GIST:  This comprehensive, insightful, often moving, if not maddening article describes: "a war that is being played out in courtroom after courtroom – with the fate of the accused parents hanging on how well one expert or another happens to make their case.  On one side, there’s the view of the police, prosecutors and the medical establishment: when this triad of symptoms is found, it very strongly suggests shaking, even when other signs that a baby has been aggressively shaken, such as bruising, neck injuries or fractures, are absent. The establishment insists it is solely motivated by a desire to protect babies from dangerous parents; it sometimes characterises opponents as seeking fame, or lucrative expert-witness pay cheques. On the other side are the sceptics. They insist the prosecutorial forces aren’t concerned with justice so much as courtroom victories. They point to high-profile cases in which triad prosecutions have been overturned, and parents who have been wrongfully imprisoned and had children taken away. They say you can’t look at an x-ray or scan and deduce that a baby has been shaken. According to leading sceptics such as Dr John Plunkett, of the Regina Hospital in Hastings, Minnesota, shaking doesn’t even cause the triad. “You can’t cause these injuries by shaking,” he says. “It’s something else; the kid has banged its head on the ground or there’s some other underlying disease.” Both sides boast their own authoritative specialists, steeped in the science, many of whom are informed by a lifetime’s clinical or laboratory experience. But the consequences could hardly be more grave. It’s impossible to find accurate figures on charges or convictions, because shaking-related charges are brought in myriad ways, including manslaughter, child abuse, grievous bodily harm, child neglect and so on. It is believed, though, that about 250 shaken baby prosecutions are heard in the UK every year. In the US, the figure is more like 1,500 – and there are thought to be at least five parents currently on death row, awaiting execution for shaking their babies to death." This article also describes the brutal attacks by some police and the medical establishment on researchers, such as Dr. Waney Squier, who risk their professional standing by denying  the existence of 'The Syndrome.' As the sub-heading clearly states:  "Expert witnesses who claim parents have been wrongly accused have been vilified and struck off. But the science is anything but certain. What happens to the truth when experts can’t agree?" A story well worth reading.  HL;

The entire story can be found  at:

PUBLISHER'S NOTE: I am monitoring this case/issue. Keep your eye on the Charles Smith Blog for reports on developments. The Toronto Star, my previous employer for more than twenty incredible years, has put considerable effort into exposing the harm caused by Dr. Charles Smith and his protectors - and into pushing for reform of Ontario's forensic pediatric pathology system. The Star has a "topic" section which focuses on recent stories related to Dr. Charles Smith. It can be found at: Information on "The Charles Smith Blog Award"- and its nomination process - can be found at: Please send any comments or information on other cases and issues of interest to the readers of this blog to: Harold Levy; Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog;