The article “Court should acquit mom of infanticide in disgraced pathologist case: Crown” is about the story of Sherry Sherret-Robinson and how she was found guilty of smothering her baby, named Joshua, to death in 1999. She was convicted based on evidence found by Dr. Charles Smith, whose findings were not questioned because Sherret-Robinson had made comments about her depression and how she wanted to kill her child before the death occurred. However, now several cases of Dr. Smith, including this one, have been under investigation because there have been several inconsistencies. In this case, Dr. Smith concluded that there had been a skull fracture and neck hemorrhaging which is consistent with smothering. After further review in 2006, it has been found that there was no skull fracture, and that he hemorrhaging was caused by Dr. Smith during his autopsy. Sherret-Robinson is still serving her sentence but is going to fight at a trial to clear her name in December.
link to article: http://www.570news.com/news/national/more.jsp?content=n232739323
11 comments:
This article was disheartening because it made me realize how easy it is for an innocent person to be condemned. I also liked how it gave background on what led Dr. Smith to believe she had killed her baby. In this case it was only because she mentioned something about wanting to. This isn't enough to convict someone. I also liked how leigh decided to talk about what sherret robinson will still fight her case.
I Think this article could be improved if leigh had a quote. Also, i would like to know what happens to Dr. Smith after people find he was incorrect.
THis article helped make me realize that many times doctors may be wrong in finding evidence and that many innocent people are often convicted.
This review was interesting but its topic was also really sad. It just shows how imperfect a science forensics still is. I also liked the review because it gave a general overview of the story with background details, but the best thing about it was that I was still interested in the article after I was finished and wanted to read more about this case.
Leigh could have made the review better by adding a quote or two from the article itself. That would have given a bit more insight into the case. Also, the review could have had a little more information (like how long the mother's sentence was) as things like that add another angle to this story. Overall, though, the review was very good.
One thing I found interesting about the article was the story of the prosecutor causing the brain hemorrhaging during the autopsy, showing that he has clearly been guilty in the past of giving false evidence as fact in court. It would be interesting to see how many other cases have been affected by his dubious methods.
This article is very depressing, because the situation that this women is put through. She lost her baby and got put into prison. What I liked was how it gave explaination on Dr. Smith. It is intresting how Sherret Robinson said that she is going to continue to fight her case.
This article could have been improved if Leigh added some legnth to her article. I would like to know what happened to Dr. Smith since he is now known to make many mistakes.
this article was some what scary becouse it shows that every one even inocent people are at the mercy of the law.it was intresting how they went into the background on what led the doctor to think she killed her baby.In this case it was only because she mentioned something about wanting to. This isn't enough to convict someone. I also liked how leigh decided to talk about what sherret robinson will still fight her case.
This article is very depressing because of the situation that this woman is put through. She lost her baby and got put into prison. What I liked was how it gave explanation on Dr. Smith. It is interesting how Sherret Robinson said that she is going to continue to fight her case.
This article could have been improved if Leigh added some length to her article. I would like to know what happened to Dr. Smith since he is now known to have made many mistakes.
I thought Leigh’s article was very depressing because I learned that it is very easy for an innocent person to be declared guilty. I liked how Leigh gave us a little background information on what led Dr. Smith to determine that the woman had killed her baby. I thought Leigh could’ve explained how Sherret Robinson would fight her case in trial. Also, I would want to know how Dr. Smith was so confident in his conclusion toward Ms. Robinson that she killed her baby. Overall, this article made me realize that doctors can make crucial mistakes in determining if someone is innocent or guilty. They should have a significant amount of evidence so they can come up with an accurate response to determine a situation
This Article shows how forensics still is not perfect. This article gave a good summery of everything that went on with important details that helped me understand what was going on better. It was presented so well it was a very easy read where I didn’t mind reading the summary. Also the way the article did a good job showing how Dr. Smith was able to determine that the Ms. Robinson killed the baby. Leigh did a great job on this article but she could’ve added a direct source from the article, which would’ve helped show that her summary has a greater connection with the article. Also the one thing I wanted more detail about was how Dr. Smith was so sure that Ms. Robinson killed her baby, it would’ve been nice to have more details about that. Finally, I was not aware that they will decide whether someone is guilty or innocent without getting all the details from everyone that should be involved in a decision like this one.
This article was beyond depressing. I Liked how it gave background on what led Dr. Smith to believe she had killed her baby. I also liked the review because it gave a general overview of the story with background detail. What i liked most of all was how i was still intrigued by the article after reading it. Usually, these articles do not have much of an impact on me.
While i liked the article, is did need a bit more insight. And personally, i feel a quote or two was necessary.
I would like to see a follow up article focusing on what has happened to Dr. Smith after this incident
This article made me think very negatively about the criminal justice system in our country. It made me think about how easily an innocent person can be sent to jail for a crime they didn't commit. I liked how Leigh decided to give all sides of this story in her review, she talked about how Sherret Robinson will fight her case and also about how the evidence convicted her. I also liked how she was precise with the details without being too boring.
I think as always, this review could have been improved with quotes from different sources. Also Leigh could have expanded on the backstories of all the people involved in the crime case.
One thing I found interesting about this review was that someone could be found guilty based on almost no factual evidence. This was very disconcerting to me.
This article and summary were both interesting. The topic proving how forensics science is still not concrete. I liked the review because it gave a good general overview of the story with background details, helping to hold my interest in the case.
Leigh could have improved the summary by adding a quote from the original article. Also, the review could have had a little more information for instance I would like to know what happens to Dr. Smith after people find he was incorrect. One thing I found very interesting about the article itself was the story of the prosecutor causing the brain hemorrhaging during the autopsy, this ultimately showing that he has clearly been guilty in the past of providing false evidence as true fact in court. It would be interesting to learn how many other cases have been affected by his incorrect methods and ideas.
The article, “Court should acquit mom of infanticide in disgraced pathologist case: Crown” was skillfully reviewed by Leigh. Leigh clearly presented the specific discrepancy in Dr. Charles Smith’s autopsy of Sherry Sherrit-Robinson’s child. Also she explained the relevance of the evidence found in that autopsy and how it swayed the court’s outcome. I liked that Leigh touched on Sherrit-Robinson’s future appeal of her case rather than completely focus on the future of the criminal scientist.
I wish the review had given more detail pertaining the exact tests and conditions preformed by Dr. Charles Smith. It would have been nice to know exactly how he fumbled the autopsy and if it was to his knowledge or not that his tests had gone awry. Also, I would like to know if criminal charges are going to be brought against Smith and if Sherrit-Robinson intends to file a civil suit against him.
I found this review to be particularly interesting because it discussed how forensic science isn’t always concrete. I think it is a common misconception that forensic scientists and lab technicians are not subject to error however; this article proves that evidence must be thoroughly reviewed.
Post a Comment