[giantg2]

"Why not call the baby's mom? Why not just keep the baby anyways? Why not take it to the hospital themselves if they were concerned?"

Because many abusers pass off the kid to blame it on others. That's why childcare providers tend to assess (or are supposed to) the condition at drop off. Otherwise it's a finger pointing game that could result in serious criminal charges based on who was more believable.

[everforward]

While generally possible, it seems unlikely to me given that the baby had been to the hospital 2 days before she died, and to a pediatrician the day before (maybe the day of, the wording is unclear).

It’s possible that something happened in that day or two, or that two separate medical facilities missed signs of abuse, but it seems less likely than that the child just wasn’t abused.

The autopsy didn’t show clear signs of abuse either. Again, it’s possible there were no indications, but we’re starting to stack up an awful lot of unlikely events.

I won’t deny a possibility, but I would deny a probability and would certainly deny that it meets the “reasonable doubt” standard.

[giantg2]

I'm not saying abuse took place, just that the grandparents not calling the hospital isn't really indicating anything, and the passing off scenario is relatively common. It doesn't even have to be abuse, it could be stuff like an accident and the grandparents passed the kid off to the father because they panicked or felt ashamed if they admitted it kor cognitive dissonance that it couldnt be that bad). Again, not that that necessarily happened, but just that it's not an unusual scenario.