-- getting the section url from article. This has been done so that correct url is three-year-old boy they were adopting, it marked the end of a nightmare that At their first trial, which began at the end of 2004, they were acquitted of murder but convicted of manslaughter. The basis for the conviction was teaspoonfuls in one dose.

There was no realistic explanation of how such an They were sentenced to five years rsquo; imprisonment. Like others incarcerated for crimes against children, they suffered humiliation and abuse. After 15 months the Court of Appeal quashed the conviction, ordered a retrial and After their acquittal at the recent retrial, their solicitor, William Bache, trial when so much doubt remained about the science involved.

rdquo; Over the past few years, this has become a disappointingly familiar tale which has recurred in the cases of Sally Clark, Angela Cannings, Donna Anthony and each, the defendant parent was ultimately vindicated. There are several failings common to many of these cases, although not all. Frequently, a prosecution is embarked upon when it is clear from the start the cause of particular injuries.

Sometimes the dispute is as basic as what the original findings amount to. In other words, what can actually be discerned from scans, the X-rays, the histology and so forth. original samples have been used up, or lost and, occasionally, that the What remains, therefore, tends to be the opinion of one expert against another.

This provides a nearly impossible situation for any fact-finding tribunal whether jury and judge, or judge alone. On what basis can a comes down to a preference in presentation? Rarely will there be exhibits that can be pored over and, even if there are, they are often unintelligible.

In the Cannings case, the Court of Appeal provided some extremely sensible between reputable experts, then the prosecution should not be started or Unfortunately, this advice has not been heeded. Cases proceed in the absence of corroborative evidence. Even when experts have been discredited, cases or a new one, or who stray beyond their own expertise.

by establishing a clear, regulatory structure with obligatory protocols and guidelines. This has been raised endlessly in professional debate, parliamentary reports, reviews and Royal Commissions. But there persists an standards and guidelines for experts who give evidence in court.

The newly comprehensive and membership is only voluntary. There should also be a national and obligatory register of accreditation. In all cases where expert evidence (the Daubert Test).

Essentially, the courts exercise a form of quality control. The judge decides which experts are capable of giving evidence and the areas where they are qualified to comment. This ensures that certain basic thresholds are achieved, that the theory or technique employed can or has been tested, subjected to peer-review or publication, the conviction of a so-called expert forensic psychologist.

Gene Morrison for 27 years. His qualifications had been bought from a website mdash; he had no genuine academic or forensic psychology skills. Up to 700 cases may Besides wondering why forensic scientists, police officers, solicitors, have exposed this individual, what the case really illustrates is systemic failure on a grand scale.

Obligatory accreditation and hearings before the I spent 12 years in jail for a crime I DID NOT commit and so I speak from experience in that juries do regard forensic/scientific evidence as the truth. The recent surge in TV crime programmes, like CSA, can lead to members of the public thinking that all evidence given by so called experts is foolproof? So often expert witnesses go way beyond their remit and neglect to tell the jury that the science is not exact.

Juries are influenced by the qualifications spelt out before the evidence is given, they can be both baffled by the evidence and truly believe the expert to be telling the whole truth! Forensic science has led to huge progress in solving crime and can be a useful tool but there is a risk that unrealistic portrayals in TV detective programmes seduce the public into questioning that science. Mere opinions are not good enough when a persons liberty is at stake!

It is horrendous to be imprisoned wrongfully and worse still that the real culprit goes free.

Sadly lawyers working for either side, who do not have any medical training, can be easily led to the wrong conclusions by the experts they seek to rely on.

It stands to reason that one of the changes that could be instigated as a fail safe, would be for both sides to employ barristers with medico/legal expertise, at that juncture they can then at least be able to properly understand the medical evidence said to support either side's claims.

Having sat though the Gay appeal and some of both R-V-Williams and R-V-Gay retrial and had access to the medical records for both cases, might I also suggest that from the very outset, the least the experts could do was ensure they had done their sums right-how did it come about that in three arenas the prosecution experts in relation to alleged salt poisoning, gave evidence that was erroneous? And how is it that the prosecution did not pick up that the math was wrong-a matter that seriously underminded both cases. Well, we are all aware of this in family law courts where the only experts allowed are on the side of SS.

How unfair is that to anyone.??

Even if you do get a private psychologist, SS, phone him or her up and say what result they want and that is it. Deal done, money handed over. I guess, if the right words do not appear on the report the psychologist will not receive further work or money.

This all money for old rope and all it is, is bluff and spoof, big polthogs of words as we say in Dublin and you are a winner. You just have to act your part. Like most lawyers are mere actors,playing to their audience.

When the family law courts open to the light of justice, then the truth will backen this country for 50 years to come.
Women in particular are made shreds of, and most wished they never bothered. The others accused of msbp and other rubbish is crazy, and now we see how the scam worked.

But to take these children and use them in drug experiments is appauling. Truth coming to light.

As a barrister specialising in representing people who claim to have been falsely accused, Michael Mansfield has a clear vested interest in undermining public confidence in the expert witnesses with whom he must do battle in the courts.

In this article he has served that interest well (although, by introducing the spectre of Gene Morrison, somewhat shamelessly). It is, of course, worth pointing out that it is not experts of any kind who decide whether or not a prosecution should proceed. That responsibility belongs to lawyers who work for the Crown Prosecution Service.

I don t think anyone could argue with Mr Mansfield s concern that experts should not be allowed to come up with new theories or stray beyond their area of expertise. He doesn t say, but I assume he intends that such rules should apply equally to experts for the defence, as well as those for the prosecution.