Case records just released show how a woman accused of fraud tried a novel but gruesome way to persuade a North-East London jury that she was not to blame.
Rather than use one of the more effective controversial defense strategies seen in recent cases such as the 'Twinkie Defense' ("I had to kill him, I'd eaten too much sugar and went all hyper and don't remember anything"), the accused had to find a different way to deflect responsibility for illegally pocketing almost £1m of tax credits.
So, her strategy? To raise two fingers to the jury. No, not in the normal way - the fingers were not her own; she took two detached fingers out from her handbag, waggled them at the jury, claimed they fell off her child because of a voodoo curse, and then added that the curse also (conveniently) made her commit the fraud.
Top marks for effort. Fewer marks, though, for effectiveness, as she was later convicted - perhaps she now blames the curse for the guilty verdict too? The fingers underwent DNA analysis to find out where they're from, but there are no suspicious circumstances.
So, this leaves us with a new legal strategy. Perhaps less of a Twinkie Defense, and more of a Pinky one?
Finger Pic from IRobbo's Flickrstream