just because something evidence wise wasn't raised/aired at trial doesnt mean its a mistrial; each team (pros and def) will make tactical decisions as to what to raise and what not to raise as evidence for the jury to consider. We didnt see alll of the evidence at the trial, the jury did, They will have seen and formed a view on the strengths or weaknesses of the witnesses. These types of after the event, one sided accounts dont get any scrutiny from the other side so of course they can sound convincing. As you say COYB, this has gone through the process of scrutiny. I've had dealings with her barrister, he is awesome, so if there were flaws in the prosecution, I'd be surprised if he'd miss it.
That said, medical evidence can be down to opinion, the medics have been know to close ranks before, and if key information was withheld from disclosure that should have been disclosed, that is a big problem but there isnt evidence of this (yet?)
