Shaken Baby Syndrome

SBS/AHT, is a medico-legal diagnosis in babies and toddlers defined by a triad of symptoms: brain swelling, subdural hemorrhages, and retinal hemorrhages. These symptoms were once thought to be caused by parents violently shaking their babies, but research shows this was and still is an unproven hypothesis.

SBS/AHT was not reviewed by an independent scientific agency until 2016. The review found evidence for SBS/AHT to be “insufficient.” The report states that it would be “incompatible with both doctors’ professional duties and the regulations concerning legal certification” to definitely conclude that a child was shaken when the triad of symptoms is present.

The Innocence Network’s Recommendations on Shaken Baby Syndrome/ Abusive Head Trauma Read the Innocence Network’s Full Statement on SBS/AHT at innocencenetwork.org/statementoftheinnocencenetworkonshakenbabsyndrome/
1. Convictions in which experts for the prosecution provided testimony now known to be false, such as rejecting an accidental fall or testifying that retinal or subdural hemorrhages are caused only by abuse or major trauma equivalent to an automobile accident, should be identified and vacated if that testimony was material to the outcome. 2. Prosecutions should not be based on unreliable medical evidence. Expert testimony purporting to “diagnose” SBS/AHT or any form of abuse based on the presence of retinal and/or subdural hemorrhage should not be admitted because it is unreliable. Experts who testify to such diagnoses should advise the courts that the SBS/AHT diagnosis has never been validated, is based on circular reasoning, and is supported at best by confessions that have not been independently validated.
3. Expert testimony in SBS/AHT cases purporting to identify a third-party’s conduct (actus reus) and mental state (mens rea—e.g., intentional, reckless, knowing, or the like) should not be permitted as it is unreliable and usurps the province of the legal factfinder. 4. Since the causes of subdural and retinal hemorrhaging involve unresolved scientific questions, experts who research and/or testify to other conditions associated with these findings must be allowed to speak, testify, conduct research, and express their opinions without the threat of personal or professional censure, intimidation, or sanction. 5. Serious consideration should be given to the suggestion of Dr. Guthkelch and other experts that medical terminology in this area should be changed to distinguish between medical findings and legal conclusions. “Abusive Head Trauma” and “Shaken Baby Syndrome” do not describe medical findings, but instead invoke a legal conclusion that goes beyond what the medical science can support.

Diagnosing SBS/AHT based on the triad of symptoms is similar to suggesting that because someone has a headache and a runny nose they must have the flu; realistically, they could have the common cold or simple allergies. They have overlapping symptoms. If someone came into the doctor with a headache and a runny nose, it would be odd to immediately prescribe that person with Tamiflu before further investigating whether those symptoms could be attributed to something else. That is exactly what is happening here and in many SBS/AHT cases: babies or toddlers exhibit the triad of symptoms, and SBS/AHT is diagnosed without considering alternative causes.

MTIP Legal Director, Caiti Carpenter, discusses controversial medico-legal diagnosis Shaken Baby Syndrome/Abusive Head Trauma:

Relevant MTIP Cases:

Jasmine Eskew

Aaron Oliphant

Robert “Dave” Wilkes