Changes

'''Shaken Baby Syndrome''' (SBS) was defined by Dr. John Caffey in 1972.<ref>Caffey J: On the theory and practice of shaking infants. American Journal of Diseases in Children 124(2):161-169, August 1972, cited in [http://www.susancanthony.com/Resources/SBS/sbsres.html Shaken Baby Syndrome Resources] by Susan C. Anthony</ref> It is widely viewed today as "[[junk science]]," yet prosecutions persist (see also the note below):

'''Shaken Baby Syndrome''' (SBS) was defined by Dr. John Caffey in 1972.<ref>Caffey J: On the theory and practice of shaking infants. American Journal of Diseases in Children 124(2):161-169, August 1972, cited in [http://www.susancanthony.com/Resources/SBS/sbsres.html Shaken Baby Syndrome Resources] by Susan C. Anthony</ref> It is widely viewed today as [[junk science]] lacking in any credibility, yet prosecutions of fathers (never mothers, because jurors reject that) persist:

{{cquote|But the science behind it has increasingly come under suspicion, especially when there’s no obvious physical evidence of assault. A New Jersey appellate court Wednesday added to the growing resistance, siding with a lower court judge who declared shaken baby syndrome “junk science,” a ruling that barred prosecutors from bringing it up in the Middlesex County cases of two fathers who challenged their child abuse indictments.<ref>https://newjerseymonitor.com/2023/09/13/appeals-court-agrees-shaken-baby-syndrome-is-junk-science-in-some-cases/</ref>}}

{{cquote|But the science behind it has increasingly come under suspicion, especially when there’s no obvious physical evidence of assault. A New Jersey appellate court Wednesday added to the growing resistance, siding with a lower court judge who declared shaken baby syndrome “junk science,” a ruling that barred prosecutors from bringing it up in the Middlesex County cases of two fathers who challenged their child abuse indictments.<ref>https://newjerseymonitor.com/2023/09/13/appeals-court-agrees-shaken-baby-syndrome-is-junk-science-in-some-cases/</ref>}}