We didn't need the coroner to say that. The circumstances showed that she had been murdered. Children that die of natural causes aren't found decomposed in bags in a field. That's a judgement we can make. That a jury can make.
This is my point. There's an unreasonable demand that forensic evidence prove what we can still know through other means. It does not have to be forensic evidence to be proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
The circumstances of the body, and the mother's behavior, count. In this case they were enough. It was only the unreasonable demand for forensic proof that prevented a guilty verdict.
Children that die of natural causes aren’t found decomposed in bags in a field.
that would be evidence of attempt to conceal a death; it doesn’t prove murder...
You are absolutely correct. The problem it seems, is that many have confused the term ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ to mean beyond ANY doubt.
No, they weren't...obviously.
No, they weren't...obviously.