But there is still reasonable doubt. It is in fact possible, if unlikely, that she didn't do. I think it's very unlikely, and it's unfortunate that we can't convict, but we have not proven that she poisoned him with vitamin D, and there is no direct evidence that she did.
I don't agree. On appeal there are only two "jurors" ("nämndemän"), and they can be outvoted by the three career judges. Also, a real jury doesn't have to explain their reasoning in writing.
The difference is huge in this kind of case.
> But there is still reasonable doubt. It is in fact possible, if unlikely, that she didn't do. I think it's very unlikely, and it's unfortunate that we can't convict, but we have not proven that she poisoned him with vitamin D, and there is no direct evidence that she did.
Hard to say without knowing the contents of that small brown bottle and how it was procured. One reason I would consider private prosecution is to find out.
It must have been tested. If it weren't KCl, then why would there be no prosecution?
If it were vitamin D, it'd be a very short hearing.
>I don't agree. On appeal there are only two "jurors" ("nämndemän"), and they can be outvoted by the three career judges. Also, a real jury doesn't have to explain their reasoning in writing.
Yes, but is that actually good? Isn't it better to have reasoned judgements? That people explain carefully, why they've determined things as they have, so that their reasoning can be questioned?
If there's an unaccountable jury which doesn't have to justify itself, then I can't trust the judgements of the courts. They need to justify themselves, because we have set them there as representatives for ourselves.
But surely the prosecutor has tried to figure out how the brown bottle was obtained? Surely questions about this were asked during interviews.
Also, do you really think it's good for people to come to these kinds of unjustified conclusions, and convict people for things for which there is in fact no evidence?
> It must have been tested. If it weren't KCl, then why would there be no prosecution?
The KCl story sounds so weird to me that it’s hard to reason about. Why would the spouse of someone with a serious medical condition be medicating their husband without his or his doctor’s knowledge?
It also doesn’t explain the elevated vitamin D. So you’d have to conclude the investigation with two unsolved mysteries so to speak.
Yes, and that is presumably a crime in itself, even though it isn't the 'big' crime of poisoning somebody.
My guess is that the wife poisoned him with vitamin D and then started dosing with KCl for some reason, then the KCl dosing was discovered, and we still can't be sure she did the vitamin D dosing. Of course, she probably did. It's very plausible, since the behaviour is so similar to the poisoning behaviour, but we don't have actual evidence of her poisoning him with vitamin D. We have evidence of some lesser, similar crime.
The article says that the doctors found high concentrations of Vitamin D in the water bottle he brought in. The video in which she apparently doses this bottle is dated July 23, 2021. According to the article, she was arrested later that same evening. So not a lot of time for her to change strategies from Vitamin D to KCl. Either the bottle contained Vitamin D, the author is incorrect, or else the police seized the wrong bottle.
I think the pivotal point is not what was being put into the water but the fact that it was sneaked in. That is, it was not an act done openly and innocently, but done with subterfuge and intent to deceive. The person doing this knew it was wrong.
But there is still reasonable doubt. It is in fact possible, if unlikely, that she didn't do. I think it's very unlikely, and it's unfortunate that we can't convict, but we have not proven that she poisoned him with vitamin D, and there is no direct evidence that she did.