"Amy had, the trial heard, suffered a brain injury, detached retina and retinal haemorrhaging and had seizures for five days. Doctors
who treated baby Amy said her injuries were consistent with violent
shaking, were non-accidental and that it was highly likely they had
happened to her while in Ms Higgins's care. One leading UK child abuse expert stated that it was "a classic, textbook case" of shaken baby syndrome. SBS,
a form of abusive head trauma, is normally confirmed with symptoms
including subdural haemorrhaging, bleeding in the retina, and brain
swelling. The jury in the trial of Ms Higgins was tasked with deciding
two issues that go to the heart of the syndrome: the mechanism and the
timing of the injuries. In his
closing speech to the jury, Prosecutor Sean Gillane SC told the jurors
they had one simple question to ask: when did the child go from normal
to abnormal and what does that mean to you? Remy
Farrell SC, who defended Ms Higgins, queried, however, how the
prosecution could assert Amy was a perfectly normal child up to March 28
but was silent on the older injuries, including fractured ribs and
fingertip bruises on her back. The
defence, which argued the evidence was more suggestive of a head trauma
and the possible re-activation of an old injury, said it was not
contending for accidental injury. And Mr Farrell urged the jury to
acquit if they couldn't say conclusively what happened and if they had
any doubt that Sandra Higgins inflicted the injuries. For reasons we cannot know, the jury disagreed. This is, perhaps, a reflection of disagreement in the medical arena on shaken baby syndrome."
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/jurys-indecision-mirrors-that-of-doctors-on-shaken-baby-syndrome-31331154.html