[lupusreal]

> You mean the ex who was in a bitter custody battle at the time of the death

If her allegations are true, then being in a bitter custody dispute would be the moral and responsible position to take. Anyway, was her sister there?

[everforward]

Neither of them was there, the ex testified that she had seen him yell and shake the child at _other times_. Her sister testified that she had seen never seen that kind of behavior.

Also, if the ex's allegations are true, why the hell would her grandparents call him to demand that he pick her up that night? She was supposed to be at her maternal grandparents that night, they called him. Why not call the baby's mom? Why not just keep the baby anyways? Why not take it to the hospital themselves if they were concerned?

I'm not disparaging them for deciding to break up, nor for being in a custody dispute. These things happen. I just don't trust either party in a custody dispute; people get very emotional and the ends start to justify the means. If she is lying, it would be far from the first time false abuse allegations were made in a custody dispute.

I defer to facts here. There were no medical indications of abuse, nor any direct evidence of abuse of any kind. The child had pneumonia, a lethal dose of opioids, and hypoxia at the hospital. The likely biased testimony of an ex doesn't negate any of that.

[giantg2]

"Why not call the baby's mom? Why not just keep the baby anyways? Why not take it to the hospital themselves if they were concerned?"

Because many abusers pass off the kid to blame it on others. That's why childcare providers tend to assess (or are supposed to) the condition at drop off. Otherwise it's a finger pointing game that could result in serious criminal charges based on who was more believable.

[everforward]

While generally possible, it seems unlikely to me given that the baby had been to the hospital 2 days before she died, and to a pediatrician the day before (maybe the day of, the wording is unclear).

It’s possible that something happened in that day or two, or that two separate medical facilities missed signs of abuse, but it seems less likely than that the child just wasn’t abused.

The autopsy didn’t show clear signs of abuse either. Again, it’s possible there were no indications, but we’re starting to stack up an awful lot of unlikely events.

I won’t deny a possibility, but I would deny a probability and would certainly deny that it meets the “reasonable doubt” standard.

[giantg2]

I'm not saying abuse took place, just that the grandparents not calling the hospital isn't really indicating anything, and the passing off scenario is relatively common. It doesn't even have to be abuse, it could be stuff like an accident and the grandparents passed the kid off to the father because they panicked or felt ashamed if they admitted it kor cognitive dissonance that it couldnt be that bad). Again, not that that necessarily happened, but just that it's not an unusual scenario.

[lupusreal]

> she had seen him yell and shake the child at _other times_

Which she was there for... Her sister never seeing that means nothing.

Being in a custody dispute also means nothing; it's a wash between "she would lie because she was fighting for custody" and "she was fighting for custody because she wasn't lying". I think it can neither lend nor detract from her credibility, so we're left with default credibility of an eye witness. And although eye witness testimony often fumbles details like the order of events, I think seeing somebody shake a baby is probably pretty credible testimony; not something that could be innocently mistaken. If it really didn't happen then she's essentially attempting to murder him using the courts.

Assuming it did happen several other times, it was probably going to happen again and each time it happens is another round of Russian Roulette. You can get lucky once, or even a few times, but somebody who shakes a baby on several different occasions is very likely to eventually kill that baby.

[everforward]

You're welcome to believe whatever you want, but no, eyewitness testimony is not very credible.

Go look up Aaron Scheerhorn; 6 eyewitnesses testified that he stabbed someone to death in public and he was convicted... right up until they did DNA tests.

Or look at the Satanic Panic [1]. ~12,000 people made allegations that they were involved in some kind of satanic abuse or ritual, and police haven't found any evidence for any of them. Several claimed that they watched someone die, and then it turns out that person is still alive.

Eyewitnesses are wrong in far more significant ways than misordering events. Psychology studies have repeatedly shown that it is trivial to implant memories in eyewitnesses, and that eyewitness recall accuracy floats around 85% even for events they did actually see. Seriously, Google it. There are hundreds of cases made on eyewitness testimony that were later overturned by direct evidence like DNA, it's not hard to find one.

She may not even be lying, just wrong.

Even presuming "default credibility of an eyewitness", that's a very, very low standard of evidence. ChatGPT will answer you correctly more often than eyewitnesses recall things correctly.

1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satanic_panic

[giantg2]

"Assuming it did happen several other times, it was probably going to happen again"

Yes, and that assumption is the big question. The factors you think make it a wash might be reasonable doubt to another. Lies run rampant in domestic issues or family court. Without real evidence to back up a person, I would have a doubt that anything unverifiable is likely a lie/exaggeration/etc.

[lupusreal]

I believe there is probably reasonable doubt in this case and he shouldn't be executed. But I also think he probably did it.

[giantg2]

The biggest piece of reasonable doubt to me are the other medical issues. Sounds like she was medicated to death related to the pneumonia. But that's just my armchair opinion.

[giantg2]

That's one of many possible reasons. Many custody issues are financial in nature due to the way the government mandates support, divides assets, etc. Then there's stuff like wrongful death suits. So there could be other motives. That's why the evidence is so important.