I think that the worst thing that happened to us was one of these peculiarities of the jury system in Massachusetts, that we had picked 16 people for the jury and we were counting on having 4 people on that jury that were comfortable with technical evidence.

We had a grad of Harvard Law School, an electrical engineer, an actuarial who had a grad degree and a fellow involved in construction who deals with data all the time to make decisions. I'm not talking about an issue of intelligence, it's more that you wanted to get people on that jury that felt comfortable making a decision based on assessment based on scientific and technical evidence. By the luck of the draw we lost those individuals, and the night of the verdict, I said 'Go talk to those alternates, I'm sure they have a different view of the case.' And sure enough, that was the case.

I think that the scientific evidence was not as important to [the sitting jury] in their deliberations as it should have been. The evidence before the jury is very clear that this was an old injury.

It was reported that District Attorney Tom Reilly had made a statement earlier in the day that our medical defense was foolish or ridiculous.

We would very much like to have independent scientists look at this evidence, talk to the scientists from both sides, because we're very confident that we would prevail in that, and serious independent people ought to look at it. It's one of those cases where, really, the scientific evidence is so strong that it has to be examined within the scientific community.

I don't think that is a frivolous or inappropriate suggestion.

I feel that some of the scientists from the other side did not have full access to data, and that was very unfair, and I think if they look at it more carefully they may have different things to say.

We had a trial in Los Angeles [California v. Simpson] where some of the prosecutors and some of the defense lawyers did not get along that well and I think it was an embarrassment to the American criminal justice system.

This trial, whose results I think are questioned by the world with very good reason, nonetheless was conducted in a very professional way by the adversaries from both sides and the judge.

She obviously, I think, makes a good witness. She speaks in a way that projects her innocence, and it's the defendant's decision to get on the witness stand.

In order to call all the experts back, it would have taken another three, four days. It would have opened up the whole rebuttal case. Trials have a certain rhythm to them, and you really can't make up for the disadvantage of being unable to confront a witness early in the game and playing a strategy with a piece of highly exculpatory evidence that you should have from the very beginning.

We thought we had more than enough evidence to go to the jury at that point and time.

I think we made the right decision.

At the very beginning of this case, the judge appointed an independent counsel, a woman named Eileen Agnes, who's a highly respected practitioner and deals with child abuse cases in that courthouse, and Eileen very vigorously undertook her role to evaluate all the evidence and independently adivse Louise, because we all had some concerns that there would be a perception of a conflict of interest because the au pair agency was paying the legal bills.

I can assure you there was no conflict of interest in fact.

It's the job of lawyers in this situation to advise the clients as fairly and as objectively as possible as to what all the risks are, to be as pessimistic as one necessarily can be in such a situation, so it is her decision in conjunction with her family, and the judge had a colloquy about it. There is no question that this decision gave an enormous strategic advantage to the defense.