zlacker

I think the point is that you don’t get shaken dead babies without visible external trauma.

So saying it’s ‘shaken baby syndrome’ just because there are internal injuries is junk science.

>>Aeolun+(OP)
> you don’t get shaken dead babies without visible external trauma.

According to the Mayo Clinic you can:

"While sometimes there's bruising on the face, you may not see signs of physical injury to the child's outer body."

>>lisper+a7
Mayo Clinic's info is just a popular science article, with very high level information and suggestions.

It doesn't get into the nuance, nor is intended as a validation for facile forensic based witch-hunting.

>>Aeolun+(OP)
Actually opposite.

Many forms of trauma can cause these injuries (especially 'trio'), but alone and without matching external trauma, shaking becomes the most likely cause.

Which isn't to say that shaking couldn't also cause some external trauma.

>>beeran+je
Isn’t the whole premise of the original article that the thing has been proven to be junk?

Just the fact it’s on mayoclinic doesn’t mean all that much.