Warning: This episode contains details of violence against children. 

Shaken baby syndrome is a hypothesis that has been around for decades, rooted in the mechanics of whiplash.  Medical academics, law enforcement, and prosecutors all agree that violently shaking a baby is a form of child abuse. But Audrey Edmunds, a pregnant mother running a daycare out of her home, was wrongfully convicted of shaking a child who died in her care and served 11 years in prison. The scientific community advocated for her release after studies questioned what was known about the “tell-tale” signs of shaken baby syndrome.

CSI On Trial is a co-production of iHeart Podcasts and School of Humans. It is a Curiosity Podcast based on the Curiosity Stream series CSI On Trial. You can watch all six episodes of the video series here if you sign up for Curiosity Stream.

Warning: This episode contains details of violence against children. 
Shaken baby syndrome is a hypothesis that has been around for decades, rooted in the mechanics of whiplash.  Medical academics, law enforcement, and prosecutors all agree that violently shaking a baby is a form of child abuse. But Audrey Edmunds, a pregnant mother running a daycare out of her home, was wrongfully convicted of shaking a child who died in her care and served 11 years in prison. The scientific community advocated for her release after studies questioned what was known about the “tell-tale” signs of shaken baby syndrome.
CSI On Trial is a co-production of iHeart Podcasts and School of Humans. It is a Curiosity Podcast based on the Curiosity Stream series CSI On Trial. You can watch all six episodes of the video series<a href="https://curiositystream.com"> here</a> if you sign up for Curiosity Stream.

It is nearly impossible to imagine a criminal investigation that does not involve some kind of forensic science: firearms analysis, bloodstain patterns, arson, etc. But what leads us to trust these methods? Some point to the “CSI effect.” Viewers who have been watching true crime shows and trials for years have been trained to assume these methods lead to the right people getting arrested and convicted of some of the most heinous crimes. But what’s the science behind them? Are they valid?

In this podcast, host Molly Hermann lays out the lack of science behind some of the most well-known CSI tools, and tells the stories of the wrongfully convicted who went to prison for years. She interviews nearly 70 people - including forensic scientists, legal experts, and the exonerated - and digs into the larger issues within the criminal justice system that have let the “junk science” in.

It is nearly impossible to imagine a criminal investigation that does not involve some kind of forensic science: firearms analysis, bloodstain patterns, arson, etc. But what leads us to trust these methods? Some point to the “CSI effect.” Viewers who have been watching true crime shows and trials for years have been trained to assume these methods lead to the right people getting arrested and convicted of some of the most heinous crimes. But what’s the science behind them? Are they valid?
In this podcast, host Molly Hermann lays out the lack of science behind some of the most well-known CSI tools, and tells the stories of the wrongfully convicted who went to prison for years. She interviews nearly 70 people - including forensic scientists, legal experts, and the exonerated - and digs into the larger issues within the criminal justice system that have let the “junk science” in.

CSI On Trial

CSI On Trial: Ep 6-Shaken Baby Syndrome

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/e73c998e-6e60-432f-8610-ae210140c5b1/clips/a38e9763-1a3e-4e3a-86ed-afd80153e3ca/transcript

Advertisement