Reaction Paper: Drawn to Injustice
Case Overview
On the morning of February 11, 1987, Timothy Masters, a 15-year-old boy, came across a body in a field while walking to school from his father 's trailer in Fort Collins, Colorado. Masters initially thought that the body was nothing more than a mannequin and that the local school boys who commonly teased him had pulled another prank because his mother’s 4-year death anniversary had recently passed. Masters continued his walk to the bus stop and decided that he would confirm if the body was real when he headed home and then report it to the police.
A few minutes after Masters had left for school, a bicyclist who was riding near the field noticed something that caught his eye. The man decided …show more content…
Bad science is categorized into three main sections: changing scientific standards, fraudulent science, and junk science.
Changing science is when the scientific standards of a theory or practice are revised. A well-known example of changing science is the past diagnosis of “Shaken Baby Syndrome.” When a triad of injuries, including, subdural hematoma (bleeding beneath the outer layer of membranes surrounding the brain), retinal hemorrhage (bleeding in the retina), and cerebral edema (brain swelling) were present in a child, the doctors diagnosed the patient with “Shaken Baby Syndrome.” The three injuries were theorized to be inflicted through the rapid lashing of the brain that tore bridging veins. Because the lashing was essential for tears to occur, doctors believed that either forceful shaking or a massive car accident were the only plausible scenarios to simultaneously inflict all three of the injuries on a child. There was also a misconception that symptoms of these injuries would appear immediately after the shaking had occurred, so the last person with the conscious baby must be the offender. The medical community’s attention was drawn to this epidemic and further research was conducted on the triad of symptoms. The medical consensus reflected there were possible alternative factors …show more content…
Meloy’s psychoanalysis, and the blood splatter and shoeprint analysis, should have never been admissible in the court, it is also important to consider the influence they had over the jury. Dr. Meloy was introduced to the jury as an expert so his status was immediately reputable. The relatability of the expert was also much closer to that of the jury, rather than the “victim” or defendant, Timothy Masters. The jury likely had pre-assumptions of the Masters’ guilt considering there must be a valid reason for him to be considered as a suspect. This allows the jury to distance themselves away from Masters and gravitate towards the expert as they are portrayed to be intelligent and much more alike to the them. The jury is also made up of 12 people. An individual in the jury may sway their opinion, if the majority is in favor of a different verdict. Each individual juror may also feel less responsibility determining a verdict in such a big group and may also feel if the defendant is wrongfully convicted, it is the court system’s responsibility to fix the conviction on its
Case Overview
On the morning of February 11, 1987, Timothy Masters, a 15-year-old boy, came across a body in a field while walking to school from his father 's trailer in Fort Collins, Colorado. Masters initially thought that the body was nothing more than a mannequin and that the local school boys who commonly teased him had pulled another prank because his mother’s 4-year death anniversary had recently passed. Masters continued his walk to the bus stop and decided that he would confirm if the body was real when he headed home and then report it to the police.
A few minutes after Masters had left for school, a bicyclist who was riding near the field noticed something that caught his eye. The man decided …show more content…
Bad science is categorized into three main sections: changing scientific standards, fraudulent science, and junk science.
Changing science is when the scientific standards of a theory or practice are revised. A well-known example of changing science is the past diagnosis of “Shaken Baby Syndrome.” When a triad of injuries, including, subdural hematoma (bleeding beneath the outer layer of membranes surrounding the brain), retinal hemorrhage (bleeding in the retina), and cerebral edema (brain swelling) were present in a child, the doctors diagnosed the patient with “Shaken Baby Syndrome.” The three injuries were theorized to be inflicted through the rapid lashing of the brain that tore bridging veins. Because the lashing was essential for tears to occur, doctors believed that either forceful shaking or a massive car accident were the only plausible scenarios to simultaneously inflict all three of the injuries on a child. There was also a misconception that symptoms of these injuries would appear immediately after the shaking had occurred, so the last person with the conscious baby must be the offender. The medical community’s attention was drawn to this epidemic and further research was conducted on the triad of symptoms. The medical consensus reflected there were possible alternative factors …show more content…
Meloy’s psychoanalysis, and the blood splatter and shoeprint analysis, should have never been admissible in the court, it is also important to consider the influence they had over the jury. Dr. Meloy was introduced to the jury as an expert so his status was immediately reputable. The relatability of the expert was also much closer to that of the jury, rather than the “victim” or defendant, Timothy Masters. The jury likely had pre-assumptions of the Masters’ guilt considering there must be a valid reason for him to be considered as a suspect. This allows the jury to distance themselves away from Masters and gravitate towards the expert as they are portrayed to be intelligent and much more alike to the them. The jury is also made up of 12 people. An individual in the jury may sway their opinion, if the majority is in favor of a different verdict. Each individual juror may also feel less responsibility determining a verdict in such a big group and may also feel if the defendant is wrongfully convicted, it is the court system’s responsibility to fix the conviction on its