Iain’s Blog

Hi,

When logging on earlier saw this clip, and you may wonder what Russian Artillery has to do with the nightmares we have faced. Well watch this…warning this clip contains large amounts of snow (well nowadays you have to be warned when outdoors the Atmosphere contains oxygen)!

Are you sitting comfortably? Then click below (look for the Russian Soldier who is a tad scared and leaps out the way on the road and to think we were worried about fighting the Russian war machine…good grief)

 http://www.asylum.co.uk/2011/03/22/russian-military-control-avalanches-by-firing-artillery-shells/

Now what I link to this is, one or two carefully aimed shots brings the whole pile covering the mountain down.

There’s a good few people out there who have been collecting ammo,  we will keep shooting (metaphorically speaking of course) till the blanket covering the mountain is cleared and people can see clearly.

Hi,

Funny old game being an expert…well wanna be expert, it puts you on the side of Ken Noye who once got away with killing a Police Officer (PC John Fordham, RIP) with a garden Fork as well as the young man on the M25 in front of his girlfriend.

Another reason to dislike pseudo experts maybe? The ironic thing is the Police seem to like the experts? Funny old game ain’t it…well in the words of Harry Hill…well I like Experts and I like the Police…you know the rest!

Its like politics in some third world country (England, Italy, you know the sort)…murky, sinister and downright dodgy.

Now it seems people are waking up, it just makes me wonder if this has been on the Radar since 2005 (when hell started for us and obviously Maeves family) why oh why has it taken this long - even the UN moves quicker than that! And boy is that saying something.

So now the coffee is on, what you going to do about all those still in prison, in court, or that have done their time?

Until the judgment of the Court of Appeal in Harris and others,11 the prosecution
had been allowed to rely on a hypothesis that a non-accidental head injury to a
young child could confidently be inferred from nothing more than the presence of
a particular triad of intra-cranial injuries. The prosecution had in effect been able
to rely on nothing more than expert opinion evidence based on the triad to secure
convictions for very serious offences against the person, including murder.

12 This was the case even though the diagnosis of a violent assault was predicated on
empirical research which has been criticised as comprising only a small, poorquality
database.

13 In other words, the hypothesis underpinning the diagnosis had been insufficiently scrutinised or supported by empirical research to justify the strong opinion evidence founded on it.

1.8 In our consultation paper we explained that the common law approach to the
admissibility of expert opinion evidence is one of laissez-faire, with such evidence
being admitted without sufficient regard to whether or not it is sufficiently reliable
to be considered by a jury. We concluded that this is unsatisfactory and proposed that the common law approach should be replaced by a new admissibility test set out in primary legislation.

1.9 We expressed particular concern about expert opinion evidence which is presented as scientific. We explained that, for evidence of this sort, there is a danger that juries will abdicate their duty to ascertain and weigh the facts and  simply accept the experts’ own opinion evidence, particularly if the evidence is complex and difficult for a non-specialist to understand and evaluate.

http://www.lawcom.gov.uk/docs/lc325_web.pdf