There was nothing she could have offered in her testimony which was backed up by evidence. It was the right decision in light of the Malice Murder potential.I can only assume they decided that her testifying would make her look even worse
Exactly. She couldn’t testify because she’s guilty. That’s why it’s a tacit admission of guilt. Cause if someone accused me of killing a baby when I didn’t do it, wild horses couldn’t keep me off the stand!
The basis of this case - she was the only one with the child when the injury occurred - was insurmountable. There were video's of him the previous day, he was fine. The smoke and mirrors presented by the defense, was ridiculous. The best he could do was to attack protocols in order to create reasonable doubt.
Very possible. I just think if they had a better alternative theory as to what would have happened they would have used it. All they attempted to do is present possible alternate scenarios.
They were trying to get clarification on why there was 2 counts for one thing. They asked is one was for head and other for liver.
