Much has been written about the alleged crime of Yisroel Valis. Rumors are flying in all directions that range from Valis being a psychotic child-killer to being a distraught father who accidently dropped his baby.
I don't have the evidence at hand, and, as such, I'm not going to make a call on this one way or the other. However, DovBear makes an excellent point:
The trouble with the "accident defense" is that it is see-through. Every accused child abuser trots out that line, but a competant medical examinar can tell very easily the difference between a beating and an accident. They leave different injuries. A child who was dropped on the floor won’t look like a child who was beaten, or thrown against the wall.
I'm assuming that those who have already proclaimed him innocent of all charges are not forensic specialists and have not viewed all the evidence. And yet, there is still a huge push for his release and exonoration.
I made the following comment at DovBear's website:
The problem is that you are dealing with a segment of society where "science" is an evil word. As such, any forensic "evidence" that shows the child was abused is clearly false since it originated with evil, athiest "scientists."
I think that this bears repeating. These are the same people who are quick to dismiss any scientific idea that doesn't fit into their worldview, no matter how demonstrable it is and how much actual evidence can be brought to bear on the subject. Even "non-controversial" scientific findings that can be directly observed and proved in a labotory (the revolution of the Earth around the sun and microevoltuion come to mind) are dismissed with the attitude that the scientists are either lying, stupid or engaged in some massive cover-up.
As I said, I haven't seen the forensic evidence with regard to the Valis baby. But don't be surprised if the report comes back that the baby was abused and people will just willy-nilly disregard it because it's based in "science."