A great piece of theatre is being enacted in the Supreme court. A woman is on trial, accused of murdering her day old baby because she wanted to pursue her sporting career as a water polo star. Caring for a child would hinder that ambition.
It is an uneven contest. Presenting the case for conviction is one of this country's top prosecutors - with QC after his name. There is no evidence to support the charge. The case relies entirely on innuendo !
What must disturb many people is the similarity to an event very many years ago - when a woman was accused of murdering her baby near Ayer's Rock. This woman claimed that a Dingo took the child - but the prosecution made a damning case by using innuendo - and this was supported by public conjecture that twisted the woman's religion as a motive. It was even suggested - incorrectly - that the baby's name meant " sacrifice in the desert ".
The eloquence of the prosecution won the day. The woman was convicted and languished in gaol for years - before fresh evidence cleared her name.
Are we about to see another unequal contest where a brilliant prosecutor can mesmerise a jury and create a scenario that is beyond belief - but without hard evidence that supports the case - or that can even definitely prove that the child is not still alive ?
This seems to be one of those times when there is a doubt as to why this case is before a court. The most slippery of slippery slides is when a jury is asked to decide a trial based purely on " probability " - and therefore the decision will most likely rest on the oratory of what can only be described as a " paid performer " - whose best skill is to be believed !
Sadly, those in the legal profession with that skill usually get accolades and rich rewards. Unfortunately, the same skills determine either the guilt or innocence of lesser mortals !
No comments:
Post a Comment