Shaken Baby Syndrome and scientific ambiguity

Today the New York Times published a story about the scientific ambiguity surrounding Shaken Baby Syndrome (SBS). When a baby is hurt or killed I think it is natural for us to want to punish someone. In many cases diagnosed as SBS the caregiver denies ever shaking the baby and typically there are no witnesses to testify. Naturally many people would lie to protect themselves. So the question is how do you determine whether someone is guilty of this offense? This article questions some of the "proof" used to convict people of SBS.

What a sad article! Mainly I feel that this article exposes how terrible it is to be faced with such suffering without understanding the cause. I really think that we always want someone to blame for tragedy. Whether we are blaming a person or a gene (as in the case of genetic disease) we want to know the cause. If medical science could conclusively prove that the brain injury was the result of either SBS or some prior medical condition then we would not have this terrible uncertainty. However, it was this faith in medical science's ability to "conclusively" prove that a crime was committed that led to some terrible wrongful convictions.

Basically what this article argues is this:

1. Certain very damaging and often fatal injuries in children (brain bleeding and swelling) used to be considered incontrovertible proof of Shaken Baby Syndrome (i.e. that someone had willfully shaken the baby causing this trauma).
2. This medical evidence was used to convict people for this crime even when there was no other evidence to suggest they hurt the child (for example there were no witnesses, or confessions, etc.)
3. New scientific findings suggest that these injuries can also be the result of other previously undetected medical problems which might remain hidden until they become acute and potentially fatal.
4. As a consequence many cases in which people have been convicted of shaking a baby and causing these internal injuries are now thrown into question and several people have either been released from prison or had their cases retried and been cleared of wrongdoing.

The article points out that although it is likely that most infants with these symptoms probably are the victims of abuse, the symptoms alone should not be considered conclusive evidence. Additionally in a court the requirement that someone's guilt be proven "beyond a reasonable doubt" may be hard to establish in these types of Shaken Baby Syndrome cases. Here is a quick summary from the article:

"A dozen years ago, the medical profession held that if the triad of subdural and retinal bleeding and brain swelling was present without a fracture or bruise that would indicate, for example, that a baby had accidently fallen, abuse must have occurred through shaking. In the past decade, that consensus has begun to come undone... A small but growing number of doctors warn that there can be alternate explanations — infections or bleeding disorders, for example — for the triad of symptoms associated with shaken-baby syndrome."

Any thoughts from readers on this article? I really wonder how I would feel if it were my child.

Off topic, but in the passage I quoted is that really how you spell "accidently", I always thought it was "accidentally". Any spelling virtuosos want to weigh in on this?