IMPORTANT NOTE: You do NOT have to register to read, post, listen or contribute. If you simply wish to remain fully anonymous, you can still contribute.
Saying a liar is convinced they're telling the truth sounds to me like giving them the benefit of the doubt in an attempt to defuse the idea that they are lying through their teeth.
wjlmarsh
md wrote: Esther Baker is strongly convinced she is telling the truth. Jennifer Thompson whose 'powerful' testimony put an innocent man, Ronald Cotton, behind bars for 10 years was also absolutely convinced that she was telling the truth.
A case before DNA testing. A lot can be learnt from this case about evidence and it's assessment. The period of the case and how the police proceeded and that the victim had a reasonable memory of her attacker (Not too far off the mark, keep in mind the defendant gave a false statement).
Very difference to modern British approach of just "believe the victim/complainant" and thus no "real evidence investigation" especially after a few days have passed and no evidence of a fabrication or real crime exists any longer from the scene or the complainant, very convenient for the must believe police and convict "a hamburger" level of intelligence jury).
In this case the US after a number years had samples that related to the crime scene(this case clear evidence that a crime had taken place). The UK seem not bothered with collecting evidence if they can revert to "just believe the story". Thus the court cases of the train station walk past a fantasist with a sex attack in a micro second while the accused hands are clutching newspaper and bag. Or the quadriplegic and a twenty something year (Possibly in need of money) remembering a story when six that even a judge of all people could not see how it could be possible. Only the usual UK "convict a hamburger" jury was able to believe it.
A good video shows that even when good testimony exists and followed up mistakes can and are likely to happen. Thus when and if the UK revert back from emotion to evidence then they need to ensure more is done to substantiate everything. The lady identification was definitely in the right direction. From DNA collection etc the crime was established not just a story. Falsely accused whereabouts may of needed more checking (maybe I missed it in the video or nothing said because there was nothing further that could be found). The original story of the defendant was false BUT as people of ALL ages and backgrounds lie to varying degrees, get mixed up and so on. No one is ever exempt from possibly lying. Even a person of exemplary character will lie when necessary from his or her perspective.
For the period it appears a well put together case 1985 but we are now 2017 with DNA, CCTV, mobile phones and so on. The ABC of detective work in the "The Detectives" was spot on should be encouraged not abandoned. Accept nothing, Believe no one, Check everything (If I remember correctly!!!!)
md
Esther Baker is strongly convinced she is telling the truth. Jennifer Thompson whose 'powerful' testimony put an innocent man, Ronald Cotton, behind bars for 10 years was also absolutely convinced that she was telling the truth.
Forums 