Bradley Murdoch

[Plavt]

A poster recently commented in another thread 'we have better forensics today'. If that is true then why did it take so long to convict Bradley Murdoch? Does anyone know the answer? My only information as usual is the BBC and online newspapers.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-p ... 524084.stm



Plavt.

[dot dot dot]

Does this explain why Australia instead rather chooses to make criminals like Van Nguyen heroes?

Eric

[Plavt]

My question is; why did it take so long to convict Bradley Murdoch in the light of forensic evidence. I think van Nguyen is best kept out of the debate.

Plavt.

[dot dot dot]

Open discussions please, Plavt?

Eric

[Bubbles]

Sorry, agree with Eric, we are all free to meander, and we do, all too often....

OK, off to bed now....it's nearly 1am here in Wales and I should be writing chrissy cards but can't be bothered.

[dot dot dot]

nite nite Bubbs,

sweet dreams for later...

Eric

[CardZeus]

The problem with advances in forensics is that most juries will be swayed by expert testimony to the fact that the odds are billions to one against it being someone else. It only takes one cop to plant such evidence...

[Vaucluse]

. . . and it only takes one 'eyewitness' to falsely identify someone - I'd rather rely on science.

[dot dot dot]

on a serious note then, I agree with cardzeus and vaucluse, these cases are so delicate and on the other hand so easy to manipulate with 'evidence'.

I can't say why, but I just doubt the Australia justice system, when reading about these kind of cases in the so called 'outback' (thought the whole country was quite an outback?).

Eric

[Plavt]

Eric has a good point, a problem with the jury system employed in Britain is that smart criminals can fool or confuse people with the evidence made available. Not everybody and not infrequently the entire personage of a jury will have no understanding of what is going on and sometimes won't want to. An example of such for those who know is the Guinness trial at the end of which the judge said to the jury 'well I'm an educated man and I don't understand these things so I don't expect you to' (he was referring to stocks and shares). In that situation it would be only too easy to manipulate evidence.

Plavt.

[Frenzy]

Eric has a good point, a problem with the jury system employed in Britain is that smart criminals can fool or confuse people with the evidence made available. Not everybody and not infrequently the entire personage of a jury will have no understanding of what is going on and sometimes won't want to.

Although the opposite could also be true if you're one to believe the news media.

Recently there has been what is referred to as the "CSI Effect" impacting the outcomes of cases. Juries are now becoming more educated about forensics and placing a higher bar on the evidence presented by prosecutors. Google "CSI Effect".

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/200 ... fect_x.htm
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... 3_csi.html
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/culture/ar ... /25csi.htm
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/03/ ... 1949.shtml