Something bothers me about all these expert witnesses. The states as well as the defences. When you do scientific research there is a specific method which you follow. You have a hypothesis, you look at evidence based measuring methods. You state clearly which instruments you used, you measure everything to a tee and you perform at least 3 experiments, all with written results, measurements etc. Only then you reach a conclusion and prove it with graphs and diagrams. Even secondary school kids know it, but I do not see any of this scientific proof coming from any of these experts. Now the judge must make a decision about a mans future, based on their opinions and not on scientific proof? Really...
Posted on: Sat, 10 May 2014 14:44:07 +0000