See: http://uk.news.yahoo.com/itn/2008080...r-dba1618.html
It seems there really wasn't enough evidence against him.
What I'm wondering, however, is how long the claim of Diane Lazarus, 'psychic wot helps the police', that she 'helped' the police in the case will remain on her website.
The words are meaningless but they're meant to imply that she helped the police arrest Barry George.The Wales on Sunday newspaper also took me to the scene of the Jill Dando Murder and information was then passed onto the Police to assist them in their enquiries. The police later arrested the person who was recently convicted of her murder.
http://www.dianelloyd-hughes.co.uk/about.php
Not very good for Diane Lazarus, one of the world's top psychics, is it?
She mustn't have seen this coming!
.
About time too! It was never likely that someone like George could commit such a 'professional' style crime. The forensic 'evidence' was so doubtful it should never have been allowed to be given at the trial.
The thought processes behind this prosecution are disturbingly similar to those of 'believers' in paranormal phenomena, ie. putting together coincidental circumstances and infering a causal link that wasn't really there.
hehehe ....Originally Posted by John Jackson
no surprise to anyone - I've been waiting for that.
She may still claim that he is the killer - 'not enough evidence' does not mean innocent to some people, particularly when they can make use of such an insinuation.
Diane Lazarus is clearly highly stupid and not worth our attemtion.
George was of course NOT convicted on her evidence. He was originally convicted on scientific evidence, that is the sort of evidence skeptics like us believe can constitute real proof. Our type of evidence, not hers. But in this case it failed, and an innocent and vulnerable man was jailed for eight years.
Before we gloat over the Diane Lazaruses of this world, should we skeptics not see what lessons we should also draw?
In a legal context, many miscarriages of justice have come down to scientific evidence which has later been held to be unsafe and discredited. My own view, for what it is worth, is that scientific evidence alone should only very rarely be determinative of a person's guilt in a criminal case.
I do not mean to unduly provoke or annoy my fellow skeptics, however I would like to prompt a reflective and reasoned discussion.
Best wishes, David
Last edited by Jack of Kent; 1st August 2008 at 08:16 PM.
Well I did start this thread merely to have a pop at Lazarus (and other psychics) but yes there is a bigger issue here.
Might be better to start another thread in the science section though as this one begun being tainted with the mention of psychics.
.
Be very careful with that argument. It is the same one that is used by those who think 19 men couldn't have hijacked 4 planes, crashed into the pentagon and demolished two large towers.
Not really "tainted" as I may well not have even conceived of the contrast between the two types of evidence without the mention of Lazarus!
It may be a useful exercise for skeptics to reflect that whilst we sneer at "psychic" evidence (which is invariably ignored by the police anyway) it is actually incorrect scientific evidence which leads to real miscarriages of justice and to the "false hopes" and "false closures" for the victims' families. Which is worse?
Last edited by Jack of Kent; 1st August 2008 at 08:50 PM.
It's an interesting area, because I heard a discussion somewhere earlier that he might not be entitled to mega compensation because the police played this one by the book to a large degree. If the fault is with the scientific evidence, then the police can only say they did their job.
Another aspect which I find interesting is the debate about expert witnesses, particularly when you have two expert witnesses disagreeing.
You've obviously probably got a lot more experience in this area.
He seems to have been largely convicted on circumstantial evidence. The "scientific" evidence seems to have consisted of a single speck of gunshot residue, found in his pocket a year later, that might or might not have come from the murder weapon and a single polyester fibre that was consistent with a pair of trousers he owned (and with all the similar pairs of trousers sold by C&A).
The scientific evidence was determinative in his original conviction. The foreman of the jury is reported as saying that without that speck they would have not convicted.
Without that "evidence" there was nowhere near enough evidence for establishing guilt. Even in the re-trial, where evidence was admitted about his stalking and similar behaviour which was not allowed in the first trial, there was no real substantial evidence against him.
I would contend that there was nothing wrong with the science, merely the interpretation. Was there a spec of gunshot residue or not, it would appear yes, the problem arose because it was assumed that there was only one possible source, and the further unfounded assumption that because he was mistakenly though to have had contact with gunpowder at some time in his like that made him a killer.
Ignoring the generality of the evidence (this was a meticulously planned murder, he does not have a high IQ and does not dispose of evidence - where is that gun) should have led both the police and the DPP to question whether they had the right man.
This kind of case makes you worry about DNA banks, if evidence like that is used to justify ignoring all other factors, we could be in for a lot more miscarriages of justice.
Good point, that is why I have sought to discuss "scientific evidence" - that is science on which evidential weight has been placed in a judicial process.
Absolutely. One can only be very worried. (Please note that such concerns are often raised on the Jack of Kent skeptic and libertarian blog: http://jackofkent.blogspot.com/ )
He has the best defense ever.
From here on in, this shall be known as the 'Barry George' defense. I couldn't have done that bad thing because I was doing this other bad thing! Brilliant.Barry George, 48, told the News of the World he could not have killed Miss Dando because he was stalking another woman at the time.
It will only work if your alibi crime is less serious I think!
Without the grossly flawed forensics there wasn't any evidence linking him to the murder. Indeed, even with that supposed 'gunpowder' speck, I think the 2001 case was extremely flimsy and should never have gone to court - even at the time I thought that this was yet another case of an innocent local nutter being sacrificed to appease public opinion.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks