Search results

I have a suspicion it's also a tactical move to unsettle his over confidence if he is second guessing day in day out what they have or haven't did they find this will they etc etc it becomes harder to fit your story around every possibility and until he is charged he is not any more entitled to...

Think it's more human error and over emphasis on importance not science being wrong, forensics is knowingly held as higher proof than speculation and this works both ways guilty men walk free for lack of forensics because jurors find lack of forensics is only possible in this day if they didn't...

And more so the jury get to decide when they have it all in one place with timelines relevance etc then more they get to make their own minds up, unless they are the 10 previous guilty men who where let go because an innocent man was suspected of something and he couldn't 100% prove he didn't do...

And it's normally regarded as every lie having a grain of truth so curiosity means we rake with a fine tooth comb and a grain of truth is worth a look.

100% agree which is why I only made issue of the last paragraph regarding miscarriage of justice as I read it to say it occurs due to circumstantial evidence, however I believe what makes a case breaks a case.

I believe this is a common misconception and I think forensics at times carry more weight than they should at times. Juries tend to believe DNA is proof of being present for example with 100% percent certainty however the circumstances of the DNA being present can vary from being planted to...

I think the sat nav comment was his way of saying I had to sat nav that road because I've NEVER been there before ...... and didn't do anything whilst not being there. A unrelated charge pending. As for beyond reasonable doubt it's impossible to be anymore collectively sure as no matter what we...

I am totally of the belief that LE are working as much if not more to make sure this family gets the out come they truly deserve now, for themselves and for Libby.

they could have skin epidermis or some type of weight used to try to keep body hidden or even binding, but it is entirely possible to convict with only circumstantial evidence it's only really the jury who see forensic evidence of any kind much more definite which is csi etc fault

It's a known fact she was alive at 12.09 that morning and I'd hazard a guess if they have evidence to bring charges they will claim death occurred by 3am and will have maybe cctv footage of him going straight home and not returning to park, obviously this is just an example of how it would be...

I thought the same at one point, until I came across conflicting evidence, so I for some reason learnt about the rules for coroners court, I've no use for the knowledge but who knows one day.

In the law courts they will try to prove beyond reasonable doubt the time frame for death. For example I put it to you that in the early hours of February 1st you knowingly disposed of the deceased victim solely to hide your crime

Oh and I'm fine with questions it's how we live and learn

Yes that's exactly right, adjourned until after any possibility of criminal charges, as the law court will do the fact finding in that case the coroner just delivers a verdict afterwards

Only genuinely interested parties can question witnesses, but they can't ask anything that isn't factual as to COD not who caused that cause, also if any questions could incriminate rule 22 is explained by the coroner to the witness and they can refuse to answer

It will be adjourned until after all criminal cases are concluded and if there's no guilty culprit by then the coroner cal call him doesn't mean he has to answer he can sit there and say no comment, also the coroner can only put known facts to him and if they can't press charges I doubt there's...

He will just refuse to answer he is under no obligation to answer if it could be used against him, and if no criminal chargesbarent brought then everyone who came into contact with her that night will be called as a witness but it purely finding of facts, they can't accuse you of lying etc just...

Homicide is an umbrella term that includes murder, so they are just covering all their bases, keeping everything close to their chests

The criminal proceedings always occur first and the coroner automatically closes the case with no hearing on a guilty verdict stating unlawful killing, but if not guilty verdict or charges are dropped not brought the coroner then opens a fact finding inquest so he would not want to appear by...

I'm sure the criminal case takes precedence and normally the facts come out there, no suspect would answer questions at an inquest as they can no comment