| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Big Wullie
Joined: 25 Apr 2007
Posts: 1149
Location: Glasgow
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Angeline
Joined: 02 Oct 2008
Posts: 148
|
 Posted: Wed May 13, 2009 9:18 am Post subject: |
 |
|
Brilliant article. The whole expert evidence fiasco has been allowed to poison so many cases, it's unbelievable.
What really gets to me is defence lawyers who rely on "cross-examination" (sometimes) of expert witnesses. But in order to properly cross examine these witnesses, the lawyer doing the cross-examination would have to be an expert in that particular field, and as we all know, they are not.
Faced with a seriously complicated and badly reported DNA report, for example, unless the lawyer is skilled at deciphering DNA reports, how is he to know of there's anything amiss? (I ust this example simply because I have details of a case where exactly this scenario exists.)
It's bad enough that garbage gets into our courts under the guise of "expert evidence" - it's worse still that legal experts then take upon themselves the mantle of forensic experts, psychology experts, fibre identification experts etc, etc, in the arrogant belief that they are in any way qualified to "cross examine" evidence in these fields.
_________________
As long as one heart still holds on, then hope will never really be gone |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
scotkaz
Joined: 28 Aug 2008
Posts: 527
|
| Posted: Thu May 14, 2009 1:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Excellent article and well done Mr McKie for telling it how it REALLY is.
The experts they use should have their qualifications checked out prior to a trial.
Do they do over here as they do in the US when an expert takes the stand?
What the expert does is explain where they graduated, what they have done in a lot of detail in some cases. Their lists of qualifications are also written down in court documents. In fact it is their CV they use a lot.
If we do not do that then we should. And the defence should be able to see it too so they too can do checks on them. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big Wullie
Joined: 25 Apr 2007
Posts: 1149
Location: Glasgow
|
| Posted: Sat May 16, 2009 1:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
Scotkaz
The defence here have always been given a complete list of witness's the crown intends to call.
It is then up to the defence to contact these witness's to interview them etc etc.
The problem with experts in this country as pointed out and highlighted by Shirley's case is this:
Their words have always been accepted and unchallenged in our courts.
Legal aid does not pay for independent experts once an opinion is gained by crown.
These so called experts like Gene Morrison and Sir Roy Meadow we all know now should have been challenged years ago if not decades ago.
Experts should never be asked their opinions as these are not scientific facts.
Certainly SCRO got away with murder for years unchallenged.
_________________
http://justiceforwulliebeck.webs.com/index.htm
http://williambeck.blogspot.com/
http://williambeck.wordpress.com/about/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Join! (free) 
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
