One of the areas that really brings it home is a case I did in 1996 in Boston, involving Louise Woodward, the so-called nanny, that got a lot of international attention. And this was a case where Louise was charged with murder for the death of young Matthew Eappen, who was one of two children that she was watching. When Matthew presented in the hospital, he had a skull fracture, a subdural hematoma, and he literally had the equivalent of what looks like a stroke. He had a hypoxic ischemic incident. His brain was swelling when he was admitted to the hospital.  And the doctors reasoned, from looking at these symptoms, that what must have happened is that his head was smashed against a fixed hard surface at 26 miles an hour. Otherwise you couldn’t get a skull fracture. And because they saw subdural hematomas, and retinal hemorrhages, and shearing of the white matter of the brain, they said, “Ah-ha! This must have meant that he was shaken as hard as an adult can shake, with the head snapping back and forth, for about a minute-and-a-half.”  And it turned out that when we finally did this trial, and brought in the scientists that originally had written all the articles about shaken baby syndrome, they said, “Well, first of all, I can’t believe that you’re misinterpreting our article. If you see a subdural hematoma, and shearing of the white matter of the brain, and a skull fracture, that can account for a lot of the things that we used to think was caused by shaking alone,” because they did a big study on this. And that doesn’t mean that the baby’s head was… he was shaken for a minute-and-a-half with his head snapping back and forth where you ordinarily would see injury to the back, to the spinal cord, which you didn’t see in this case.  So there was a lot of misinterpretation of some of the fundamental articles that were the foundation for this. So we brought those scientists back in to testify in that case.