More problems with child abuse cases
In recent years most experts have recognized that the assumptions relied on to establish a child was forcibly shaken are faulty. Unfortunately it is too late for all those defendants who have already been convicted. Shaken baby cases are now an example of how forensics can go awry. A recent article in the Brigham Young Law Review suggests shaken baby cases are not the only ones we need to be concerned about.
The article is titled Unexplained Fractures in Infants and Child Abuse: The Case for Requiring Bone-Density Testing Before Convicting Caretakers. While I don't pretend to understand all the medical terms and conditions the gist of the article is that there may be a lot of things can cause fractures in children besides physical abuse.
Any lawyer that has handled child abuse cases knows the problems. Everyone wants to protect children, and that means punishing those who hurt them. Another problem exists with infants and small children, which is that they cannot communicate. That means that prosecutors and jurors have to rely on physical evidence. The problem with shaken baby case was that faulty assumptions were made about the evidence; if a triad of symptoms existed someone shook the child. That meant whoever had recent care of the children was the guilty party. The same assumptions are made in cases involving unexplained fractures, where there are fractures at different stages of healing. The assumption is that those injuries would not be there unless the child had been physically abused. It turns out that might not be accurate.
The author of the article calls for mandatory bone density testing, which I can't see happening. However, it certainly should be a requirement for any lawyer defending such case where the client is denying guilt.
This is one more example why lawyers can no longer rely on the so called experts. They don't always know what they are talking about. More importantly, what is important to the experts is not always the same as what it important in a criminal prosecution. Sometimes the interests mesh, but they often do not. As I have said before, no criminal case should be decided by experts. While they may have there place, its up to us to make sure their opinions are accurate, and placed in the proper context.
