Shaken Baby Syndrome: Cut and Dried?

The known wisdom has it that a baby, when shaken, can be terribly brain-damaged. Blood vessels in its retinas will burst, clouding its eyes. Brain hemorrhages will cause bleeding inside and outside the outer membrane, putting pressure on the delicate membranes and eventually causing seizures, unconsciousness, and even death.

Forensic scientists know that these are classic signs of shaken-baby syndrome, caused when the weak muscles of a baby's neck allow the relatively heavy head to snap back and forth, the whiplash effect causing forces much greater than the shaking itself.

They also know that, because symptoms set on rapidly, the last person with the child is necessarily the guilty party. Dozens of people have been convicted of manslaughter and murder on the basis of this evidence.

But what if the forensic scientists are wrong? What if the symptoms can set in more slowly? And what if other things besides shaking can cause these same symptoms and lead to the death of the child?

The death of a baby is a terrible thing. But a wrongful conviction is at least as bad.

Facts About Shaken Baby Convictions

Experts can be found who will swear both sides of shaken-baby physical evidence; this means whoever can hire the most experts will probably win.

In shaken-baby cases, the prosecution assumes that the person who had custody of the child within four hours of its death is almost certainly its murderer.

A judge has barred the use of the words "shaken-baby" in a child's death because he feels the term itself can be prejudicial to his juries.

In a "Daubert" test in Kentucky (this is a sort of trial of the evidence rather than the criminal), a judge determined that the very foundation of shaken-baby syndrome is based primarily on educated guesses, not certainty, and thus may be invalid in court.

About 1500 shaken-baby cases were recorded in the US in 2006.The Argument For - and Against - Shaken Baby Syndrome

The American Pediatrics Association has long agreed that shaken-baby syndrome displays a classic triad of signs. Many child advocates and other legal players also point out that because perpetrators of child abuse describe shaking the injured child, that shaken-baby abuse does occur.

Still, the retinal hemorrhage is found only 2.39 times as often in a confessed case of shaken baby syndrome - it is still found in many other cases that are questionably shaken-baby or that are patently not. Many legal experts also point out that false confession is the second most common cause of wrongful convictions - and therefore confession may not be the best foundation for a legal argument of such importance.

Some doctors are agreeing with the Florida judge and eschewing the use of "shaken baby" altogether, instead referring to it as "abusive head trauma." This despite the fact that they often still believe only shaking a baby can cause these symptoms. Why? Because the phrase itself may be prejudicial to a jury.

Other recent research has shown that the shaken baby very often may not die within four hours; in fact, the child may have as many as 20 hours, during part of which he or she may act perfectly normal. The key triad of signs have been shown to have causes other than shaking - a fall, for instance, could do it in some cases. With baby dummies, a drop from only three feet onto a carpet could cause the triad to appear.

In one case, Audrey Edmonds, a home daycare provider, was caring for her two children and two other children. One baby had been ill, but when they dropped her off, her parents reported that she was much better. Still, the worker found the baby to be fussy that day. And when she left the child, bottle propped in her mouth, for a moment to check on another child, she returned to find the baby limp and crying. The baby died in the hospital hours later.

The daycare provider, five months pregnant at the time, was charged with shaken baby syndrome. There were no eyewitnesses, only the timeframe: the baby had been with Edmonds during the critical four-hour time period prior to her death. There was no physical evidence other than the dead child's classic triad of symptoms. Yet this woman was convicted of murder, and has spent the last twelve years in jail.

Recently, one of the scientific experts who put her there has been trying to recant his testimony. Current evidence, he says, indicates that a shaken baby may not show symptoms for many hours, and could have a lucid interval lasting up to fifteen hours - more than enough time to cast doubt on the worker's guilt. One medical examiner suggested that the baby had a choking event of some sort, perhaps from the propped bottle, and that lack of oxygen to the brain caused brain hemorrhage and swelling - a common effect of oxygen deprivation on young babies.

Yet prosecutors deny the validity of the many scientific experts coming forward. And Audrey Edmonds remains in jail, separated from her three daughters.

While abuse of a child in any way is heinous, the wrongful conviction of a person is also heinous. In this case, did the right person get convicted (for that matter, was it a crime or a terrible accident)? Or are people believing scientific evidence presented that they do not understand, assuming the scientists giving it are correct just because they are scientists?

Too often, we forget that scientists are not infallible. Only three hundred years ago medicines involving dung and urine were popular for healing, and widespread vaccination has only been around for the last century. Like other scientific "facts," shaken baby syndrome needs to be revisited, lest innocent people go to prison.