I think there was a hunt for “evidence” that stretches the bounds of credibility in the attempt to make a strong case. Thats does not exonerate her but it does make the conviction dodgy
Why none of this was challenged is beyond me
The inference is that the defence assumed that the court officers were competent to test and verify the methodology used in the statistical analysis.
Most of us should be aware that assumption is the mother of all **** ups! They trusted but failed to verify in attempt to save court time and the conviction is now suspect as a result.
Edit: suspect and the legal profession are circling the wagons to protect themselves rather than ensuring justice is being served. (Very similar attitude to the Birmingham Six convictions).