It's about a woman who was jailed for killing all three of her kids. The prosecutors alleged she wanted to sleep around and she couldn't because of the kids. I'm struct by the fact that there was no direct evidence that the mother was responsible for the deaths. The only "evidence" seems to have been that it was not clear why the girls died:
Both deaths were consistent with deliberate airway obstruction, and doctors could not find “any natural reason why either, let alone both, should have died”, prosecutors said.
I would have thought that if there was uncertainty about the cause of death (and that is exactly what "the doctors could not find any natural reason" states: uncertainty about the cause of death) then there is no sufficient evidence to convict.
But, I'm going by only what's in The Guardian article and I don't know the details of the case.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/aug/02/louise-porto...
It's about a woman who was jailed for killing all three of her kids. The prosecutors alleged she wanted to sleep around and she couldn't because of the kids. I'm struct by the fact that there was no direct evidence that the mother was responsible for the deaths. The only "evidence" seems to have been that it was not clear why the girls died:
Both deaths were consistent with deliberate airway obstruction, and doctors could not find “any natural reason why either, let alone both, should have died”, prosecutors said.
I would have thought that if there was uncertainty about the cause of death (and that is exactly what "the doctors could not find any natural reason" states: uncertainty about the cause of death) then there is no sufficient evidence to convict.
But, I'm going by only what's in The Guardian article and I don't know the details of the case.