I hope her case isn't affected by the absolutely shocking levels of scientific evidence that have historically been presented at trials where the victims are babies.
Brings to mind the infamous cot death stats spoken by an 'expert' on the stand who put a woman in jail despite not understanding basic probability let alone complex epidemiology statistics.
And of course. we all remember Louise Woodward's jury being turned not by evidence but because she wasn't 'likeable'.
Getting juries for this sort of thing must be horrendous. Who can truly be objective?
Brings to mind the infamous cot death stats spoken by an 'expert' on the stand who put a woman in jail despite not understanding basic probability let alone complex epidemiology statistics.
And of course. we all remember Louise Woodward's jury being turned not by evidence but because she wasn't 'likeable'.
Getting juries for this sort of thing must be horrendous. Who can truly be objective?