Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T03:40:15.820Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Chapter 19 - Shaken Baby Syndrome/Abusive Head Trauma Opinion Evidence in American Courts

from Section 4 - Law

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 June 2023

By
Kathleen Pakes
Edited by
Keith A. Findley ,
Cyrille Rossant ,
Kana Sasakura ,
Leila Schneps ,
Waney Squier  and
Knut Wester
Keith A. Findley
Affiliation:
University of Wisconsin, Madison
Cyrille Rossant
Affiliation:
University College London
Kana Sasakura
Affiliation:
Konan University, Japan
Leila Schneps
Affiliation:
Sorbonne Université, Paris
Waney Squier
Affiliation:
John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford
Knut Wester
Affiliation:
Universitetet i Bergen, Norway
Get access

Summary

The clinical diagnostic process invokes unvalidated general-causation theory (shaking) as an explanation for clinical findings in infants. These medical findings (subdural haemorrhage, retinal haemorrhage, and encephalopathy) are non-specific and develop in natural diseases and accidents. Yet child protection teams associate these findings with abuse. Such ‘diagnosis’ of abuse, triggers social service and law enforcement intervention. Outside the clinical system, which errs on the side of child safety, the SBS/AHT general-causation theories have been challenged. Biomechanical, neuropathological, and forensic pathology research disputes the validity of the shaking theory. Medical ethicists and epidemiologists question the clinical reliance upon data and studies limited by circular reasoning and case selection bias. While ‘child abuse’ may be a ‘valid diagnosis’ for triggering social service intervention, it is not a scientifically sound diagnosis. Lacking foundational validity and support in the relevant scientific fields, SBS/AHT lacks reliability and general acceptance. Expert opinion of SBS/AHT general causation theory is inadmissible under a Daubert or Frye analysis.

Keywords

expert testimonyadmissibilityevidentiary principlesDaubertFryecircular reasoningcognitive biasgeneral causationspecific causationdifferential diagnosisadvocacy bias
Type
Chapter
Information
Shaken Baby Syndrome
Investigating the Abusive Head Trauma Controversy
 , pp. 287 - 308
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2023

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Narang, SK, Melville, JD, Greeley, CS et al. A Daubert analysis of abusive head trauma/shaken baby syndrome. Part II: An examination of the differential diagnosis. Journal of Health Law and Policy. 2013;203–327.Google Scholar
Christian, CW. Committee on Child Abuse and Neglect clinical report: The evaluation of suspected child physical abuse. Pediatrics. 2015;135(5):e1337–e1354.Google Scholar
Berger, MA. The admissibility of expert testimony, the federal judicial center and National Research Council. In Reference manual on scientific evidence. 3rd ed. Committee on the Development of the Third Edition of the Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence, ed. National Academies Press, 2011, p. 12.Google Scholar
Daubert v Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993).Google Scholar
Evid, Fed. R.. 401.Google Scholar
Kumho Tire Co., Ltd. v Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (1999).Google Scholar
Findley, KA, Strang, DA. Ending manner-of-death testimony and other opinion determinations of crime. Duquesne Law Review. 2022;60:302–38.Google Scholar
Frye v United States, 293 F. 1013(D.C. Cir. 1923).Google Scholar
Wong, JB, Gostin, LO, Cabrera, OA. Reference guide on medical testimony: The Federal Judicial Center and National Research Council. In Reference manual on scientific evidence. 3rd ed. National Academies Press, 2011, p. 690.Google Scholar
Lynøe, N, Eriksson, A. A diagnostic test can prove anything if you use incorrect assumptions and circular reasoning. Acta Paediatrica. 2018;107:2051–3.Google Scholar
Bowers v Norfolk S. Corp., 537 F. Supp. 2d 1343, 1360-61 (M.D. Ga. 2007), aff’d, 300 F. App’x 700 (11th Cir. 2008).Google Scholar
C.W. ex rel. Wood v Textron, Inc., 807 F.3d 827 (7th Cir. 2015).Google Scholar
Tamraz v Lincoln Elec. Co., 620 F.3d 665, 673 (6th Cir. 2010).Google Scholar
Findley, KA, Risinger, DM, Barnes, PD et al. Feigned consensus: Usurping the law in shaken baby syndrome/abusive head trauma prosecutions. Wisconsin Law Review. 2019:1211–67.Google Scholar
Findley, KA, Barnes, PD, Moran, DA, Sperling, C. Examining SBS convictions in light of new medical scientific research. Oklahoma City University Law Review. 2012;37:219–50.Google Scholar
Smith, DW. The death of negative corpus. Proceedings of the 5th International Symposium on Fire Investigation Science and Technology. National Association of Fire Investigators International, 2012.Google Scholar
Goudge Report, P. 520 Inquiry into Pediatric Forensic Pathology in Ontario. Volume 3. www.fixcas.com/news/2008/Vol_3_Eng.pdf.Google Scholar
Ervin v Johnson & Johnson, Inc., 492 F.3d 901 (7th Cir. 2007).Google Scholar
Hendrix v Evenflo Co., Inc., 609 F.3d 1183 (11th Cir. 2010).Google Scholar
Hall v Baxter Healthcare Corp., 947. F.Supp. 1387 (D. Oregon 1996).Google Scholar
In re Bausch & Lomb Inc. Contact lens Solution Products Liability Litigation, 2010 WL 1627807 (D.S.C., 2010).Google Scholar
In re Breast Implant Litigation 11 F.Supp.2d 1217 (D. Colorado 1998).Google Scholar
Wynacht v Beckman Instruments, Inc., 113 F.Supp.2d 1205, 1209 (E.D. Tenn. 2000).Google Scholar
Sanders, J, Faigman, DL, Imrey, PB, Dawid, P. Differential etiology: Inferring specific causation in the law from group data in science. Arizona Law Review. 2021;63:851–921.Google Scholar
McClain v Metabolife Int’l, Inc., 401 F3d 1233, 1253 (11th Cir. 2005).Google Scholar
Brief for the American Association for the Advancement of Science and the National Academy of Sciences as Amici Curiae, Daubert v Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993).Google Scholar
Calvo, F, Karras, BT, Phillips, R et al. Diagnoses, syndromes, and diseases: A knowledge representation problem. In AMIA 2003 annual symposium proceedings, vol. 2003. American Medical Informatics Association, 2003, p. 802.Google Scholar
Wulff, HR. Rational diagnosis and treatment: An introduction to clinical decision-making. 2nd ed. Blackwell Scientific, 1981. Diagnosis As a Matter of Opinion, p. 109.Google Scholar
Brooks, W, Weathers, L. Overview of shaken baby syndrome. In The shaken baby syndrome: A multidisciplinary approach. Lazoritz, S, Palusci, VJ, eds. Haworth Press, 2001.Google Scholar
Caffey, J. On the theory and practice of shaking infants. American Journal of Diseases of Children. 1972;124:161–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Caffey, J. The whiplash shaken infant syndrome. Pediatrics. 1974;54(4):396–403.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dykes, LJ. The whiplash shaken infant syndrome: What has been learned? Child Abuse and Neglect. 1986;10:211–21.Google Scholar
Ludwig, S, Warman, M. SBS: A review of 20 cases. Annals of Emergency Medicine. 1984;13(2):104–7.Google Scholar
Billmire, E, Myers, P. Serious head injury in infants: Accident or abuse? Pediatrics. 1985;75(2):340–2.Google Scholar
American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on Child Abuse and Neglect. Shaken baby syndrome: Inflicted cerebral trauma. Pediatrics. 1993;92(6):872–5.Google Scholar
Chadwick, DL, Kirschner, RH, Reece, RM et al. Shaken baby syndrome: A forensic pediatric response. Pediatrics. 1998;101:321–3.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ommaya, AK, Goldsmith, W, Thibault, L. Biomechanics and neuropathology of adult and paediatric head injury. British Journal of Neurosurgery. 2002;16(3):220–42.Google Scholar
Reece, RM, Nicholson, CE, eds. Inflicted childhood neurotrauma: Proceedings of a conference sponsored by Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health, National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, Office of Rare Diseases, National Center for Medical Rehabilitation Research. American Academy of Pediatrics, 2002.Google Scholar
Jenny, C. Modes of presentation of inflicted childhood neurotrauma. In Inflicted childhood neurotrauma: Proceedings of a conference sponsored by Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health, National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, Office of Rare Diseases, National Center for Medical Rehabilitation Research. Reece, RM, Nicholson, CE, eds. American Academy of Pediatrics, 2002, pp. 49–63.Google Scholar
Nelson v Tennessee Gas Pipeline Co., 243 F.3d 244, 254 (6th Cir. 2001).Google Scholar
Young v Burton, 567 F. Supp.2d 121, 137 (D. D.C. 2008).Google Scholar
Mancuso v Consol. Edison Co. of N.Y., 967 F. Supp. 1437, 1450 (S.D.N.Y. 1997).Google Scholar
Durden v Sec’y of Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., No. 05-163V, 2007 WL 4962000, at *13 (Fed. Cl. 26 September 2007).Google Scholar
O’Conner v Commonwealth Edison Co., 807 F. Supp. 1376, 1396 (C.D. Ill. 1992).Google Scholar
Vinchon, M. Reply to Professor Charles Hyman: The scientific controversy over AHT in infants. Child’s Nervous System. 2011;27:203–4.Google Scholar
Rowe, DS, Leonard, MF, Seashore, MR et al. A hospital program for the detection and registration of abused and neglected children. New England Journal of Medicine. 1970;282:950–2.Google Scholar
Besharov, DJ. What physicians should know about child abuse reporting laws. In Child abuse and neglect: A medical reference. Ellersetin, NS, ed. Wiley, 1981, pp. 21–50.Google Scholar
Hansen, P, Ainsworth, F. Examining child protection practice in New South Wales: Non-accidental injury and the principle of strict liability. Children Australia. 2020;45:8–13.Google Scholar
Choudhary, AK, Narang, SK, Moreno, JA et al. A consensus response on the complete picture: Reply to Lynøe and Eriksson. Pediatric Radiology. 2019;49:424–8.Google Scholar
Duhaime, AC, Christian, CW. Abusive head trauma: Evidence, obfuscation, and informed management. Journal of Neurosurgery: Pediatrics. 2019;24:481–8.Google Scholar
Brown, SD. Ethical challenges in child abuse: What is the harm of a misdiagnosis? Pediatric Radiology. 2021;51:1070–5.Google Scholar
Kempe, CH, Silverman, FN, Steele, BF et al. The battered child syndrome. JAMA. 1962;181:17–24. Reprinted in Journal of the American Medical Association. 1984;251(24):3294.Google Scholar
Helfer, RE, Kempe, CH. The child’s need for early recognition, immediate care and protection. In Helping the battered child and family. Kempe, CH, ed. Lippincott, 1972, pp. 69–78.Google Scholar
Report to the President Forensic Science in Criminal Courts. Ensuring Scientific Validity of Feature-Comparison Methods, Executive Office of the President, President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, 2016, pp. 1–160.Google Scholar
Keenan, HT, Campbell, KA, Page, K et al. Perceived social risk in medical decision-making for physical child abuse: A mixed-methods study. BMC Pediatrics. 2017;17(214):1–10.Google Scholar
Rivara, FP, Kamitsuka, MD, Quan, L. Injuries to children younger than 1 year of age. Pediatrics. 1988;81(1):93–7.Google Scholar
Kellogg, ND. Evaluation of suspected child physical abuse. Pediatrics. 2007;119(6):1232–41.Google Scholar
Goldstein, B, Kelly, MM, Bruton, D et al. Inflicted versus accidental head injury in critically injured children. Critical Care Medicine. 1993;21(9):1328–32.Google Scholar
Wester, K, Stridbeck, U, Syse, A, Wikstrom, J. Re-evaluation of medical findings in alleged shaken baby syndrome and abusive head trauma in Norwegian courts fails to support abuse diagnoses. Acta Paediatrica. 2022;111(4):779–92. https://doi.org/10.1111/apa.15956.Google Scholar
Kirschner, RH, Stein, RJ. The mistaken diagnosis of child abuse: A form of medical abuse? American Journal of Diseases of Children. 1985;139:873–5.Google Scholar
Anderst, J, Nielsen-Parker, M, Moffatt, M et al. Using simulation to identify sources of medical diagnostic error in child physical abuse. Child Abuse and Neglect. 2016;52:62–9.Google Scholar
Schiff, GD. Minimizing diagnostic error: The importance of follow-up and feedback. American Journal of Medicine. 2008;121(5A):S38–S42.Google Scholar
American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on Child Abuse and Neglect. Shaken baby syndrome: Rotational cranial injuries. Technical report. Pediatrics. 2001;108(1):206–10.Google Scholar
Guthkelch, AN. Problems of infant retino-dural hemorrhage with minimal external injury. Houston Journal of Health Law and Policy. 2012;12:201–8.Google Scholar
Hobbs, CJ. Skull fracture and the diagnosis of abuse. Archives of Disease in Childhood. 1984;59:246–52.Google Scholar
Lynøe, N, Juth, N, Eriksson, A. From child protection to paradigm protection: The genesis development and defense of a scientific paradigm. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy. 2018:1–13. https://doi.org/10.1093/jmp/jhy015.Google Scholar
Högberg, U, Lampa, E, Högberg, G et al. Infant abuse diagnosis associated with abusive head trauma criteria: Incidence increase due to overdiagnosis? European Journal of Public Health. 2018;28(4):641–6.Google Scholar
Riggs, JE, Hobbs, GR. Infant homicide and accidental death in the United States, 1940–2005: Ethics and epidemiological classification. Journal of Medical Ethics. 2011;37:445–8.Google Scholar
Case, ME, Graham, MA, Handy, TC et al. Position paper on fatal abusive head injuries in infants and young children. American Journal of Forensic Medicine and Pathology. 2001;22(2):112–22.Google Scholar
Tuerkheimer, D. Science-dependent prosecution and the problem of epistemic contingency: A study of shaken baby syndrome. Alabama Law Review. 2011;62:513–69.Google Scholar
Narang, SK. A Daubert analysis of abusive head trauma/shaken baby syndrome. Houston Journal of Health Law and Policy. 2011;11:505–635.Google Scholar
Hymel, KP, Jenny, C, Block, RW. Intracranial hemorrhage and rebleeding in suspected victims of abusive head trauma: Addressing the forensic controversies. Child Maltreatment. 2002;7(4):329–48.Google Scholar
Matschke, J, Voss, J, Obi, N et al. Nonaccidental head injury is the most common cause of subdural bleeding in infants < 1 year of age. Pediatrics. 2009;124(6):1587–94.Google Scholar
Scheimberg, I, Cohen, MC, Zapata, RE et al. Nontraumatic intradural and subdural hemorrhage and hypoxic ischemic encephalopathy in fetuses, infants, and children up to three years of age: Analysis of two audits of 636 cases from two referral centers in the United Kingdom. Pediatric and Developmental Pathology. 2013;16:149–59.Google Scholar
Hogberg, G, Colville-Ebeling, B, Hogberg, U et al. Circularity bias in abusive head trauma studies could be diminished with a new ranking scale. Egyptian Journal of Forensic Sciences. 2016;6:6–10.Google Scholar
Blumbergs, P, Reilly, P, Vink, R. Trauma. In Greenfield’s neuropathology: Volume I. 8th ed. Love, S, Louis, DN, Ellison, DW, eds. Edward Arnold, 2008, pp. 733–831.Google Scholar
Geddes, JF, Hacksaw, AK, Vowels, GH et al. Neuropathology of inflicted head injury in children I. Patterns of brain damage. Brain. 2001;124:1290–8.Google Scholar
Geddes, JF, Vowels, GH, Hacksaw, AK et al. Neuropathology of inflicted head injury in children II. Microscopic brain injury in infants. Brain. 2001;124:1299–1306.Google Scholar
Oehmichen, M, Schleiss, D, Pedal, I. Shaken baby syndrome: Re-examination of diffuse axonal injury as cause of death. Acta Neuropathologica. 2008;116:317–29.Google Scholar
Matschke, J, Buttner, A, Bergman, M et al. Encephalopathy and death in infants with abusive head trauma is due to hypoxic-ischemic injury following local brain trauma to vital brainstem centers. International Journal of Legal Medicine. 2015;129:105–14.Google Scholar
Geddes, JF, Tasker, RC, Hacksaw, AK et al. Dural haemorrhage in non-traumatic infant deaths: Does it explain the bleeding in ‘shaken baby syndrome’? Neuropathology and Applied Neurobiology. 2003;29:14–22.Google Scholar
Geddes, JF. Nonaccidental trauma: Clinical aspects and epidemiology of child abuse. Pediatric Radiology. 2009;39(7):759–61.Google Scholar
Lantz, PE, Stanton, CA. Postmortem detection & evaluation of retinal hemorrhages. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 2006;271:12 (retinal haemorrhages present at autopsy in infants who died from meningitis, asphyxia/suffocation, prematurity/congenital conditions, heart disease, in utero haemorrhage, blunt force trauma, sudden infant death syndrome/resuscitation, apnoea/gastro-oesophageal reflux, and birth-related causes).Google Scholar
Thiblin, I, Andersson, J, Wester, K et al. Retinal hemorrhage in infants investigated for suspected maltreatment is strongly correlated with intracranial pathology. Acta Pediatrica. 2021;00:1–9.Google Scholar
Christian, CW, Levin, AV. The eye examination in the evaluation of child abuse. Pediatrics. 2018;142(2):1–8.Google Scholar
Mattheij, M, Venstermans, C, de Veuster, I et al. Retinal haemorrhages in a university hospital: Not always abusive head injury. Acta Neurologica Belgica. 2017;117:515–22.Google Scholar
Duhaime, AC, Alario, AJ, Lewander, WJ. Head injury in very young children: Mechanisms, injuries, and ophthalmologic findings in 100 hospitalized patients younger than 2 years of age. Pediatrics. 1992;90(2):179–85.Google Scholar
Emerson, MV, Jacobs, E, Green, WR. Ocular autopsy and histopathologic features of child abuse. Ophthalmology. 2007;114:1384–94.Google Scholar
Del Prete v Thompson, 10 F.Supp.3d 907, 931-2 (N.D.Ill. 2014).Google Scholar
Callaway, NF, Ludwig, CA, Blumenkranz, MS et al. Retinal and optic nerve hemorrhages in the newborn infant: One-year results of the Newborn Eye Screen Test (NEST) study. Ophthalmology. 2016;123(5):1043–52.Google Scholar
Mena, OJ, Paul, I, Reichard, RR. Ocular findings in raised intracranial pressure. American Journal of Forensic Medicine and Pathology. 2011;32:55–7.Google Scholar
Bhardwaj, G, Jacobs, MB, Moran, KT et al. Terson syndrome with ipsilateral severe hemorrhagic retinopathy in a 7-month-old child. Journal of the American Association for Pediatric Ophthalmology and Strabismus. 2010;14:5;441–3.Google Scholar
Agrawal, S, Peters, MJ, Adams, GW et al. Prevalence of retinal hemorrhages in critically ill children. Pediatrics. 2012;129(6):e1388–e1396.Google Scholar
Minns, RA, Jones, PA, Tandon, A et al. Raised intracranial pressure and retinal haemorrhages in childhood encephalopathies. Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology. 2017;59:597–604.Google Scholar
Gardner, HB. Letter to editor. Archives of Pediatrics. (16 April 2012).Google Scholar
Galaznik, J. Response to ‘Retinal Hemorrhages in Children’ by Ms Shiau and Dr. Levin. (16 April 2012).Google Scholar
Vinchon, M, Delestret, I, Defoort-Dhellemmes, S et al. Subdural hematoma in infants: Can it occur spontaneously? Data from a prospective series and critical review of the literature. Child’s Nervous System. 2010;26:119501205.Google Scholar
Shuman, MJ, Hutchins, KD. Severe retinal hemorrhages with retinoschisis in infants are not pathognomonic for abusive head trauma. Journal of Forensic Science. 2017;62(3):807–11.Google Scholar
Coats, B, Binenbaum, G, Smith, C et al. Cyclic head rotations produce modest brain injury in infant piglets. Journal of Neurotrauma. 2016;33:1–13.Google Scholar
Thiblin, I, Anderson, J, Wester, K et al. Medical findings and symptoms in infants exposed to witnessed or admitted abusive shaking: A nationwide registry study. PLoS One. 2020;15(10):1–14. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0240182.Google Scholar
Levin, AV. Retinal hemorrhages of crush head injury: Learning from outliers. Archives of Ophthalmology. 2006;124:1773–4.Google Scholar
Levin, AV. Ophthalmic manifestations of inflicted childhood neurotrauma. In Inflicted childhood neurotrauma: Proceedings of a conference sponsored by Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health, National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, Office of Rare Diseases, National Center for Medical Rehabilitation Research. Reece, RM, Nicholson, CE, eds. American Academy of Pediatrics, 2002, pp. 127–64.Google Scholar
Togioka, BM, Arnold, MA, Bathurst, MA et al. Retinal hemorrhages and shaken baby syndrome: An evidence-based review. Journal of Emergency Medicine. 2009;37(1):98–106.Google Scholar
Levin, AV, Christian, CW, Committee on Child Abuse and Neglect, Section on Ophthalmology. The eye examination in the evaluation of child abuse. Pediatrics. 2010;126;376.Google Scholar
Kahneman, D. Thinking fast and slow. Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2011, p. 62.Google Scholar
Kaye, DH, Freedman, DA . Reference guide on statistics. In Reference manual on scientific evidence. 3rd ed. National Academies Press, 2011, pp. 218–19.Google Scholar
Meister v Medical Engineering Corp., 267 F.3d 1123, 1129, 347 U.S.App.D.C. 361, 367 (C.A.D.C.,2001).Google Scholar
Black v Food Lion, Inc., 171 F.3d 308, 314 (5th Cir.1999).Google Scholar
Levinson, JD, Pasquale, MA, Lambert, SR. Diffuse bilateral retinal hemorrhages in an infant with a coagulopathy and prolonged cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Journal of the American Association for Pediatric Ophthalmology and Strabismus. 2016;20(2):166–8.Google Scholar
Risinger, DM. Defining the task at hand: Non-science forensic science after Kumho Tire Co. v Carmichael. Washington and Lee Law Review. 2000;57:767, 776–7.Google Scholar
Duhaime, AC, Gennarelli, RA, Thibault, LE et al. The shaken baby syndrome: A clinical, pathological, and biomechanical study. Journal of Neurosurgery. 1987;66:409–15.Google Scholar
Matshes, EW. Retinal and optic nerve sheath hemorrhages are not pathognomonic of abusive head injury. Proceedings of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences. 2010. www.aafs.org/sites/default/files/media/documents/AAFS-2010-G1.pdf.Google Scholar
Narang, SK, Estrada, C, Greenberg, S et al. Acceptance of shaken baby syndrome and abusive head trauma as medical diagnoses. Journal of Pediatrics. 2016;177:273–8.Google Scholar
Donohoe, M. Evidence-based medicine and shaken baby syndrome. Part I: Literature review, 1966–1998. American Journal of Forensic and Medical Pathology. 2003;24:239–42.Google Scholar
DiMaio, VJ, DiMaio, D. Forensic pathology. CRC Press, 2001, p. 362.Google Scholar
Dias, MS. The case for shaking. In Child abuse and neglect. Jenny, C., ed. Saunders, 2011, pp. 364–72.Google Scholar
SBU Assessment Report 255E/2016 Traumatic Shaking. The role of the triad in medical investigations of suspected traumatic shaking: A systematic review. Swedish Agency for Health Technology Assessment and Assessment of Social Services.Google Scholar
Lynøe, N, Elinder, G, Hallberg, B et al. Insufficient evidence for ‘shaken baby syndrome’: A systematic review. Acta Paediatrica. 2017;106:1021–7.Google Scholar
101 General Elec. Co. v Joiner, 522 R.C. U.S. 136 (1997).Google Scholar
Findley, KA, Risinger, DM, Barnes, PD et al. Feigned consensus: Usurping the law in shaken baby syndrome/abusive head trauma prosecutions. Wisconsin Law Review. 2019;1211:1238–45.Google Scholar
Choudhary, AK, Servaes, S, Slovis, T et al. Consensus statement on abusive head trauma in infants and young children. Pediatric Radiology. 2018;48(8):1048–65.Google Scholar
Findley, KA, Barnes, PD, Moran, DA, Squier, W. Shaken baby syndrome, abusive head trauma, and actual innocence: Getting it right. Houston Journal of Health Law and Policy. 2012;12:209–312.Google Scholar
Greenhalgh, T. How to read a paper: The basics of evidence-based medicine and healthcare. 6th ed. Wiley Blackwell, 2019.Google Scholar
Bhardwaj, G, Chowdhury, V, Jacobs, MB et al. A systematic review of the Diagnostic Accuracy of Ocular Signs in Pediatric Abusive Head Trauma. Ophthalmology. 2010;117:983–92.Google Scholar
Maguire, S, Pickerd, N, Farewell, D et al. Which clinical features distinguish inflicted from non-inflicted brain injury? A systematic review. Archives of Disease in Childhood. 2009:94:860–7.Google Scholar
Maguire, SA, Kemp, AM, Lumb, RC et al. Estimating the probability of abusive head trauma: A pooled analysis. Pediatrics. 2011;128;e550.Google Scholar
Piteau, SJ, Ward, MGK, Barrowman, NJ et al. Clinical and radiographic characteristics associated with abusive and nonabusive head trauma: A systematic review Pediatrics. 2012;130(2):315–23.Google Scholar
Kemp, AM, Jaspan, T, Griffiths, J et al. Neuroimaging: What neuroradiological features distinguish abusive from non-abusive head trauma? A systematic review. Archives of Disease in Childhood. 2011;96(12):1103–12. https://doi.org/10.1136/archdischild-2011-300630.Google Scholar
Vinchon, M, Deefoort-Dhellemmes, S, Desuromont, M et al. Accidental and nonaccidental head injuries in infants: A prospective study. Journal of Neurosurgery (Pediatrics 4). 2005;102 :380–4.Google Scholar
Greeley, C. Justice for Rehma. Science under attack: ‘I can say with 100% medical certainty that abusive head trauma is what a child has and then I stop[.]’ https://edition.cnn.com/interactive/2021/12/health/shaken-baby-syhndrome-legal-battle/chapter-2.html.Google Scholar
Aspelin, P. Keynote address: Can a sign or occult finding predict a causal relationship? How to reason about possible child abuse. University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform. 2017;50(3):757.Google Scholar
Lynøe, N, Rosen, M, Eriksson, A. Questions about isolated traumatic shaking and confessions. Child’s Nervous System. 2017;33:731–2.Google Scholar
Vinchon, M. Response to Lynøe: Questions about isolated trauma shaking and confessions. Child’s Nervous System. 2017;33(9):1423–4.Google Scholar
Lynøe, N, Rosen, M, Eriksson, A. Vinchon’s responses raise additional questions about the shaken baby-study. Child’s Nervous System. 2018;34 :11–13.Google Scholar
Damon-Moore, SL. Trial judges and the forensic science problem. New York University Law Review. 2017;92:1532–70.Google Scholar
State v Jacoby, 2018 WL 5098763(N.J.Super.L.)(Trial Order).Google Scholar
State v Darryl Nieves, Decision issued 7 January 2022 (Indictment No. 17- 06-00785)(N.J.Super.Court).Google Scholar
Guthkelch, AN. Infantile subdural haematoma and its relationship to whiplash injuries. British Medical Journal. 1971;2:430–1.Google Scholar
Shapiro, M, Walker, M, Carroll, KT et al. Neuroanatomy of cranial dural vessels: Implications for subdural hematoma embolization. Journal of Neurointerventional Surgery. 2021;13:471–7.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×