Quote:
Originally Posted by blackmonsters
I can examine a bullet wound and tell you 18,000 stories of how it got there; but a good eye witness is only going to tell you one story over and over again.
Certain wounds can be determined to have caused death and therefore would most likely be
the last shots fired;
but after that, it's just pulling shit out of one's ass to form a scenario of when and how each shot was fired.
If I took a human like manikin and posed it several times to shoot it as if I was in a struggle with it and recorded it on video tape; then I'd like to give it to 10 coroners to
tell me what happened to the manikin.
Not a single one of their scenarios would match to the video tape.
 |
Just because the eye witness tells you the same story over and over against doesn't mean it is accurate. There have been a lot of studies that show eye witnesses, especially in violent crimes, get things wrong. They may believe they are correct, but in reality they aren't
The innocence project says that in 72% of the cases where DNA overturned a conviction the reason the person was convicted was from an eyewitness misidentifying the person or the action.
In a perfect world if you have multiple people all telling you the same thing there is a good chance that is how it went down.
If it were me and my freedom was on the line and I had to choose between science and an eyewitness I would take the science.