Lawyer: It is sophistication. Those simple questions can be asked in extremely complex sentences, so complicated that they need to be considered for at least 10 seconds. The couple faced such questions for several months. Even normal people are going crazy. Presumably, that's what lawyers are for.
Jury: They don't have any expertise. They just show their hands and vote according to their own ideas. When everyone intuitively believes that she is guilty, then she is guilty without any evidence. To put it bluntly, they are the representatives of the psychology of the masses.
Media: No matter how the media broadcasts, they can get the highest ratings. They only care about this. This is our consensus. Their reports are not completely fake, but they add fuel to the real interviews and guide them in the direction that interests the masses. They completely ignore the victim's privacy and mood.
Experts: During the trial of the case, many experts were invited. The reports made by these experts are very rigorous, but they are all uncertain and vague. They cannot make any judgments, but only say that it is possible. However, such a judgment was used as a completely affirmative basis in court. They are actually part of the masses.
Crowd: If this kind of thing happened, most people would think that it was the parents who killed and the wild dog took the baby. What a bizarre thing it is, so the people would rather believe that it was the mother who killed it. They will look for a lot of evidence to prove this matter, nothing to do with facts, just to convince themselves. Experts and the media are the ones who give them evidence. They don't care about the real situation of the case, as long as the results are based on their own inferences, that's fine. Roar, you see, our inferences are sensible, as they should be.
As for the innocent mother in prison, and the trauma to the family, who cares.
View more about A Cry in the Dark reviews
