This is consistent with what was being argued by Rebecca Watson in the link above. There seems to be a clear indication that the evidence was substantially flawed. But what you might conclude from better evidence is unclear.dyqik wrote: ↑Thu Jul 18, 2024 10:51 amIt's also plausible that she was fully or partially responsible* for many or all of the deaths, but that the evidence presented was massively flawed, and insufficient to actually show that beyond reasonable doubt.
*Responsibility doesn't have to be complete, and can be shared. It also doesn't always rise to the level of criminal culpability.
To invent my own conspiracy theory, maybe the defence's failure to respond adequately to the flawed evidence was deliberate. If you are convicted on flawed evidence, you may have a chance of a determination of an unsafe conviction later. If you force out the best evidence, and are convicted on that, you are stuffed.