I can only speculate. As I have already said, I believe the DPP had no expectation they would win. They thought they might perhaps on the coat tails of sympathy for the deceased. Hardly a professional approach, so unlikely. Perhaps, in light in the Baden-Clay matter, they thought (unsurprisingly given the Posts here on the matter) there would be such a public back lash, they did not want to go down that path. Hence, perhaps, a show Trial to appease those baying for the blood of the obvious scape goat. It is also conceivable they thought they might create a precedent on causation in a manslaughter trial where they could argue overwhelming fear as the required link between the death and the act of the accused. Who knows. My lean is toward the 'show trial' theory, given the Baden-Clay events. "If we don't indict this bloke, even though our chances are zero, there will be a public outcry, the politicians will get nervous and force our hand to our professional embarrassment. Let's go 'show,' and the public will have no choice but to accept a Jury verdict of not guilty, whereas if we decide not to prosecute, it will never end." The Baden-Clay case has had unintended consequences, not just of a strictly technical legal kind. I am so pleased I was not here when that saga was under way!