened once DNA was introduced and freed a large number of provably innocent people previously found guilty.

[SoftTalker]

When I read stories like this I always think of Norm Macdonald's bit where he said if he were a juror he would not vote to convict a person on the basis of DNA evidence. He said, basically, "I don't know anything about DNA, how am I supposed to convict someone based on what I'm told about it?"

Basically calls into question the whole concept of "expert" witnesses. If a prosecutor cannot explain the evidence to a jury of peers, then he hasn't made an effective case.

[nottorp]

> science changes

medicine changes

Law should change, perhaps.

If him showing no emotion was a factor in the conviction does that mean that you're not safe with the law if you have self control?

[_DeadFred_]

The US Justice system is built on precedent. Once precedent is set in a case the science is settled as far as future court rulings. The two systems don't interface together very well.

[nolongerthere]

> If him showing no emotion was a factor in the conviction does that mean that you're not safe with the law if you have self control?

It means humans expect to see what they perceive to be human responses. 99% of people when faced with an accusation of murdering their own child will have an emotional response, not only is it not normal not to, its not admirable and is unhealthy. Its not called self control to not exhibit distress when you're accused of being a monster, that is a time where its very rational to show emotion.

[smolder]

Dissociation under massive stress IS normal, for a significant quantity of the non-monster people among us. I don't think framing it as "self control" was a good characterization by the grandparent, more like shock... a failure of emotional processing.

[r2_pilot]

Lord forbid you ever have an abnormal emotional response during a stressful time.

[rossant]

Yes, see e.g. https://www.law.ua.edu/resources/pubs/lrarticles/Volume%2062...

[_DeadFred_]

The US Justice system is built on precedent. If something has been ruled scientifically admissible in court precedent has been set, it is the settled science as far as the US Justice system is concerned. Look at what it took to get lie detectors out of the system (oh wait, they aren't, and while not admissible in court are routinely used as a condition of parole/probation).