It's horrific for the parents, I really cannot comprehend what they are going through. They've sat through a trial that convicted someone of killing their baby. The evidence is clearly incredibly complicated and I've read a few things that sound like they were misleading. When presented with such a volume of complex medical evidence a jury is very likely to trust what they're being told as fact, when it's the opinion of experts who have been asked to investigate particular evidence. Combine that with shift patterns and it's easy to arrive at a guilty verdict. Particularly when you throw in the odd personal life and behaviour of the defendant.
Now the parents are hearing that there's doubt and could be an alternative answer. And at this stage the doubt is holistic so they don't know what that means for their baby on an individual basis. Not knowing whether your baby was murdered or died from natural causes...well I just can't begin to know what that must be like.
Based on the article, there's been quite a fundamental misinterpretation and misapplication of the evidence. But again, it's one expert reviewing one element of the evidence and how critical that is to the case is to be determined. I've always believed she was guilty personally, but that's based on very little evidence of course. Sometimes there are coincidences, even incredibly strange ones.
