DELVE

1) Evidence of damage does not prove the cause of damage. 2) On the fractures not being a problem in the future—because they corrected the discovered deficiencies in all future treatments. 3) Premies are different in physiology from full term infants even disregarding any unknown congenital issues and they struggle from birth, and my god, suction and forceps births can be brutal on term babies. Who knows if any of her bones broke during this and were also healing, at what rate per day would be difficult to tell especially with her deficiencies (which could both be causing future injuries and slowing the healing process and without any supplemental support the deficiencies get worse as the body works over time to recover and also grow at the exponential rate of all babies after birth) 4) The texts are out of both emotional and cultural context not to mention tone. It’s easy to read text in any emotional voice to suit your inclination (how many times has a miscommunication occurred bc your recipient read your text differently from your meaning?). Saying something like “I’ll drink the ‘poison’” during a communication of exasperation is not meant as a literal statement usually, context not withstanding. It’s the same thing as saying “If you don’t come home right now I’m going to jump off a bridge!” and we all know what that statement means. It’s not literal. Basically it seems like the cultural equivalent of saying “Omg, if you don’t come back right now I’m going to lose my mind” and again, not literally. 5) On the bursting blood vessels in her brain; was she or was she not admitted that evening for a possible case of meningitis which is essentially brain swelling? And wasn’t she then given antibiotics and such prior to admission by the doctor who saw the baby at her home? Was it addressed how much time elapsed between the antibiotics and her first imaging showing bleeds associated with swelling and inflammation? How long does it take for these to cause any inflammation or sign of infection to be unobservable because the infection was being treated prior to any imaging? Did she continue with the antibiotics as prophylactic? One would then never be able to tell if she was physically injured or if the injuries were due to the previous condition now masked forever? 6) Jurors are average people; and we all can agree that the “average” person is horribly prepared to think about evidence and the science behind things let alone anything medical. The average person is just going to be emotionally manipulated by the simple facts of the case and think it’s a hurt baby, the doctors said so, therefore the parents are monsters. 7) Racism and all sorts of other biases that make average people judging people of other cultures incredibly unfair. Basically the jurors are horrible judges. They probably decided long before any defense was made. This story is more common than we believe. The “system” probably gets it wrong 60% of the time. I’m thinking about how much of a power imbalance exists in the world of child welfare all over the world. Instead of trying to be holistic in approach to understand complex cases and the medical facts of injury are diagnosed, the default opinion is always it was intentional and or criminal in nature. The supposition is always to assume wrong doing to protect the child and then never waver from this accusation when instead it should only be a part of any consideration and not drive all further decisions. It is a huge miscarriage of basic human rights when no other possibility is allowed to be considered. Once the accusation is leveled it is too late. The system takes over and all but guarantees the creation of a criminal case. When full contextual analysis is denied, any allowance for differential diagnosis is then ignored by medical professionals. Professionals who then must hold this position to defend themselves and their institution’s reputation against any perceived liability for misdiagnosis. There is no graceful way for them to bow out if they realize it’s possible a mistake was made. A diagnostic finding should not be used to prove cause because that is not how logic works. If someone has an injury that is non specific then the cause of said injury cannot be determined simply by discovering that injury. It should never then lead to legal consequences or the threat of criminal prosecution but the way this process is set up that is not possible. This is a tale of insult to injury in the worst possible way. Caring for your child by bringing them to get medical attention should not be a legal risk, but it certainly always is. Most parents simply do not understand and never realize how close they may sometimes come to having their children essentially stolen from them by the state. Especially when your child has unique or unusual needs and conditions. The public has been led to believe that medical professionals are infallible and completely incapable of making human mistakes. But they certainly do every single day and medical science is not as advanced as popular culture portrays, much like the CSI effect. The system is rigged and broken (or working as designed depending on your perspective) and runs on autopilot following outdated racist, classist, and sexist scripts without nuance and with no regard for the lifelong damage and irreparable trauma it causes. This is what this story is telling us.

I heard about Andrea Zaferes on an Australian podcast, Troubled Waters. She is considered an expert in water deaths. Maybe she can offer insights. Biography: Andrea Zaferes, BA Forensic Aquatic-Death Investigator Forensic Aquatic-Death Investigator & Expert Witness Medicolegal Investigator Homicidal Drowning Investigation Team Lifeguard Systems, Inc. Return to Seminar Instructors Andrea Zaferes serves as a medicolegal investigator for Dutchess County in New York State. She is also Vice President of Lifeguard Systems Inc. and RIPTIDE Inc. Ms. Zaferes serves as a course director and instructor trainer and is a well published author and noted public speaker and award winner, As a program designer, Andrea Zeferes is one of the leading trainers in the international water rescue and recovery industries today. Andrea graduated from University of Michigan with a BA in Psychology and has completed numerous courses in basic death investigation and is a graduate of the Master's Conference in Death Investigation, St Louis University. Andrea has been certified in numerous states and has been presenting forensic training since 1999 throughout the United States and Canada. She has also taught in Puerto Rico, Asia, The Caribbean and Costa Rica. Andrea Zaferes has investigated and worked on more than 30 scuba accident and fatality lawsuits and has consulted on more than 150 water related death cases. She is an Expert Legal Witness for diving and other water-related incidents and assists law enforcement in homicidal drowning investigations. Andrea Zaferes has published extensively in both journal articles and textbooks and has over 100 publications based on her research and experience.

I’d be willing to bet her 1st marriage failed bc he was also an awful abusive man right?

Best podcast I’ve listened to in ages. Thorough and thoughtfully told. The real highlight is the host who is just incredibly likable, effective and engaging. I’m from the US but I lived near the location where this poor boy died years ago, the description of the community and scenery is so vivid, it takes me right back.