Vern
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2017
- Messages
- 3,165
- Reaction score
- 35,166
Wouldn't a supposed 'expert' who flat out testified that she would not change her narrative opinion (of this being an Odinistic Ritual Sacrificial Killing) that she formed before even seeing the crime scene evidence even if the suspect flat out told 'the expert' that they tossed the sticks on a body(ies) only to cover them up be a bad thing?If an expert is given a task of inspecting/deciphering the evidence or appearance at a crime scene and compiling a report for investigator or court based on their experience, education and professional background. Shouldn’t it be of just that? The crime scene you were tasked with?
The blood spatter expert, as an example, if they are tasked to inspect the F tree and offer suggestion as to how it may have occurred, should he also be considering anyones Facebook posts in his report..? Isn’t investigating or implicating suspects not his job at all..?
Wouldn’t an unwillingness to change your expert opinion of the crime scene and refusing to amend your report fit a specific subject due Facebook posts, etc, be a good thing and like completely standard practice everywhere outside of Carroll County.
All MOO
IMO, we can all expect that the same information will be pulled out via questionning and used by the prosecutors during any future cross-examination of the Defence expert to show her bias to the defence. I don't think any 'impartial' expert worth their salt (or pay cheque) would just blatently ignore what a suspect had to tell them as she testified today she would do.
I wonder what any jury would think of that.