this post was submitted on 18 Oct 2024
20 points (100.0% liked)
U.S. News
2244 readers
1 users here now
News about and pertaining to the United States and its people.
Please read what's functionally the mission statement before posting for the first time. We have a narrower definition of news than you might be accustomed to.
Guidelines for submissions:
- Post the original source of information as the link.
- If there is a paywall, provide an archive link in the body.
- Post using the original headline; edits for clarity (as in providing crucial info a clickbait hed omits) are fine.
- Social media is not a news source.
For World News, see the News community.
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
From wiki:
Seems pretty clear what happened. They didn't investigate shit, and just assumed this discredited theory of SBS was the cause because the father is not neurotypical.
Translation: he beat the shit out of her.
Remove all the SBS testimony, and you still have him beating the hell out of her. He is not at all innocent.
You can argue against the death penalty in general, but there is no rational argument for his innocence.
Even the detective think that isn't what happened.
Not so sure it's so clear and cut.
There are, indeed, conditions that will cause a brain to bleed inside the skull. Those conditions don't explain all the head injuries outside the skull: the hematomas and hemmorhaging between the skin and the skull.
If you want to argue against the death penalty, go ahead. I lean against it; you don't have to convince me.
But we do a disservice to every actual innocent convict when we pretend a guilty man is innocent just to avoid a sentence we abhor.
If you want to explain the myriad serious head injuries in some way that absolves him of responsibility, I'm listening.