Interesting case

Zambia

I read this article and I reckon there is enough there for a re-trial.

here

How maddening to be in prison if he didn't do it.

johnnyskeleton

They do set out a number of flaws in the medical report, and references to the transcript of the bath tube brides case is problematic.

A big concern in murder cases is that, unlike say drugs or stolen items, only the prosecution's expert gets to review the body. By the time anyone knows that they are even a suspect, it is usually too late to carry out your own analysis. The fact that they are working on a hypothesis that it was a deliberate killing and not just accept that it was an accident is good investigative work, but is not necessarily good objective expert work.

However, I would also be concerned that people place sometimes undue reliance on forensic scientific analysis. In this case, there was circumstantial evidence which is weak, but it apparently (since the Joe O'Reilly case at least) is enough to sustain a conviction. Moreover, the accused apparently gave evidence at his trial, so it would seem reasonably clear that the Jury didn't believe him even to the extent of him raising a doubt.

Just because I, for example, would be unhappy to convict on the basis of circumstantial evidence, especially when someone takes the brave step of giving evidence themselves, doesn't necessarily mean that the conviction is wrong.