I don’t understand what this would imply. Two incidents are the minimum to establish a pattern. They wouldn’t have been able to identify a trend after seeing only one injury.
We really don't know what had been flagged at what time, so it's not possible to cite it as fact until we get a timeline. They were still at the hospital at around 11.30pm ish which was five hours later, and so it's not as if we can say for sure that things were just assumed to be non-suspicious. He hadn't been discharged yet, because they were all still there for later interviews. It's possible conversations were still being had, with the parents, and possibly also between doctors behind closed doors, when the emergency with Leon came through.
No, one needs two cases to see a linear trend. More to see anything that's not linear. But in suspecting child abuse in an ER it's not clear they'd be looking for a trend. Mandated reporters don't need to see trends nor should they wait to see trends before reporting. Doctors are mandated reporters. A doctor saw Ari first. Either there was evidence to suspect he was abused or there was not. Certainly a doctor has been quoted (now) saying, in effect, it was obviously abuse based on the details of the injury. But it's not clear he thought that earlier as it's not clear when Ari's injury was reported. Yet no trend is required to start an abuse investigation if a single case appears it could be abuse. However, to me it doesn't appear that's what happened. The quoted interviews with the parents include mention of Leon's situation so they happened after Leon was injured. Using Leon to prove Ari was abused and then using Ari's abuse to say the death penalty is warranted for Leon seems questionable IF that's what is happening. I admit there's lots we don't know but that applies to the opposite argument too. That Ari's case was treated as an abuse case from the get-go. I don't think there's any way we can know that now for sure.
how would Ari get facial scratches? perpetrator's finger nails? jewelry?
I’m not the person you’re responding to, but it’s not unusual for little babies to scratch their own faces. They even make little mitts that I’ve seen parents use to prevent it— they sell them on Amazon, not sure I can post a link.
www.healthline.com
I agree, every possibility must be considered, and presumably the defense will be probing into all of these possible scenarios.
Right, at this point in time presumption of innocence is part of due process, and the crimes are alleged, not factual.
I recently saw several clips of new born infants pulling their own hair. They grabbed and locked on, the more it hurt the harder they pulled. They weren’t able to open their own fist. The adults in the videos had to pry the babies fingers open to release their grip. The babies didn’t realize they were causing themselves pain, they just reacted to it by closing their eyes & their fists tightly and screaming.
I felt bad about wondering this every time I saw it in an article. She’s a nice enough looking girl, but “glamorous” wouldn’t have been the first word I came up with. I think maybe people are thinking of a stereotypical “nerd” when they read “PhD candidate” and are surprised to see NV doesn’t look like a Coke-bottle glasses caricature? I’d really hoped we were past that by now but I can’t think of any other explanation.
Or had recently had a bris performed. Typically a bris is performed on the eighth day of life, unless there are medical concerns in which case it would be performed at a later date. As they were born premature, that would have probably delayed a bris being done.
Yes, definitely.
True enough. I do take into consideration what the defense attorney said, though: That since 2001 there has been an increased tendency and marked bias towards physicians viewing injuries as stemming from child abuse, and that there have been cases where they’ve been clearly proven wrong. It may or may not be true in this case, but it gave me stern pause, with other information lacking.
