[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.