Options
Death On The Staircase
Johnbee
Posts: 4,019
Forum Member
✭✭✭
Nobody has mentioned this, so I thought I would. The original programme was an 8 part series, showing a man pre trial, and then covering the trial, and verdict. Now, many years later, we had an application for a retrial.
It really did make me think that the whole damn court system should be shut down until something is done about it.
As a sample, the expert scientific witness who is totally impartial of course, put in a report and stated in court about a case that he had seen what he was certain were blood stains on a car. This was a major prosecution point and a man was found guilty of murder as a result of the blood stains.
But the impartial honest scientific expert omitted to mention that in fact he had done a test on the stains and found they were not blood, and suppressed that as 'unhelpful'. He was the main prosecution witness in the staircase case, and just about every word he uttered was a lie.
A fascinating programme. What if you think a man is guilty but there is no proof at all and you know the evidence against him has been rigged?
It really did make me think that the whole damn court system should be shut down until something is done about it.
As a sample, the expert scientific witness who is totally impartial of course, put in a report and stated in court about a case that he had seen what he was certain were blood stains on a car. This was a major prosecution point and a man was found guilty of murder as a result of the blood stains.
But the impartial honest scientific expert omitted to mention that in fact he had done a test on the stains and found they were not blood, and suppressed that as 'unhelpful'. He was the main prosecution witness in the staircase case, and just about every word he uttered was a lie.
A fascinating programme. What if you think a man is guilty but there is no proof at all and you know the evidence against him has been rigged?
0
Comments
Ah, but when CSI did it, he wasn't.:D
Season 6, Episode 3 was CSI's interpretation of the case.
The problem is that the evidence can not be believed because we know at least some of it was rigged. How do we know that the police, or the lab, did not cause the head injuries? It's far fetched but then finding out that the chief forensic witness has deliberately suppressed evidence in 34 other cases is just as far fetched.
Suppose you want to say that an expert can tell if the wounds were inflicted after death? I am afraid I will reply of course they can and I am certain the police and experts would say that they couldn't, but can you believe them when they lied about other things? Certainly you can not tell from the photographs and that is all they would have for another trial.