Whether this court should require a de novo review of the trial court's handling of scientific testimony to determine whether Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. standard for the admissibility of scientific testimony was applied in this case consistent with changes made to Missouri law

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Whether this court should require a de novo review of the trial court’s handling of scientific testimony to determine whether Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993) [hereinafter Daubert] type standard for the admissibility of scientific testimony was applied in this case consistent with changes made to Missouri law! while this case was pending followed as necessary, by an abuse of discretion review of the trial judge’s handling of scientific testimony. 2. Whether this court should overturn the conviction and sentence in this case because the testimony of Dr. Mary Case regarding her alleged (but scientifically baseless) ability to distinguish traumatically from non-traumatically caused injuries i 4. Whether this court should correct and reverse the prior opinions issued by Missouri’s Eastern District Court of Appeals ( State v. Johnson, 402 S.W.3d 182 (Mo. App. E.D. 2013) [hereinafter Johnson]) and by Missouri's Southern District Court of Appeals (State v. Evans, 517 S.W.3d 528 (Mo. Ct. App. $.D. 2015) [hereinafter Evans]) because the decisions are the product of an unfair “shell game” and because what they say about Dr. Mary Case’s use of BAPP staining obscures the inherently unreliable and scientifically flawed nature of her application of the stain and her testimony related thereto. iii