Abstract
The triad of clinical signs, (extensive bilateral retinal haemorrhages, subdural haematoma, and encephalopathy) is regarded by some expert witnesses as pathognomonic proof that an infant was deliberately shaken and head injured (shaken baby syndrome / abusive head injury). However, that view is controversial since scientific evidence does not support the diagnostic accuracy of the triad. In contrast to previous cases, a Victorian Supreme Court jury found an accused not guilty of homicide of a one-month-old infant afflicted with the triad. Prosecution witnesses were heavily criticized for failing to provide impartial testimony and to abide by Supreme Court expert evidence rules. We argue that there is a need to reassess the manner in which expert witness testimony is considered by the courts in shaken baby cases where injury has caused the death of the infant.