That is truly frightening. As we've discussed, "proving" contamination is virtually impossible. The burden should be on the lab to prove its findings were free from contamination. Let's hope Intini was just talking off the top of his head.
Meredith Kercher murdered-Amanda Knox appeals conviction #15
- Thread starter Salem
- Start date
- Status
That is truly frightening. As we've discussed, "proving" contamination is virtually impossible. The burden should be on the lab to prove its findings were free from contamination. Let's hope Intini was just talking off the top of his head.
So based on this standard, any lab is free to declare its testing supports the prosecutor's theory, then destroy the testing samples and dare the defense to prove contamination. This should terrify each and every one of us!
otto, you swore up and down that Alessi should not be believed because he is a murderer. Guede is also a murderer, yet now you insist we accept his testimony as entirely credible.
In case you are wondering, yes, it is obvious you will say anything to make AK and RS appear guilty. (ETA: I should have said "take any position" not "say anything." "Say anything" sounds like I'm accusing otto of deliberately lying. That was not my intent and I am sorry I used wording that sounded as if it were.)
O.J. Simpson did not get off on a "technicality." He was acquitted of murder by a jury.
emyr, the alleged staging was never investigated by a forensics expert. The only evidence for staging is the recollection of FR and a snap judgment by police officers at the scene. Photos of the scene do NOT support the recollections that significant quantities of broken glass were scattered on top of the room's contents.
To my knowledge, two bona fide experts have evaluated the break in: Ron Hendry and a ballistics expert hired by the defense. Both conclude the break in was real and not staged. Neither was allowed to testify.
(Rereading your post, I think you know all this. Sorry. I couldn't help repeating it.)
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2004
- Messages
- 42,931
- Reaction score
- 126,914
Is that a bit like assuming that the lab is incompetent or guilty of something and expecting that they prove they are not?
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2004
- Messages
- 42,931
- Reaction score
- 126,914
I didn't follow the case, but from what I'm hearing, it sounds like he got off because of alleged contamination - same scam being used in this case.
No, because except in very rare cases, the lab is the only one who can prove it followed correct testing procedures. So it should be required to do so.
The burden of proof would shift only if people in the lab were accused of crimes, such as deliberately planting evidence. (And even then the burden would shift to the prosecuting entity, not to the defense in an affected trial.)
I think you 'heard' right. I did follow the OJ case.
That's still not what "technicality" means in American English. That term usually refers to a judge freeing a defendant (or more likely, throwing out key evidence) because some technical aspect of the law has been violated. Most common examples are failure to read a suspect his rights or some violation of the rules concerning the collection of evidence. (ETA it's very rare in real life, but all too common in American fiction (page or screen).)
But for the record, at least one O.J. Simpson juror said they all simply ignored the DNA evidence because it was too difficult to follow. You are certainly correct, however, that the defense tried to claim that Simpson's blood was planted by one of the original lead detectives, who for some reason carried a vial of Simpson's blood around in his pocket. Likewise, the defense also suggested the famous glove was planted by Mark Fuhrman.
So those accusations may have had an impact on jurors, but that isn't what we mean in the U.S. when we talk about "technicalities." (I can't speak for how English is used in British courtrooms.)
But this is different; in the OJ case, the evidence had been compromised by tampering, and they were asked to disregard ALL evidence; thus they had to acquit. NOT the same here; NOT a technicality at all, unless you simply WANT to believe this. No one said OJ ought never to have been a suspect in the first place, as in this case. :razz:
There was no evidence of 'tampering'... only implied.
They were asked to disregard ALL evidence by the defense team.
Getting off for a gruesome double murder because one detective lied about saying the n-word... so nothing was believed that he said or did in the case AND another 'may have' mishandled some blood evidence IS a technicality in my eyes... razz or not!
They were asked to disregard ALL evidence by the defense team.
Getting off for a gruesome double murder because one detective lied about saying the n-word... so nothing was believed that he said or did in the case AND another 'may have' mishandled some blood evidence IS a technicality in my eyes... razz or not!
And to my knowledge, no expert has accused the Italian labs of deliberately tampering with evidence in the Knox/Sollecito case. Some of us posters may have said it wouldn't surprise us, but the basic issue is sloppiness by the lab, not intentional tampering with evidence.
Oh, then I do apologize. I really thought there had been tampering. Guess I was misinformed.
Truly sorry.Okay, then. You use "technicality" in a very broad sense to mean any piece of evidence you decide is inconsequential.
The Simpson trial was a farce for a number of reasons. I don't know how you point to two factors and declare them the deciding ones. Famed prosecutor Vince Bugliosi wrote an entire book about how the case was lost and blamed it on none of the elements we've mentioned here.
He, for example, thought the glove fiasco was far more important than Fuhrman. All that "N" word stuff played great for the camera, but many people have pointed out that it is a word every black person (including jurors) has heard before.
Well, this much I was clear on. :snooty:
see my post to Nova, where I have apologized. :snooty:
NO, that's wrong. My two points were 'technicalities' when put up against the main part of the case.
The 'Bug' got some $change$ out the case.
It was him perjuring himself on the stand that was the big stink... and the stupid trying on the gloves disaster.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
