Perversion of UK Justice

[Griffin NoName]

Just watched a documentary about Gene Morrison called Crime Scene Conman.

I had heard nothing about this at all. Googling seems to indicate it was only reported in the Manchester Evening News and as a local BBC Manchester item.

It concerns me that something which potentially throws our whole expert witness system into question has not been headline news.

There again, why does that also not surprise me?

[Aphos]

There have been several cases like this in the US, too.  One was in my state's capitol of Oklahoma City.  It even was used as the basis for an episode of "Law and Order".

Seems we had an employee of the state crime lab that thought it was her job to reinforce the suspicions of the state cops...rather than determining what the evidence really was.  So, whether or not the fingerprints matched the suspect, she reported that they did.  I forget how many cases she ended up tainting once her duplicity was discovered.

Sadly, she didn't even see that what she had done was wrong.  She thought she had done the right thing because she had given the cops what they wanted.

[beagle]

There again, why does that also not surprise me?

Doesn't surprise me that much either to be honest. How often in your career are you forced to provide your exam certificates for inspection? In my case the last time was in 1978 when the university required to be sent the A-Level certificates.

Generally these people are caught out by mistakes, saying they were an undergraduate at All Souls for example , or by running into someone who really was where they only claimed to be at the same time.

What I find scary about expert witnesses is that juries give them an awful lot of credence, whether genuine or not, despite (for example), it being shown over and over again the EWs often misuse or have no understanding of statistics.

[Griffin NoName]

Generally these people are caught out by mistakes

Yes, but there's not even a "system" to catch them out. At the risk of more leakage from the tax payers account, surely there should be some regulatory body akin to other "professions"?  Although given the FSA announcement yesterday maybe not !

saying they were an undergraduate at All Souls for example

[beagle]

Yes, but there's not even a "system" to catch them out. At the risk of more leakage from the tax payers account, surely there should be some regulatory body akin to other "professions"? 

I think the plan is to impress the jury with the idea that these people are Mega-brains who have temporarily left off saving the world to appear in person because of their outrage at the horror_of_the_crime/injustice_of_the_accusation.

Give them their own parking space, regulatory body, trade union and canteen and it mine undermine that impression.

But you're probably right.

[Griffin NoName]

Apparently juries give extra weight to expert witness statements.

Given the already well publicised cases where mothers have been freed on appeal on very dodgy evidence of killing their babies, based almost entirely on a lunatic pathology doctor monster, this would seem to indicate some urgency.

The system seems at present based on finding someone who will say "yes they dun it" in the most compelling tone of voice, whether they have the qualifications or the actual expertise (peer review?) - basically this means the courts are wide open to the perversion of justice.... and we all go on accepting it ?   Quite bizarre.

Is it time to review all cases that involved an expert witness?  That'll cost the tax payer a bob or two

[Aphos]

In US courts, it often comes down to battling experts.  That is, which side can hire an "expert" that can best convince the jury.

[beagle]

Given the already well publicised cases where mothers have been freed on appeal on very dodgy evidence of killing their babies, based almost entirely on a lunatic pathology doctor monster, this would seem to indicate some urgency.

That's what I meant by misuse of statistics.  Ask what the chances of two babies within a family dying of SIDS are and you get a very low probability. Ask what the chances are of a few legitimate occurrences per year in a population of 60 million and you get a much higher number. It's up to the defending lawyer to spot this, but if they were maths experts they wouldn't have the nice car and the villa in the South of France.

In US courts, it often comes down to battling experts.  That is, which side can hire an "expert" that can best convince the jury.

Same here.  First invent some psychobabble term for what the accused is supposed to have done, and then give the impression it's happening all over the place but the jury never noticed and the accused is in denial. The Scottish island "ritual child abuse" case was a classic here. Suspect someone had watched the Wicker Man once too often.

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

Is it time to review all cases that involved an expert witness?  That'll cost the tax payer a bob or two

Or even a Larry or Shirley? 



______________________

The problem is the basic way that "Justice" is done in both countries.  It's no accident that the US closely resembles the British system... we essentially "lifted" your method at the start, and continued from there.

What really needs to be done is scrap the adversarial system "People Versus Joe Blo" and go to a "Find The Truth" system.

How would that work?  Hollywood's take aside, the Military Justice system is based on this somewhat.  The judges in a military case are on neither side, and do not mediate the two sides-- in fact there really are not "two sides"-- the truth is what is pursued, and not "we win, they loose" mentality.   Everyone not actually on the defensive is supposed to be about finding the truth, finding what happened.

If we had such a system, it would eliminate most Lawyer's current tactics in one go.

*sigh*

But it would require an objectivist viewpoint from everyone involved (except, perhaps, the defendant).

[pieces o nine]

Expert witnesses are not evil per se.  Their presence is an open admission that the average person is ignorant about many things and might benefit from listening to one who has made it a life study, rather than just guessing based on their own unfounded prejudices.

All high ideals can be perverted and devalued in practice, especially when public policy and/or large amounts of money are riding on the outcome. In US jurisprudence, more emphasis is put on shading testimony to elicit the desired effect than in the stated oath of "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth". The integrity and expertise of ethical witnesses can be compromised by demanding un-nuanced yes or no answers to extremely nuanced questions. Unethical witnesses are no so much bothered by nuance as long as they are testifying for the side that funds them.

One case where expert witnesses *were* extremely valuable and effective is Kitzmiller v. Dover. The effect of expert witnesses for the ID sector dropping out one-by-one without testifying also spoke volumes to everyone watching.

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

.... Kitzmiller v. Dover. ....

Civil cases?  They ought to remain adviserial.   It it the one case where it truly IS "Joe Smoe vs Fred Dewlap".

I was speaking of strictly criminal cases.

And I agree-- no need to eliminate expert witnesses, but in a "find the truth" case, the expert witness is encouraged to give testimony at length.

Cross examination?  Not done that way. Clarification, yes-- adverse anti-questioning? No.

And, the expert OUGHT to prove his/her expertise FIRST.  By stint of degree, experience, and so forth.  Else the JUDGE ought to disqualify him/her on the spot BEFORE he/she says anything--- in fact, the expert should ideally never come as a surprise, but would HAVE to be pre-qualified to testify on whatever it is expert about.   Else he/she would not be allowed to speak at all.

Find the TRUTH-- not an artificial contest between lawyers like it is now, with the defendant's life at stake....

[Sibling Chatty]

Kitzmiller vs Dover would still be in arguments...

Tammy Kitzmiller, et al. v. Dover Area School District, et al., Case No. 04cv2688, was the first direct challenge brought in the United States federal courts against a public school district that required the presentation of "Intelligent Design" as an alternative to evolution as an "explanation of the origin of life." The plaintiffs successfully argued that intelligent design is a form of creationism, and that the school board policy thus violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Where ya gonna find 'truth' in THAT mess?

[Griffin NoName]

The Scottish island "ritual child abuse" case was a classic here. Suspect someone had watched the Wicker Man once too often.

I thought the Wicker Man was a documentary 

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

Kitzmiller vs Dover would still be in arguments...

Tammy Kitzmiller, et al. v. Dover Area School District, et al., Case No. 04cv2688, was the first direct challenge brought in the United States federal courts against a public school district that required the presentation of "Intelligent Design" as an alternative to evolution as an "explanation of the origin of life." The plaintiffs successfully argued that intelligent design is a form of creationism, and that the school board policy thus violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Where ya gonna find 'truth' in THAT mess?

Is why CIVIL court would remain advisorial.     Rather a misnomer, then, isn't it?  It's usually anything BUT "civil"

[pieces o nine]

I mixed the civil/criminal justice apples/oranges there because civil cases have a big impact on how laws are interpreted (and legislated, to bolster or weaken those interpretations, appeals, and so on), which affects John & Jane Q. Public's lives.

Sadly, John & Jane Q. Public possess decreasing expertise on anything of merit, and are only too eager to defer to 'experts' based not upon actual expertise, but on the 'experts' religious and political affiliation, and ability to tap into their inner 7-year-old during debates.