Axel Posted January 25, 2016 Share Posted January 25, 2016 The evidence is heard from the defence's standpoint but so what?Evidence still seems to be the most reliable thing, DNA evidence in particular. Yet scientific experiments prove the opposite, because evidence is not so evident after being interpreted by he police. In staged scenarios, interpreted by real crime scene investigators the bias rate still was around 5%. Doesn't this count as reasonable doubt?It's worse with confessions, especially if the suspects are family members. Subconscious guilt in conjunction with leading questions by interrogators who are prejudiced and psychologically poorly trained result in the, er, inception of wrong memories. Completely wrong in 15-20 % in tests. The suspects develop detailed plots of how they did it.Witnesses shouldn't be allowed in court anymore. Of all people who were asked about specific facts of a staged crime they witnessed, first only those reports were counted that the witnesses were sure about. 80 % of them failed in the most important respects! The fragmentary memories of the unsure rest were more often correct, but only if recorded immediately afterwards.Memory betrayes us. Everone states they knew exactly what they did when they first heard of 9-11. This turned out to be wrong too. People merge those connections to a coherent story, and those stories vary dependant on who asks them and how intense the interview gets. Details are left out or added. And if they were in a group at that time but interviewed seperately, the testimonies contradict each other.Minority reports everywhere. And 'standpoints', but little else ... Ed_David 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.