Got it. So the DA is supposed to not only be an expert in the law, but enough of an expert in medicine such that he can flaunt widely acknowledged medical standards while cross-examining expert witnesses on why they're wrong.

The author of this post admitted that it took him countless hours to discover that medicine basically has this issue wrong and only after being particularly motivated to do so. If the DA has so much medical expertise that they know better than the doctors, then what exactly is he doing being a DA?

The idea that the main purpose of the DA is to know better than doctors is ludicrous.

The DA's job is to question the credibility of witnesses. If credentials conferred credibility, it wouldn't be possible to ever convict an expert of anything.

So to be plain: No, DA's don't (and aren't supposed to) just take experts by their word. They ask clarifying questions, and often bring additional experts offering contradicting testimony.

Do you seriously think courts operate by "the doctor said so, case closed"? We wouldn't need courts if that were the case.

So the defense attorney (since it wouldn't be the da anyway) is going to convince the jury that not just the witness but the entire medical profession is suspect because of its heretofore unanimous belief that shaken baby syndrome is the only explanation of these phenomenon.

> Do you seriously think courts operate by "the doctor said so, case closed"? We wouldn't need courts if that were the case.

For certain things.. yes. If a doctor tells a jury that these injuries could only be sustained via shaking trauma, most juries will believe them over a rogue doctor or a non doctor. Doctors have some of the highest trust ratings of all professions. Attorneys have some of the lowest. That means convincing the jury the doctors are wrong.

The blame should lay at the feet of the medical professional bodies.