Discussion:
Convicted on historic evidence of a 3 year olds memory from 1968
Add Reply
Graham T
2017-12-01 13:04:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
How the flying fuck did this get through?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tees-42155421
AndyW
2017-12-04 07:16:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Graham T
How the flying fuck did this get through?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tees-42155421
Maybe reading past the headlines would help...

He made a complaint based on his memory of seeing it as a 3 year old.
The photos and documents of the original investigation showed that the
head injuries were inconsistent with falling out of bed and matched that
of the fireplace and also showed that multiple impacts took place.

"The Crown Prosecution Service said it had not been able to exhume
Paul's body as burial records had been lost, with the case relying on
the documents prepared for his inquest at the time."

"Home Office pathologist Mark Egan demonstrated how the toddler could
have died by swinging a doll by the ankles and banging its head on the
surface of the witness box, causing some of the 10 men and two women of
the jury to weep."

"He also said he believed it would have taken separate blows to cause
the "z-shaped" skull fracture on the side of Paul's head."

So not "Convicted on historic evidence of a 3 year olds memory from
1968" but instead convicted on scientific evidence and a proper forensic
investigation of the evidence gathered at the time.

Andy
GB
2017-12-04 10:01:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by AndyW
Post by Graham T
How the flying fuck did this get through?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tees-42155421
Maybe reading past the headlines would help...
He made a complaint based on his memory of seeing it as a 3 year old.
The photos and documents of the original investigation showed that the
head injuries were inconsistent with falling out of bed and matched that
of the fireplace and also showed  that multiple impacts took place.
"The Crown Prosecution Service said it had not been able to exhume
Paul's body as burial records had been lost, with the case relying on
the documents prepared for his inquest at the time."
"Home Office pathologist Mark Egan demonstrated how the toddler could
have died by swinging a doll by the ankles and banging its head on the
surface of the witness box, causing some of the 10 men and two women of
the jury to weep."
"He also said he believed it would have taken separate blows to cause
the "z-shaped" skull fracture on the side of Paul's head."
So not "Convicted on historic evidence of a 3 year olds memory from
1968" but instead convicted on scientific evidence and a proper forensic
investigation of the evidence gathered at the time.
Andy
What's actually somewhat surprising is that the matter was not better
investigated at the time.
Handsome Jack
2017-12-05 10:09:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by AndyW
Post by Graham T
How the flying fuck did this get through?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tees-42155421
Maybe reading past the headlines would help...
He made a complaint based on his memory of seeing it as a 3 year old.
The photos and documents of the original investigation showed that the
head injuries were inconsistent with falling out of bed and matched
that of the fireplace
"Matched that of the fireplace"? A meaningless statement.
Post by AndyW
and also showed that multiple impacts took place.
"The Crown Prosecution Service said it had not been able to exhume
Paul's body as burial records had been lost, with the case relying on
the documents prepared for his inquest at the time."
"Home Office pathologist Mark Egan demonstrated how the toddler could
have died by swinging a doll by the ankles and banging its head on the
surface of the witness box, causing some of the 10 men and two women of
the jury to weep."
"He also said he believed it would have taken separate blows to cause
the "z-shaped" skull fracture on the side of Paul's head."
So not "Convicted on historic evidence of a 3 year olds memory from
1968" but instead convicted on scientific evidence and a proper
forensic investigation of the evidence gathered at the time.
Scientific my ass. Swinging a doll by the ankles to show what "could
have" happened isn't scientific, it's pure speculation. Moreover the
shape of the fracture was known at the time, and what he "believes" now
isn't relevant.

I remember how a Home Office pathologist demonstrated how a powder trace
in Barry George's pocket showed he "could have" killed Jill Dando a year
earlier. It turned out to be a pack of lies.
--
Jack
Loading...