Shop

Judges and juries hearing cases of alleged physical abuse of babies rely on expert witnesses to illuminate the medical evidence based on an impartial examination of the record and the victims. But in two fascinating investigative profiles co-published by ProPublica and The New Yorker, ProPublica Senior Reporter David Armstrong exposed a pair of sought-after expert witnesses who fall far short of this standard. Both work exclusively for accused child abusers and use dubious scientific arguments to make their case, potentially undermining justice and endangering children. Their success underscores the susceptibility of the U.S. judicial system to junk science, as well as the growing suspicion of mainstream medicine in an era when misinformation quickly spreads online.