You need to be logged in to your Sky Poker account above to post discussions and comments.
You might need to refresh your page afterwards.
You need to be logged in to your Sky Poker account above to post discussions and comments.
You might need to refresh your page afterwards.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cdvy14fdjj8
Comments
His testimony put two men away for around 35 years.
His reaction to his being wrong was "well nobody died"
Along comes a supposedly proper expert who describes the first guy as an idiot.
This man is famous for his bite testimony in the Ted Bundy case.
He may be a bite expert, but his evidence is sadly lacking.
He thinks he is a comedian.
He isn't.
The jury in one of the cases believed the idiot over him because of his attitude when giving evidence.
Before the end of the programme you find out that the proper expert has to change his evidence, to allow a man that had wrongly served 35 years to be released.
In the first two cases where the bite mark testimony of the idiot, is just about the only evidence that sends both guys away, they show before the end that they weren't even bite marks.
This paints a frightening picture of the American Justice system in general, and forensic science in particular.
The one similarity in all these programmes seems to be the determination of the prosecution to even consider that they were wrong.