I'm not really sure why people are bashing the DA. He obviously believed she intentionally harmed the baby and that's why he brought this case. I think he did his job. Ultimately, he somewhat conceded that there wasn't enough to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. But that's up to a jury to decide. I thought the prosecutors handled themselves really well throughout the trial. I see no underhanded tactics. Some incompetent expert told them the body was burned, and they believed it. It's not like they made it up! After that was found out to be inaccurate, they immediately gave it to defense like they're supposed to. I think they had every right to be upset with the incompetent expert who tried to weasel out of accountability for making a false conclusion. The burning of the body is not relevant to the intentional homicide. They never argued that she was burned alive. So there's no reason why they would withdraw the charges based on the inaccurate conclusion with respect to the burning of the body.
When they confronted her with what they believed to be a fact during the interrogation she said she tried to burn her. Then to her father she said she cremated her. Those are her words. It's not out of the realm of possibility that she would do it. Why should the state drop it? After she confessed to it? I think if you want to give her the benefit of the doubt and say she was influenced and suggestible that's a different matter. But the state is not obligated to ignore what they believe to be evidence of a crime. The interrogation is a matter of interpretation and for a jury to decide.