Lincoln34
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2019
- Messages
- 237
- Reaction score
- 1,563
Crown Prosecution Code re prosecution here - The Code for Crown Prosecutors | The Crown Prosecution Service
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I find the fact that a group of people can lock you in a cage for decades without even having the certainty you committed a crime absolutely chilling. It’s no wonder we’re hearing more and more often of wrongful convictions. Forensic “science” is loaded to the brim with pseudoscientific, untested claims. Much of it isn’t even science.
To me, it’s terrifying that a person, even you or I, could find themselves at the wrong place, at the wrong time, and be sentenced to life in prison solely because of shoddy forensics and a blood-thirsty jury. I don’t think beyond reasonable doubt is good enough. Not the least because the average person isn’t all that reasonable. I’d rather see ten guilty men walk free than an innocent one be locked up.
I can only hope the police have much more evidence against him. If not, and he gets locked up based on what I’ve read in Libby’s threads so far, then I’m scared to go outside.
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 something as innocent as third party transfer. Let's say grey beard did help Libby up by her arm then he checked over a few minor scratches dna is on both and it sounds incriminating her blood on him his around her arm dragging her only circumstances prove its innocent transfer.Miscarriages of justice do happen when circumstantial evidence is relied upon. But I feel they have more than a few tentative connections in this 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 something as innocent as third party transfer. Let's say grey beard did help Libby up by her arm then he checked over a few minor scratches dna is on both and it sounds incriminating her blood on him his around her arm dragging her only circumstances prove its innocent transfer.
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.Yes, good point, and agreed on this, but that’s why prosecution relies on a combination of DNA, cctv, witness testimony and more ... to build a plausible picture.
He won't get locked based on what is written here though! That's a nonsensical statement. The police must already have had a lot of evidence to question him for the full 96 hours allowed. It is very difficult to get courts to agree to that without presenting new bits of evidenceI find the fact that a group of people can lock you in a cage for decades without even having the certainty you committed a crime absolutely chilling. It’s no wonder we’re hearing more and more often of wrongful convictions. Forensic “science” is loaded to the brim with pseudoscientific, untested claims. Much of it isn’t even science.
To me, it’s terrifying that a person, even you or I, could find themselves at the wrong place, at the wrong time, and be sentenced to life in prison solely because of shoddy forensics and a blood-thirsty jury. I don’t think beyond reasonable doubt is good enough. Not the least because the average person isn’t all that reasonable. I’d rather see ten guilty men walk free than an innocent one be locked up.
I can only hope the police have much more evidence against him. If not, and he gets locked up based on what I’ve read in Libby’s threads so far, then I’m scared to go outside.
Libby falls asleep/ passes out with alcohol in his car. He retrieves her ID from her jacket pocket, sees address, puts it into Sat Nav, does drive by of her house to make it look like on record he just gave Libby a lift home, continues driving from Wellesley with Libby still in car to Oak Road, Libby still unconscious at this point. Just thinking out loud really. The Sat Nav thing, if true, is strange because he is actively creating a firm link between himself and Libby, why?
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.
It won't be used in a court of law. So it's not being used as evidence because this isn't a court of law.Can we not use this alleged sister comment. It is not evidence and she may well have said that off her own back and it never came from him at all. It is currently not verified by anyone... other than her.
Ah, ok. I’m actually only learning to drive at the moment and was under impression you could be fined £1000 for not updating address. Driving licence WARNING - Students MUST do this or risk landing £1,000 fine | Express.co.uk
So, that leaves either Libby provided her address or P deduced it by some other means.
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.It won't be used in a court of law. So it's not being used as evidence because this isn't a court of law.
It is being discussed because it's a very bizarre thing to say.
If I recall my student I’d didn’t have that any address to prevent undesirables knowing where students lived...If anything, ID is going to show her home address, not that of her student accommodation.
You don’t - but the police mightI honestly don’t see any definitive proof that it was him. There may be a 90% certainty, but I don’t think people should be sent to jail when we don’t know for certain that they did it.
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 it so 11 go free, and now 12 because the jury sees right and wrong different to us. ..... I believe I'd rather spend my innocent life in prison before allowing 10 men like this man is suspected of being go free my life behind bars saves 100s of others.You don’t - but the police might
He won't get locked based on what is written here though! That's a nonsensical statement. The police must already have had a lot of evidence to question him for the full 96 hours allowed. It is very difficult to get courts to agree to that without presenting new bits of evidence
This is NOT a court of law. We do NOT have the evidence the police have. Nor are we party to his defence. His trial will be held away from Hull.
I'm not sure why a jury would be blood thirsty either. They are told to keep emotions out and look at facts. They are specifically instructed to ignore anything said outside of the courtroom
It won't be one piece of forensic science that will convict or absolve him it'll be lots of different pieces of evidence. CCTV, phone pings, witnesses, DNA, fingerprints, soil samples, footprints, cause of death etc. His defence will have access to ALL that information as well.
The bar for beyond all reasonable doubt is very, very high! Lots of bits of evidence all having to point the same way.
To get 'certainty' as you are proposing then every citizen would need to be accompanied at all times by a police officer with recording equipment. Actually make that 2 police officers in case one lies and maybe an member of the public to check they don't collude.
Your claim that forensic science is loaded with pseudo science and untested claims is simply the most dangerous thing I've ever heard. It is run by qualified scientists. It's been tested and retested. But I'm willing to read any peer reviewed papers you are party to that have managed to discredit the whole DNA sampling, fingerprinting, CCTV, dashcam, pollen analysis, medicine etc along with every scientist involved. I have a science degree so only proper peer review will do for this.
Lastly there is simply no motive for anyone to 'fit' PR up for this crime. If it is him then the police have a duty to protect other young women and their families and prove it. If it isn't him there won't be proof. And in between there will actual guilty but presumption of innocence which will be your guilty man walking free.
I also hold to the better 10 guilty men go free than 1 innocent suffer quote. Thats why we have Independent courts, trial by jury, chances to appeal, right to a defence and a beyond all reasonable doubt!
This is just a discussion form to discuss ifs and buts.
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 do it and it's as much a hindering fact as a smoke screen for innocence, circumstantial evidence is as important if not more so but tv etc have blurred the lines and humans do make mistakes some mistakes have greater consequences like over selling importance regarding hair fibres etc and me assuming my neighbour stole my mail when it was the dog eating it. That's why almost everyone had said it has to be a strong all round case and the jury are not idiots they have minds of their own don't assume they can't see the obvious only you can 12 against one means your probably wrong. The justice system is a whole and as a whole it works, JMOForensic science is known to be loaded with pseudoscientific ********. It’s not a conspiracy theory; it’s a known issue.
Without meaning to be rude all of those are citing American cases and none of them a large scale discrediting all of forensic science as scientifc . Can you be more precise about what your specific concerns are.Forensic science is known to be loaded with pseudoscientific ********. It’s not a conspiracy theory; it’s a known issue. Some examples of forensic science, like those you mentioned, are reliable, but many aren’t. Vox did a series recently on a man who spent much of his life in prison because of faulty forensics. There’s also the Innocence Project, whose entire purpose of existence is fighting against wrongful convictions, which are rife, at least in America.
Misapplication of Forensic Science
Faulty Forensic Science under Fire
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...fforts-to-change-that/?utm_term=.c2f127869344
FBI Testimony on Microscopic Hair Analysis Contained Errors in at Least 90 Percent of Cases in Ongoing Review (“These findings confirm that FBI microscopic hair analysts committed widespread, systematic error, grossly exaggerating the significance of their data under oath with the consequence of unfairly bolstering the prosecutions’ case,”)
Bad forensic science is putting innocent people in prison
How bad science is being used to send people to prison
He clearly knows her Avenue - for some reason- why did he choose to masturbate on that particular one? Who was he hoping would see him/ to frighten / shock?I agree. If he said this, there is def a reason for it