Sustained
Justice for Stacy
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2008
- Messages
- 2,722
- Reaction score
- 6,876
Perhaps because they understood Furton and didn't understand Vass? I don't believe that's unethical, especially given that Furton's tests were done in a lab, not a research facility. Furton's tests were tried and true, Vass was up and coming.
I don't believe it is unethical one bit to believe one expert over the other, given you don't understand one of them. That is what the jury is instructed to do... right?
Dr. Vass has been studying the chemical decomposition of bodies at the Body Farm for 15 years ... hardly up and coming. Just b/c the air test was 1st introduced at this trial doesn't make it unusable ... there was obviously a first trial for DNA at some point. How many years has Furton been studying decomposing bodies in aerobic and anaerobic settings ? Sure, he confused the jury by testifying that chloroform can be found in drinking water, butter & cheese and they bought it ...
To me, it's kind of like having the State use a meteorological expert to validate that it snowed a certain night, even though by morning the snow had melted. The Defense would counter with someone that took a 1-day weather class who would say it didn't snow on that particular night b/c there was no snow on the ground when they woke up. And then the jury would toss out the weather expert b/c they didn't understand isobars, isotherms, etc.
To me, it doesn't say a lot about the combined intelligence of the jury if they weren't willing to further examine testimony like what was given by Dr. Vass and relied on someone with far less experience in the isolation of chemical compounds emitted by a human body during decomposition when making their decision.