...jurors (and the public in general) are now brainwashed into thinking no case is winnable without all this DNA and forensic evidence. All this technology is relatively new. Remember, for hundreds of years people were convicted solely on circumstantial evidence. It's better to have, but lots of circumstantial evidence works too.
twitter.com/swlinphx
http://www.youtube.com/user/SWLinPHX
While my wife was in the paralegal program in college, she came home with a little tidbit from one of her lawyer/instructors that stuck with me. He said that one of his pet peeves is that television depicts circumstantial evidence as being so weak. The line "All you have is circumstantial evidence" is often heard. But here is the thing. Fingerprints are circumstantial evidence. Forensics are circumstantial evidence. And DNA is circumstantial evidence. It is evidence that puts the suspect at the scene of the crime as opposed to eye witness testimony. Want to hear a real shocker? Eye witness testimony is the least reliable.
shareYes, there are many studies showing how little one can rely on eye-witness testimony alone. In experiments people will swear they saw something only to see later on video replay it was completely wrong.
twitter.com/swlinphx
http://www.youtube.com/user/SWLinPHX
I think most everybody knows eye witness testimony is the most faulty.
shareI think most everybody knows eye witness testimony is the most faulty.
We are all different. I think it is assumed that 2 or more people can look at anything and see something different. I didn't realize you had to be Einstein to know that.
You over simplify. It should be common sense that a long playing record has two grooves, one on each side. But ask the question and you will get as many different answers as you have people to ask. Most people don't know and most don't have the capacity to figure it out. Plus, there are far too many people who rely on television to educate and inform. They hear that oft repeated line about "All you have is circumstantial evidence" and think that some other type of evidence is stronger.
shareWhen people here there is "only circumstantial evidence" I think they hear or infer that somehow psychologically to mean only "hearsay, conjecture or coincidence of some sort that the prosecutor is offering as a possible explanation". That is not what it is at all. It is evidence that all points to one guilty party -- even "solid evidence" does not always have to mean DNA or forensic evidence.
twitter.com/swlinphx
http://www.youtube.com/user/SWLinPHX
You have said a couple of times "DNA or forensic evidence." Forensic evidence includes DNA as well as the age old finger prints and ballistics, as well as others. "Solid evidence" would almost certainly involve some kind of forensics.
shareYes, I know DNA is forensic. DNA and all forensic evidence is understood. And "solid evidence" is not always forensic. That term has been around long before all that. It is evidence that is damning or damn near irrefutable.
twitter.com/swlinphx
http://www.youtube.com/user/SWLinPHX
"Consider that we live in a society that gives importance to the likes of Paris Hilton and Kim Kardashian, and television shows like The Jersey Shore and Two and a Half Men are successful"
Thank god there are other people and other countries in the world who don't watch this crap. Nor do a minority group assume that the majority watch such tripe.