This has been pointed out many many times previously in prior threads, but it appears that this fact is unpopular, and unwilling to be conceded by the "core thread regulars", so Ksks, there is probably little use pointing out this fact any more.
The court got it wrong, you see.
Not sure why you're surprised about that? Courts do get it wrong unfortunately for the victims of crime. There are plenty of cases like that for you to research on that topic if you care to. They do exist you know.
Oh, thanks for pointing that out, Karinna, but Im well aware that courts get it wrong, and you seem to have forgotten my previous post in prior threads that alluded to the false incarceration rate in the USA being about 1.5%, and about 0.75% in Australia from memory.
The bolded bit in my original comment was sarcasm. It is very clear to me in this case the court got it right, and I haven't heard one thing here or anywhere to disprove it. Prominent criminal lawyers in Brisbane have publicly queried why this was ever brought to trial.
As non participating lay people, we wouldn't have enough of an insight into most cases to make a claim of miscarriage of justice. However, there are cases where a blatant errors of logic and fairness are apparent to even the casual observer, and I hope these are the ones you are referring to.
In this thread, ridiculous unsubstantiated claims were made that the judge was incompetent or corrupt. Rather some of the more cogent reasons for miscarriages are as follows -
- In 15% of wrongful conviction cases overturned through DNA testing, statements from people with incentives to testify particularly incentives that are not disclosed to the jury were critical evidence used to convict an innocent person.
- A review of convictions overturned by DNA testing reveals a trail of sleeping, drunk, incompetent and overburdened defense attorneys, at the trial level and on appeal.
- Many forensic techniques such as hair microscopy, bite mark comparisons, firearm tool mark analysis and shoe print comparisons have not been subjected to sufficient scientific evaluation and have resulted in error.
- Evidence of fraud, negligence or misconduct by prosecutors or police is disturbingly not uncommon among the DNA exoneration cases.
- Astonishingly, more than 1 out of 4 people wrongfully convicted but later exonerated by DNA evidence made a false confession or incriminating statement.
- Eyewitness misidentification is the greatest contributing factor to wrongful convictions proven by DNA testing, playing a role in more than 70% of convictions overturned through DNA testing nationwide.
Source :
http://www.innocenceproject.org/ (Steven Avery's case is mentioned there.)
Take note of the second point - anyone who hires an incompetent lawyer, or is relegated to using a public defender, is putting their outcome at risk.
Take note of the fifth point - clearly people are railroaded by the police, and it is a smarter person who "lawyers up" first before speaking to police. Very pertinent to this case, considering the swift yet unfounded charges that were brought.
fftobed: for me. Goodnight all x
