"Science" is the Greek word for knowledge. Without science as your guide, you are lost in the poisonous fog of bullshit.
It wasn't little Hannah's fault she died, even if her tragic young death was caused by her trying to skateboard on a skittish plastic toy train not intended to be stood on. It wasn't Lindsay's fault either, even if she had her back turned at that very moment, fetching a tray of snacks for the girls. It wasn't Hannah's mother Adrian's fault either, even if she wasn't there to look after Hannah herself, because she couldn't even look after herself, being a captive of her own vulnerable biochemistry and a legal system that treats victims of drugs as criminals.
If you have to blame someone, blame God, because it is She who is ultimately responsible for everything that exists and everything that happens. But even that would be unfair, because although Mother Nature does indeed make us each the way we are, She has no will of her own; She has no say about how the mindless fluxes of gravity and radiation will push our atoms around. They just do what they do, with no intelligent guiding hand to lead them.
Lead detective Dan Turner had no intelligent guiding hand to lead him, he was a blind man misled by the equally blind radiologist Marguerite Caré, herself misled by the reprehensibly ignorant American Academy of Pediatricians.
Only science can figure out and tell
the real truth about what really happened to Hannah, which is a bit more complicated than the doctors' shallow-minded thinking. Details in: Errors of Judgment pdf available free to read online or download.
New evidence has been
discovered that proves that babysitter Lindsay Partin did not assault
or murder 3 year-old Hannah Wesche in 2018. That new evidence is a
new and proper scientific analysis of the factual medical data that
was recorded at the time:
- The CT scans and the surgeon's
report prove beyond doubt that there simply could not have been an
assault causing immediate unresponsiveness just before Partin called
911 on Thursday March 8, because Hannah's pre-surgery CT scan shows
her head injury to be older than that.
- Specifically, the CT
scan shows a layer of freshly clotted blood (a recent rebleed) at the
bottom of a pool of partially-decayed (2-week old = "subacute")
subdural hematoma, consistent with the surgeon's Note which reported
the hematoma to contain dark liquid blood under high pressure. A
subacute hematoma is consistent with Hannah's intermittent headaches
over the prior 2 weeks, and its rebleed is consistent with her
reported fall off a pretend skateboard on Wednesday, which is proven
by physics to be violent enough to potentially cause or exacerbate a
subdural hematoma, contrary to pediatric folklore.
- The
skateboard fall explains the small, round, deep, bruise under her
hair on the back of her head, which is consistent with a fall onto a
hard, flat, unyielding surface. That bruise was not discovered until
autopsy, 10 days after the radiologist and pediatrician had filed
their erroneous judgments.
- Hannah's rebleeding subacute
subdural hematoma is consistent with her lucidity until her collapse
on Thursday, because oxygen deprivation of a brain under increasing
pressure can take time to happen, when a subdural bleed grows slowly,
drip by drip.
- Increased intracranial pressure is a recognised
cause of multilayer retinal hemorrhages and brain swelling.
- CT
scans taken after a craniectomy to relieve the pressure on Hannah's
brain show the surgery to have caused widespead "Diffuse Axonal
Injury" to her brain, from it having herniated into the gap in
her skull created by the surgeon, which suddenly reduced the
intracranial pressure. But the original cause of her death was the
rebleeding subdural hematoma, which would have killed her had the
craniectomy not been performed.
"Tell me why you think I was charged and convicted? I wake up everyday kind of wondering what the hell happened?"
You
were charged because:
- A radiologist made a horrendous error of
judgment about a CT scan of Hannah's head, using circular reasoning
instead of science to erroneously diagnose assault causing immediate
unresponsiveness.
- A pediatrician subsequently made a terrible
error of judgment of her own, exacerbating the radiologist's mistake
with discredited speculative pseudoscience of "shaken baby
syndrome".
- The TV news, the jury, and even you, were all
oblivious to the doctors' horrendous errors of judgment.
- You
made a crucial error of judgment, when under intense police
interrogation to explain Hannah's superficial bruises, you fabricated
a false confession of assault, most probably out of a subconscious
maternal instinct to protect your own children from unjust accusation
of an imaginary assault you had been persuaded by detectives to
believe may have actually happened (when Hannah was not under your
supervision).
You
were convicted because:
- After Hannah died in hospital, a
pathologist went along with the radiologist and pediatrician, adding
a demonstrably erroneous judgment of her own. She misattributed
Hannah's diffuse axonal injury from brain herniation, to, instead,
"assault causing immediate unresponsiveness", a plainly
contrived and unjustified finding.
- A year later, at trial, you
made a second crucial error of judgment, allowing yourself to be
deceived and tricked by a cunning prosecutor cleverly manipulating
conditional verb phrase tense to make you apparently contradict your
retraction of your false confession.
- Your defense lawyers
effectively aided and abetted the prosecution. They told the jury
they accepted the erroneous opinion of assault causing immediate
unresponsiveness, and unjustly accused Hannah's obviously innocent
and grief-stricken father of assault, which by your own testimony was
impossible as he wasn't even there when she collapsed from an
insidious invisible internal head injury that had been slowly
suffocating her brain. It was either abject stupidity on their part,
or a dirty lawyer's trick to make the jury believe you must have done
it. They also sabotaged the sole defense witness by supporting the
prosecutor's request that the judge conceal from the jury his
testimony of public domain vital evidence of the unsound basis of the
pediatrician's faulty opinion.
Copy of a text message from the author to Partin:
i need to explain myself more clearly: yes, you were convicted because you made a false confession; but NO, you did not make that false confession just to please the detectives because you are a people-pleaser! And yes, Melynda Cook-Howard did say that's why you said it - But NO, she wasn't truly on your side!!! SHE KNEW it was a fake lame excuse that the jury would not believe, because nobody in their right mind would confess to a crime they hadn't committed, just to please their interrogators! The REAL psychological reasons for ANYONE under intense interrogation making a false confession are much more complicated than that!! Yes, there is an element of your telling them what they wanted to hear just so they would stop torturing you, whether physically or mentally, but that's only a small part of it. The bigger part is that you were, in your own words, "trying to protect everyone". The vital word here is the word "everyone". That means more than one person. You were aware you were protecting TJ, who at that time you still loved, despite his neglect. But your subconscious mind could also imagine Vivian and Savannah being subjected to the same kind of horrible interrogation, and the (subconscious) maternal instinct thought of that was unbearable, even if, because it was subconscious, your conscious mind wasn't aware that your subconscious mind was thinking it! Does it make sense?
