A pinch of salt.

The couple who were originally convicted of killing the young boy they had taken for adoption by feeding him salt have finally been acquitted at a new trial. The way this case has been handled raises many concerns, not least the manner in which the burden of proof was effectively reversed at the original trial. The prosecution's case was essentially "This child has died as a result of salt poisoning - it is now up to the defence to show how this could have happened other than as a deliberate act by the accused". This was basically an attempt to extend the civil law concept of "res ipsa loquitur" into the criminal law, for which it was never designed. The CPS I think need to look hard and long at the basis on which the original decision to prosecute was taken.