Shaken baby syndrome (SBS) is well accepted by child abuse paediatricians as an explanation for the triad when parents/caregivers can provide no explanation. There is mounting evidence on many fronts that SBS is not a valid or well-defined diagnosis, and that many cases of SBS have medical causes or are from accidental short falls. An incorrect SBS diagnosis has far-reaching implications for the alleged perpetrator, the family, the child, and society. The three most compelling reasons to doubt the existence of SBS are: multiple biomechanical studies show that shaking cannot produce nearly the forces needed to cause the triad; sutopsy studies of most infants with alleged SBS do not show microscopic findings of trauma, but rather of hypoxia; retinal hemorrhages - once thought pathognomonic of shaking through vitreous retraction - are seen wherever there is an abrupt and significant rise in intracranial pressure and are highly unlikely to be caused by shaking. This review also provides observations that question the existence of SBS and the underlying psychological reasons why SBS proponents do not accept the compelling evidence that puts the diagnosis of SBS into question.