Rich2005 wrote
[Well i've certainly seen ones where they believed a guy who kept changing his story every time one of his scenarios for what actually happened was proved to not be the case (at least three times from memory).Did he come from/move to the US cause if he did, I was the opposing expert in one of his cases. He, literally, had three different theories as to whether a device had been wiped and each theory after the first was an attempt to deal with his previously discredited theory.
In spite of this, the judge was going to let him testify to part of his theory and let the jury decide who to believe. And now, this guy goes across the country serving on panels where he discusses this case, even though part of his testimony was thrown out and the veracity of that which had not been was untested because the parties settled before trial.
Heh, I don't think so, unless he's moved 😉 (and mine referred to the actual defendant/suspect rather than his expert if he had one). I think it's probably something that unfortunately happens everywhere. My personal opinion is that as a suspect/defendant, you should only be allowed to give one statement/story, and have to stick to it. I.e. the truth. You don't need to go changing your story several times if you are innocent. Frankly, I think this alone would save a ton of court time/money, which they blatantly need to do in these times of 'austerity'. p
My personal opinion is that as a suspect/defendant, you should only be allowed to give one statement/story, and have to stick to it. I.e. the truth. You don't need to go changing your story several times if you are innocent. Frankly, I think this alone would save a ton of court time/money, which they blatantly need to do in these times of 'austerity'. p
I think that's going a bit too far. In most circumstances a jury would have no difficulty in drawing appropriate inferences from inconsistent statements made by a defendant in order to assess their credibility.