From the original article:
If he’s truly innocent, why cherry pick evidence? The confession just sits too heavy on me. He says he thought it’d help his wife get the other baby back if he admitted to anally raping and strangling his infant daughter (?). The wife happened to immediately divorce him and has no contact with him. I think there’s other evidence out there.
He might be guilty, who knows at this point. All I'm saying is that the reports presented on the website don't support a typical violent rape/murder scenario. Yes, it does seem as if the evidence was cherry-picked but it also seems pretty definitive. Having said that, I'm not a doctor. I have however been around enough to know that confessions of guilt are not always true. Some people just break and end up telling the cops what they want to hear, just to make it all stop.
Both could kinda be true. Maybe they feed him once and let him have 15 minutes of sleep. I never sadi that I thought that he is innocent, just that it seems possible. I hope he gets a fair trial and if he's convicted, they should just put one in the back of his head then and there.He wasn’t questioned 20 hours straight-that’s just what the family wants you to think. Other reports say that 20 hours included him sleeping and eating in between.
I remember reading about a bunch of cases, I think it was in the UK, where the death of several babies was attributed to Shaken Baby Syndrome erroneously. It led to to jailing of many innocent parents. But more heart-breakingly it led to families wrongly having surviving children taken from them. Then after the parents were cleared, in some cases the court ordered the children to remain with their adoptive families because it was judged any further disruption to their lives would not be in the best interests of the children.
That doesn't really have a whole lot to do with this case, but it did teach me not to jump the gun and presume guilt where there is a question of guilt, as tempting as that might be.