Just weeks before Texas is sched­uled to exe­cute Cathy Henderson (pic­tured) for the mur­der of a child that she was babysit­ting, the med­ical exam­in­er whose tes­ti­mo­ny helped send her to death row has said he no longer stands by his orig­i­nal opin­ion that the child’s death result­ed from an inten­tion­al act on Henderson’s part. In light of new sci­en­tif­ic evi­dence show­ing that Brandon Baugh’s death could have result­ed from an acci­den­tal fall, retired Travis County chief med­ical exam­in­er Roberto Bayardo has sub­mit­ted an affi­davit to the court stat­ing, Had the new sci­en­tif­ic infor­ma­tion been avail­able to me in 1995, I would not have been able to tes­ti­fy the way I did about the degree of force need­ed to cause Brandon Baugh’s head injury. I can­not deter­mine with a rea­son­able degree of med­ical cer­tain­ty whether Brandon Baugh’s injuries result­ed from an inten­tion­al act of an accidental fall.”

Since her arrest near­ly 13 years ago, Henderson has main­tained that Brandon Baugh’s death was the result of a trag­ic acci­dent. She claims that the infant acci­den­tal­ly fell from her arms after she stepped on a toy while spin­ning him around. During her tri­al, Bayardo tes­ti­fied that Baugh’s injuries could not have result­ed from a short dis­tance fall, as Henderson claimed. Now, based on recent stud­ies and bio­chem­i­cal analy­sis, four experts in the field of foren­sic pathol­o­gy have con­clud­ed that Bayardo erred in con­clud­ing that the injuries sus­tained by the infant could not have come from a short dis­tance fall” of four feet or less. One of the experts, Dr. John Plunkett, stat­ed in an affi­davit, It is impos­si­ble for any qual­i­fied sci­en­tist or physi­cian to con­clude, whether to a rea­son­able degree of med­ical cer­tain­ty or beyond a rea­son­able doubt, that any inten­tion­al and delib­er­ate act caused Brandon Baugh’s death.”

Henderson’s exe­cu­tion is sched­uled for June 13. She has peti­tioned the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals to stay her exe­cu­tion and review her case based on the new sci­en­tif­ic evi­dence.
(Court TV​.com, May 30, 2007). See Court TV’s Web page about this case. See also Women.

Citation Guide