• Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    28 days ago

    subscapular and subgaleal hemorrhaging between her skin and her skull, subarachnoid bleeding, subdural hematoma, both pre-retinal and retinal hemorrhages and brain edema.

    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.

    • Midnitte@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      28 days ago

      DAVIES: Detective Wharton is now retired, and he traded in his badge for a Bible. Now, the Reverend Wharton says he and the entire system made a mistake. He says he’s forever haunted by his role in putting an innocent man on death row, a man he says should be exonerated.

      Even the detective think that isn’t what happened.

      Not so sure it’s so clear and cut.

      • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        28 days ago

        the hospital did a CAT scan of little Nikki and found a swollen, bleeding brain believed at the time to be a classic sign of shaken baby syndrome.

        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.