That was neither the point of the posted article, nor the other one shared in comment above. Merely that it's hard to prove and especially so in this case with other medical issues / evidence found.

> Robert Roberson’s case is riddled with unscientific evidence, inaccurate and misleading medical testimony, and prejudicial treatment. In 2002, Mr. Roberson’s two-year old, chronically ill daughter, Nikki, was sick with a high fever and suffered a short fall from bed. Hospital staff did not know Mr.

> Roberson had autism and judged his response to his daughter’s grave condition as lacking emotion. Mr. Roberson was prosecuted, convicted, and sentenced to death under the now-discredited “shaken baby syndrome” (SBS) hypothesis.

Anyways edited and reworded it just to be crystal clear here and keep closer to how article(s) put it in context of a criminal investigation:

> highly controversial shaken baby syndrome theory (not straightforward to prove; hence erronous)