I was doing a medical examiner rotation in the early 1990s and a woman (not a pathologist, some kind of advocate) gave a presentation in which she asserted that

I was doing a medical examiner rotation in the early 1990s and a woman (not a pathologist, some kind of advocate) gave a presentation in which she asserted that this set of findings is always shaken baby. At the time it struck me, how could you possibly no that when it is impossible to test your conclusion against the facts in almost all cases. Pretty much every discussion of forensic science ignores that. It's pretty scary. Instead of scientific rigor you accept the expert who states her opinion most emphatically. Why did they never cross examine about sources and methodology? Is it not allowed?