I know I'm just someone on tattle and its opening arguements so it doesn't matter what I think but the prosecution just ain't selling this to me. I may be being unconsciously bias as my initial hunch has always been scapegoat but I'm just not at all convinced.
I agree that we haven’t seen real evidence that isn’t circumstantial yet and I’m unsure what the evidence will be. The prosecution will introduce a doctor who says that “baby x died from having air forcibly placed in their system”
But as they’ve said this is difficult to prove 100%
Defence will introduce another doctor who says “baby x could have died due to air forcibly in their system or they could have died due to…or I can’t be 100% certain”
And neither prosecution or defence doctor can be 100% sure of how said baby died.
So what does the jury do with that?
As for the scapegoat theory. Who is setting her up? One person? The entire hospital trust? They’re prepared to ruin a woman’s life and have her branded a baby murderer to hide their own failings? I’m not sure I buy this either it would take a huge conspiracy potentially or if it is one person they would have to be a psychopath themselves to do this to someone