
Originally Posted by
Winston001
Absolutely - but that simply means policemen are human and capable of mistakes. The pressures on the police to solve high profile cases is immense and officers can come to believe they have identified the offender. Human nature then resists suggestions that they might be mistaken, particularly if the suspect fits the theory of the case.
Having said that, the criminal investigation system isn't one man and his dog doing all of the work. Many officers are involved with this type of case and they have to generally agree on the strength of the evidence they have gathered. Ron Pope for example was simply the lead detective in the Watson presecution.
As well as the police, the Crown solicitor's office of lawyers is involved and they have to be equally convinced of the strength of the case.
So there is a whole cohort of people involved in weighing whether a suspect should be prosecuted, long before it gets to trial.
At trial the defendant has his lawyer and the chance to have his say. He doesn't have to give evidence but frankly you have to wonder why he doesn't in many of these cases. For example, David Bain. He blames his lawyer but if the guy was as innocent as driven snow, that was his chance to get up and say so. He didn't.
Pitty they act like they're superior.
"Faster, faster, faster, until the thrill of speed overcomes the fear of death" - Hunter S. Thompson
Bookmarks