Talk:Robert Roberson case

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedy deleted as an attack page or a negative unsourced biography of a living person, because I find this an unusual case of a man being convicted of murder and the controversy surrounding the supposed shaken baby syndrome that played a part in his conviction and sentence --NelsonLee20042020 (talk) 03:36, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Plus I can amend the language and everything. It is still in a stage of drafting at this point, and it might be too premature for speedy deletion. Sorry if I have crossed the line. NelsonLee20042020 (talk) 03:40, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Concern

This article repeatedly refers to the "junk science" of "shaken baby syndrome". It must be acknowledged that the science of paediatric non accidental injury is challenging because direct testing obviously cannot be done. However, there are some injuries that are strongly associated with non-accidental injury in children. I don't know the details of this case, but the injuries described in the article here would raise strong suspicion of non-accidental injury for most paediatricians internationally and are certainly inconsistent with falling off a bed. Whilst there are some who have strong views that "shaken baby syndrome" is "junk science", this is not the general consensus in the professional community. Even if the author of this article feels differently (as I suspect they do), alternative views and paediatric consensus statements should be acknowledged and references provided so the reader can view them. Ivannater (talk) 05:31, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

There is sufficient scientific evidence to back up the junk science argument. For example, here is a result of a VERY quick Google search of a few seconds: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/B9780128027196000042 Worstbull (talk) 19:50, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

I should clarify: It is true that the scientific community is moving away from the term "shaken baby syndrome" as it is becoming increasingly recognized that the constellation of injuries this traditionally referred to may not be solely caused by shaking, but may include direct impact also.

Regardless, the consensus view from the majority of Paediatricians is that certain constellations of certain manifestations of injuries indicate that abusive trauma has occurred. These constellations of injuries together are inconsistent with birth trauma, as your article alludes to. One consensus statement specifically around head trauma that summarizes the majority opinion can be found here https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29796797/ . However, most comprehensive Paediatric textbooks or medical courses will contain similar information.

I cannot access the book chapter you have linked to. The summary however does allude to perspectives that are heavily critiqued minority views in the scientific community. To be clear, retinal hemorrhages and subdural hemorrhages can occur at birth, however their appearances (particularly for retinal hemorrhages) and the overall constellations of injuries associated with them are very different in cases of abuse.

I do not want to get into an internet debate with someone I do not know. Suffice to say, a view that is held by the majority of Paediatricians on this topic cannot be dismissed as "junk science" in an article on a forum such as Wikipedia, even if the article's author feels differently.

Finally, just a reminder I am not claiming to know much about this specific case. The wider comments on medical science that I am saying needs amending. Ivannater (talk) 07:25, 23 October 2024 (UTC)