Tag Archives: SBS/AHT

“Why Can’t Uncle Come Home?” – A Book for Families

Author Christiane Joy Allison and illustrator Liz Shine have hit the mark with their engaging and healing children’s book about a relative’s wrongful imprisonment, an offering the author calls “a bittersweet labor of love for both the illustrator and me.”

Why Can’t Uncle Come Home?  addresses the anger, fear, and confusion a child feels when a beloved relative is sent to prison, and it explains how an innocent person might be convicted of a crime. The book succeeds in its own right, but it also fills a need, telling the young relatives of innocent inmates they are not alone.

“I read this book with my 6-year-old grandson. It is a great tool for opening conversation,” posted Vickie Fetterman to a support group for accused families. “He has been so affected by his father’s wrongful conviction.”

Christiane Joy Allison, “CJ” to her friends, knows her subject: Her book chronicles the reactions of her own niece and nephew when her husband, Clayton Allison, was accused and ultimately convicted of murder in the death of his and CJ’s daughter Jocelynn. At the time, while also trying to defend her husband and grieve for her daughter, CJ looked for books to help her young relatives understand what was happening, and found nothing. “I saw a need and I realized I had to fill it,” CJ said in a telephone interview last month. “I didn’t intend to write a children’s book. It just sort of landed on me.”

From the Rasmuson Foundation web site

On-line comments have been effusive. “This beautifully illustrated and accessibly written book fills a hole in the world of literature,” wrote Laura Ojedo in an Amazon review, “A must-read for children, and honestly for people of any age.”

CJ said she was gratified when she read her book recently to school children in her community of Wasilla, Alaska, and found her audience of 5-to-7-year-olds fully engaged. “I felt so blessed when one of the parents pulled me aside afterward and thanked me for tackling the subject, because they just had a friend experience wrongful conviction and felt lost how to explain it.”

When her husband was accused in 2009, CJ and an army of other supporters stepped forward in his defense, and they have stuck with the campaign even after his conviction in 2015.

In the course of the investigation, CJ showed herself both stronger and more ethical than a pair of Alaska state troopers, who thrust grisly autopsy photos in her face, ridiculed her faith in her husband, and misled her during a long and heartless interrogation.

The Allison family’s experience features a number of elements that show up frequently in these cases:

  • a plausible alternative explanation (Clayton reported that the toddler fell down the stairs)
  • a quick diagnosis by physicians unaware of the child’s complex medical history
  • distraught parents subjected to cruel and deceptive interrogation tactics and
  • a tangle of legal rulings that limited what CJ could say at trial

You can follow the family’s struggle through the Free Clayton Allison Facebook page.

The Rasmuson Foundation, which supports artists and non-profits in Alaska, has awarded CJ a grant to publish a follow-up book, Timmy and Kate Go to Visit.

Why Can’t Uncle Come Home? earned honorable mentions for its illustrations and cover design and for its handling of family issues in the 2018 Purple Dragonfly Book Awards from Story Monsters Ink, a magazine about children’s literature for teachers, librarians, and parents.

CJ, a writer by both nature and training, has an MBA in Management & Strategy and a BA in Journalism & Public Communications.

As CJ predicted, Why Can’t Uncle Come Home? is the only children’s book I could find that addresses wrongful conviction. Several books deal with parents in prison, including these titles that have received generally good customer reviews: The Night Dad Went to Jail; Far Apart, Close in Heart; and My Daddy’s in Jail. Customer reviews also give a thumbs-up to Maybe Days, a book written for children entering foster care. The State of New Hampshire publishes this list featuring more titles for children with parents in prison.

Leave a comment

Filed under abusive head trauma, AHT, Falsely accused, parents accused, shaken baby syndrome

The Forensic Unreliability of the Shaken Baby Syndrome: The Book

Arizona trial attorney Randy Papetti has brought nearly 20 years of experience and research to his valuable new analysis of shaken baby theory in the courtroom, The Forensic Unreliability of the Shaken Baby Syndrome, now shipping from Academic Forensic Pathology International.

Papetti is not a criminal attorney but a recognized leader in his primary field, commercial litigation. In 2013, he was selected by Best Lawyers and his local peers as the Lawyer of the Year for “Bet-the-Company Litigation.” In 2011, he was inducted into the invitation-only American College of Trial Lawyers. His shaken baby work has all been pro bono.

Randy Papetti

Papetti was only doing a favor for a friend, he told me in a telephone interview, when he agreed to help with his first alleged shaking case, an appeal of a murder conviction. The convicted father had reported a fall from a high chair, but the child abuse experts had insisted that shaking must have been involved. Papetti started researching the medical and legal arguments, he said, and found himself face to face with the difference between medical opinion and proven scientific fact.

Drayton Witt and his wife, courtesy Arizona Justice Project

Papetti won that appeal, and other attorneys started approaching him with their own shaking cases. He was a key player in the 2012 freeing of Drayton Witt, whose son died after a short lifetime of serious health problems, including a seizure disorder. It was the Witt case that brought pioneering pediatric neurosurgeon Dr. Norman Guthkelch back into the arena, four decades after he lay the groundwork for the diagnosis by proposing that shaking an infant could cause subdural bleeding. Like Papetti, Dr. Guthkelch rejected the medical thinking that had convicted Drayton Witt. Guthkelch then spent the final years of his life fighting what he considered a “tragic misinterpretation” of his work.

“Witt was a powerful case,” Papetti said. “It showed how easily a mistaken diagnosis based on the ‘triad‘ can convict.” By then law professor Deborah Tuerkheimer had published her first journal argument against shaking theory, and her New York Times op ed. Papetti thought the tide was turning. “The information was out there, people could see that shaking theory was unreliable.”

Instead of reconsidering their model, however, proponents of shaking theory “took a course I never imagined they would be able to take, claiming there never was a triad,” Papetti marveled in our interview. In his book, he noted that changing the name of the diagnosis from “shaken baby syndrome” to “abusive head trauma” did not address the fundamental problem that the entire theory was speculation. “It merely changed the diagnosis’ name for legal purposes.”

Papetti said he was “stunned” to see how child abuse professionals have lashed out personally at defense experts and attorneys: ridicule at conferences, perjury charges, letters to employers. “That’s not the way the game is played,” he said. Attorneys in civil practice fight hard in the courtroom, he claimed, but can still respect their opponents professionally and maintain personal friendships.

In his book, Papetti traces the evolution of shaking theory in both the medical literature and the courts. He illustrates how the two have co-evolved, distorting each other, and he examines the cooperative relationship among child abuse experts, the police, and social services. He writes:

These institutional realities, not science or clinical validation, best explain how SBS has persisted and why the medical profession is unlikely to correct it any time soon.

“Things tend to get worse before they get better,” he told me, “And I’m afraid that’s where we are now, still getting worse.” At this point, proponents of shaking theory staff the medical schools and the childrens’ hospitals, dominate the professional organizations, and conduct the bulk of the research. Critics tend to be independent thinkers who have researched the literature and reached their own conclusions.  “The imbalance of power has distorted everything completely,” Papetti said. “At the end of the day, are you really asking a judge to not allow the testimony of these luminaries because a few brave souls disagree?”

So he keeps chipping away at a calcified theory with the facts, hoping to explain it all clearly enough that judges will see how decades of unproven medical testimony have led to a criminal justice crisis of staggering proportions.

For postings about other books on shaken baby, please see “Flawed Convictions: Breaking Academic Ground,” “Forward, Into the Bookstores,” “An Important Story, Well Told,” and “‘Journey With Justice’: A Rough Road.

Copyright 2018, Sue Luttner

If you are not familiar with the medical debate surrounding shaken baby syndrome, please see the home page of this blog.

4 Comments

Filed under SBS, shaken baby, shaken baby syndrome

Shaken Baby Theory: Poking the Hornet’s Nest

The July issue of Acta Paediatrica offers a collection of free, live links to a volley of rebuttals published over the past four months to an article in March submitted by medical ethicist Dr. Niels Lynøe and most of the other experts who informed the 2016 Swedish report critical of shaking theory, commissioned by a government agency whose name is abbreviated SBU.

In an email exchange last week, Dr. Lynøe wrote that his team knew the topic was controversial, but they were “rather surprised” at the vehemence of the criticisms. “I also think that there was something positive with the critical comments,” he added, “because we got the opportunity to explain and explore some aspects more.”

Dr. Niels Lynøe

The March paper reported on the same research as the SBU study, an exhaustive evaluation of the shaken baby literature that ultimately declared the scientific evidence behind shaking theory “weak.” The analysis noted fundamental problems with the bulk of the published research—in a typical study design, the report noted, researchers had applied the criteria they were attempting to prove when identifying and sorting their subjects, so the results necessarily supported their theory.

Weeks after the Lynøe et al. paper appeared, Acta Paediatrica published an editorial  by epidemiology professor Jonas F. Ludvigsson criticizing  the SBU’s methods and warning of an “imminent risk” that the paper will discourage the reporting of child abuse and leave abused children undiagnosed. Dr. Ludvigsson conceded quality problems with past SBS research, but rejected the SBU’s conclusions and endorsed reliance on the triad:

“[The study’s] publication in Acta Paediatrica does not spell the end of the discussion. Instead, it is a clear signal that more research is needed. But for now, paediatricians should continue to alert social services when they observe a child with the triad, once other explanations for subdural haematomas, retinal haemorrhages and brain ischaemia and oedema have been ruled out.”

The next critique of Lynøe et al., in mid April, added irony to the collection by denying the triad itself. An editorial by violence and abuse specialist Dr. Steven Lucas and others charged that the SBU’s methods had become “untethered from the agency’s published methodology” and argued that the study was fundamentally flawed, because it had examined the question of whether the presence of the triad proves infant shaking. Lucas et al. wrote:

“The construct of the ‘triad’ represents a rhetorical fallacy known as a straw man, which gives the impression of refuting an opponent’s argument – the ‘triad’ is pathognomonic for AHT – when, in fact, that argument was never advanced by that opponent. We maintain that the term ‘triad’ carries no value for clinicians experienced in evaluating suspected AHT.”

In refutation of the straw man argument, I point out that both Joshua Burns and Michelle Heale were convicted based only on the opinion of child abuse experts that the triad proves abusive head trauma—these cases are not unique, only easy to reference here. I myself have researched dozens of convictions based on the triad, sometimes on only one or two elements of the triad.

Lynøe et al. addressed the straw man argument in a response to a different criticism (the response to Narang et al.), by quoting these physician guidelines, which clearly endorse the triad:

“If there is no history of traffic accident or fall from a considerable height, the combination of subdural hematoma and encephalopathy with edema or hemorrhage strongly suggest that the infant has been abused. If there are also retinal hemorrhages then from the medical point of view the diagnosis of abuse is quite clear.”

Also in April, Acta Paediatrica published an editorial by pediatric ophthalmologist Dr. Alex Levin, who declared, “There is a plethora of scientific evidence that retinal hemorrhages are a cardinal feature of abusive head trauma.” Among other objections to the study, he criticized the SBU’s failure to consider the various possible sizes and locations of retinal hemorrhages. “To ignore these descriptors,” he wrote, “is like saying that a rose is no different than any other ‘flower.'”

Dr. Levin also objected that the SBU team had ignored the “wealth of clinical experience” available from the community of child abuse experts.  He argued that certain retinal findings, even in the absence of any other evidence, should shift the assumption to one of abuse:

“A diagnosis of abuse should not be made solely based on retinal haemorrhages, but certain retinal findings make that likelihood dramatically high, so high that one must actively seek (or rule out) supportive evidence that the child has been abused and is in need of protection.”

Another commentary in the April issue, by eye and vision specialist Dr. Kerstin Hellgren and others, called the SBU report “misleading.” In an apparent endorsement of both the triad and the literature that supports it, the authors wrote:

“The SBU report concludes that there is only limited evidence that shaking of an infant can cause the triad signs, in contrast with the numerous reports describing such lesions in victims of verified shaking. It is unfortunate that the SBU panel neither included a paediatrician nor a paediatric ophthalmologist with experience of child abuse to facilitate a correct interpretation of the cited papers.”

In a response to both Levin and Hellgren et al., the Lynøe authors reiterated their commitment to objectivity:

“If physicians involved in child protection teams embraced the research question as if it was a generally accepted scientific fact when classifying cases and controls, this would have resulted in circular reasoning when estimating the diagnostic accuracy of the triad. For that reason, and in order to avoid conflicts of interest and circular reasoning, the expert panel did not include any experts associated with child protection teams. The panel comprised two paediatricians and one expert each from the fields of forensic medicine, radiology, epidemiology and medical ethics. All the included had long experience of assessing scientific work and were scrutinised for potential conflicts of interest and cleared by the Agency. The expert panel followed the guidance in handbooks for assessing health technology and any other panel reproducing the study would have probably arrived at the same conclusions.”

In May, Dr. Sandeep Narang and Dr. Christopher Greeley, both renowned child abuse specialists, published a column in the Acta Paeditrica series “A Different View” that lambasted the methodology, objectivity, and transparency of the SBU study. Like Lucas et al., Narang and Greeley declared the triad a “strawman,” with the statement:

“Physicians experienced in the clinical evaluation of paediatric traumatic brain injury and AHT do not diagnose SBS by a ‘triad’.”

Narang and Greeley also found it “troubling” that the SBU panel “was offered and refused external peer review by no fewer than seven international professional medical societies” before the publication of their report, and charged that the panel was biased in two ways:

  • One of the SBU panelists had testified before the highest court in Sweden, prior to the study, that “the diagnostic model of the ‘triad’ for diagnosing SBS ‘has been criticised’, and that ‘there is currently no clarity about the extent to which the components of the triad are specific to violent shaking’.”
  • A former chair of the SBU had also testified in the same case, and “has openly expressed scepticism of the diagnosis of AHT because of his personal experiences with a family member being criminally charged in a suspected shaken baby case.”

Another “Different View” column published in May, by Dr. Robert A.C. Bilo and others, focused specifically on the papers used to support the study’s conclusion that the triad had many “alternative explanations.” Bilo et al. rejected the cases and papers cited in support of these explanations, with three main arguments:

  • many of the cases would never have been diagnosed as abuse, because the children clearly suffered other medical conditions
  • some of the cases did not fully conform to the triad
  • some of the cases were in fact abuse misrepresented as organic causes

Like other critics, including Lucas et al., the Bilo authors accused the SBU of applying a double standard, because the reviewers accepted individual case reports as evidence for other causes, while they rejected studies with fewer than 10 cases from their main literature review.

Lynøe et al. clarified in their response that the papers cited as evidence for other causes had simply emerged during their literature review, and had been rejected from the main study for the same reasons as many others. They explained:

“From an epidemiological point of view, and due to random fluctuations, studies with less than 10 study cases are of very limited value. But when looking for differential diagnoses, one single case is sufficient to question the general assumption that when the triad is present the infant must have been violently shaken.”

The original study had addressed the question:

With what certainty can it be claimed that the triad, subdural hematoma, retinal hemorrhages and encephalopathy, is attributable to isolated traumatic shaking (i.e. when no external signs of trauma are present)?

The Acta Paediatrica treatment articulated the answer in two, subtly different conclusions. First:

“[T]here is insufficient scientific evidence on which to assess the diagnostic accuracy of the triad in identifying traumatic shaking (very low-quality evidence).”

That is, the literature supporting the opinion that the presence of the triad proves a child was shaken is “insufficient,” because none of the papers supporting that opinion ranked above “very low-quality.” Second:

“[T]here is limited scientific evidence that the triad and therefore its components can be associated with traumatic shaking (low-quality evidence).”

That is, the researchers found some low-quality papers supporting the opinion that traumatic shaking causes the triad—two French papers based on confessions—but no medium- or high-quality papers. Before reaching their conclusions, the authors had read and evaluated 1,000 academic papers, only 30 of which met their inclusion criteria. They ranked 28 of those 30 papers as having a “high risk of bias,” 2 of them as having a “moderate risk,” and none of them as having a “low risk” of bias (a flow chart illustrating the literature search).

In an over-reaching answer to their many critics, the Lynøe team called for a more scientific approach to research in the arena:

“We acknowledge the concerns expressed by all of the authors who responded with regard to child welfare and the possibility that the diagnoses may be delayed in individual cases of child abuse. However, we are very troubled by the disregard displayed by those authors to the significant methodological problems inherent in published research on shaken baby syndrome. With the exception of Ludvigsson, none of these authors expressed concern about the problems of circular reasoning, lack of comparison groups or the other methodological problems we identified in the systematic review. Where has all the critical thinking in research gone?…

“The purpose of a systematic review is to examine the quality of published research. With that in mind, please accept the substantial difficulties and limitations of previous research carried out by the ‘shaken baby syndrome’ and ‘abusive head trauma’ and help to add true knowledge by performing better research that overcomes the methodological problems.”

copyright 2017, Sue Luttner

If you are not familiar with the debate surrounding shaken baby syndrome/abusive head trauma, please see the home page of this blog.

10 Comments

Filed under AHT, shaken baby syndrome, Uncategorized

Shaken Baby Conference 2016: Defending a Crumbling Theory

FifteenthNCSBSProgramAs registration opened this spring for the Fifteenth International Conference on Shaken Baby Syndrome/Abusive Head Trauma, coming up in September in Montreal, the National Center on Shaken Baby Syndrome (NCSBS) also revamped its web site with a dynamic new design that features bold graphics, clickable factoids, and easy access to resources for both families and professionals. The published conference program shares the new look and embraces the organization’s commitment to fighting criticism of shaken baby theory through public relations.

In a keynote address on opening day, for example, the program promises advice from an executive at the global PR firm Weber Shandwick on “How to Craft a Message,” with this elaboration:

“The media’s reporting of abusive head trauma/shaken baby syndrome (AHT/SBS) over the last several years has focused on wrongful convictions and alleged ‘new science’ that challenges the existence of AHT/SBS. Despite the efforts of many individuals and organizations to re-frame the discussion and educate the media about the realities, the press increasingly covers the subject this way. Ranny Cooper, former Chief of Staff for Senator Ted Kennedy and an expert in strategic communications, will discuss why the media reports the way that they do and what we can all do to ensure that the messages we want get to the public.”

A later keynote will deliver the NCSBS’s preferred message regarding the 2008 exoneration of child care provider Audrey Edmunds, released after 11 years in prison based on an appeal by the Wisconsin Innocence Project arguing that medical thinking about shaken baby has evolved since her 1996 trial. Assistant District Attorney Tom Fallon, from the county that convicted Edmunds, will revisit the case from this perspective:

“Some media, some legal commentators, her lawyers and Ms. Edmunds herself claim exoneration… Is that what really happened? You decide whether this is fact or whether you are being misled.”

Storytelling is a recurring theme in the conference program—another keynote, titled “Power of the Narrative,” features this description:

“In this panel presentation, three child abuse pediatricians will talk about SBS/AHT cases that have resonated with them and the importance of talking about these cases with other professionals and with the media to inform everyone about the realities and devastating consequences.”

I welcome the new note of reconciliation offered in this blurb for a plenary session by two mothers with a unique, unthinkable bond:

“Tami Revering lost her patience and reacted by shaking her best friend’s, Angela Pengelly, baby. Now, Tami and Angela work together to share their personal experience of the impact this has had on each of them and how their experience has led them to educate others about how this can happen to anyone, and that forgiveness, while not easy, can help with the healing process.”

oneshake.org

from the babble.com treatment

A treatment of the women’s story on babble.com listed a skull fracture among the baby’s injuries, which raises the question in my mind but not in the article of whether the incident the caretaker reported, shaking the boy and then throwing him on the bed, fully explains the findings. The Guiding Star Project, a holistic mothering web site, ran the care provider’s first-person account of her tale. I’m extrapolating that the NCSBS has hired a PR firm to help place these stories on the web.

The conference program also lists dozens of breakout sessions, including one that promises a case report from Australia of a fatal shaking with an independent witness. I look forward to learning more.

TheSyndromePoster

I am guessing that in the session “The Medium Is the Message: Journalists and Documentary Filmmakers Distort the Child Abuse Story,” law professor Joëlle Moreno will dismiss Debbie Cenziper’s 2015 exposé of shaken baby in The Washington Post as well as the documentary “The Syndrome,” which she scorned based on the trailer at the fourteenth shaken baby conference in 2014 in Denver, a few weeks before the film premiered. In her 2014 keynote, Prof. Moreno also discounted the work of law professor Deborah Tuerkheimer, who Moreno said is “confusing causation with culpability,” and pointed out that the documentary “Scenes of a Crime,” which ultimately led to a new trial and an innocent verdict for convicted father Adrian Thomas, is not about the shaken baby controversy but about the “lengthy interrogation” in that one case. “Part of our job,” Moreno said in 2014, “is to explain to the media that AHT is not newsworthy because it’s controversial. It’s newsworthy because it’s real and it’s deadly.” (For a link to Prof. Moreno’s condemnation of the minority opinion in the Shirley Ree Smith decision, please see “Dissent Into Confusion: The Supreme Court, Denialism, and Shaken Baby.”)

overcomingDefenseCloserThis fall, Maryland assistant state’s attorney Dermot Garrett is scheduled to run a session titled “Overcoming Defense Expert Testimony in Abusive Head Trauma Cases,” also the title of a document by him that’s available on the National District Attorneys Association web site. Garrett’s talk with the same title at the 2014 Denver conference focused on rebutting the jury’s innocent verdict in the 2006 trial of Miles Ferguson, an accused father who enjoyed massive support from his family and church community. Garrett argued that Ferguson’s likability had obscured the medical facts, and he criticized the “handful of defense experts” who testify in these cases for what he said are “financial incentives.”

I’ve attended nine conferences organized by the NCSBS over the past 18 years, and I have never heard a speaker revisit a lost or overturned case with the thought that the child abuse doctors might have been wrong. Instead, I’ve heard reviews of the prosecution’s case, presented with indignation at the loss. This mind-set offers no mechanism for the diagnosing doctors to even acknowledge let alone learn from past mistakes.

wheatAt the upcoming conference, Dr. Christopher Greeley is scheduled to offer his review of the published shaking research in a session titled “Demystifying the Medical Literature: Separating the Wheat From the Chaff.” I’m guessing he will include his criticism of the 2003 paper by Dr. Mark Donohoe, who reviewed the shaken baby literature through the lens of evidence-based medicine and concluded that shaken baby theory has no scientific foundation. In a keynote at the 2012 NCSBS conference, Dr. Greeley condemned the search criteria Dr. Donohoe used to identify the papers he examined, but did not offer a list of the additional papers that would have provided more scientific evidence. For a good example of Dr. Greeley’s approach to the literature, I suggest reading his analysis of Dr. Steven Gabaeff’s 2011 paper questioning the connection between the brain findings and a shaking diagnosis.

I found in the program two breakout sessions that promise to present the defense perspective. In “Cognitive Bias in SBS/AHT Diagnosis,” innocence project attorneys Barry Scheck, Keith Findley, and Katherine Judson will share the dais with Dr. Mark Graber, whose specialties include diagnostic error, and Prof. Stephen Feinberg, PhD, a statistician at Carnegie Mellon University. And the second segment of the two-part session “What Do We Do When the 911 Call Comes In?” could be lively, as it features both child-abuse prosecutor Leigh Bishop, who argued the case against Hang Bin Li in Queens, and independent attorney Heather Kirkwood, who has worked on a number of successful appeals, including those on behalf of Julie Baumer, Ernie Lopez, and Ostwelt Millien.

I also see a handful of sessions on prevention, and one on an effort to create a reliable instrument for diagnosing abusive head trauma based on evidence-based criteria. I do wish these researchers well, as I think we all share the goal of preventing abusive head trauma and improving our ability to identify it accurately.

If you are not familiar with the debate surrounding shaken baby theory, please see the home page of this blog. Sue Luttner does not believe that shaking a baby is safe, only that the brain findings do not prove abuse.

copyright 2016, Sue Luttner

Leave a comment

Filed under abusive head trauma, AHT, National Center on Shaken Baby Syndrome, SBS, shaken baby, shaken baby syndrome