So as Roberts like fantasizing about courtrooms, but seems to be stuck in a world where court works to the rules of Matlock instead of, you know, the law, let's consider for a second how witnesses in court work. Is the world, as Robert thinks, inclined to reject physical evidence on the basis of eye witnesses?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CSI_effect
Nope. The exact opposite.
[qoute]In particular, prosecutors have reported feeling pressured to provide DNA evidence even when eyewitness testimony is available[/quote]
See also:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/02/10/eveningnews/main673060.shtml
So instead of this being Matlcok where a Good Guy Witness can inexplicably overturn the pesky Physical Evidence the bad guys use to try and frame the defendant, the reality is eye witnesses being discredited by physical evidence. This is how juries know if you are a telling a lie: They look at the physical evidence.
The other great myth Robert has fallen for, in his "slam dunk" is that more witnesses equate to better witnesses. I'm afraid this is simply not true. One witness can tip the balance of feelings in a jury in an instant. Lots of witnesses who are not "great" will have a negative effect. Imagine if all 40 witnesses are handed the photos we have from the autopsy and are asked:
"Is that the President in these photographs?" Yes. Or it appears to be. LHOs prosecutor is scoring a slam dunk. "Are those the same wounds you saw?" There is no wrong answer he can get from that question. No? Then how can that be? Or, You don't Know? Nothing but net. Yes? Even better.
But let's assume he "played fair" by the rules Robert seems to think occur. He is worried the photo is invalidated by the witness and not the other way around. Pretend you are in the jury and you here this exchange not once, not five times, but forty times. Every day for weeks your life consists of forty witnesses dragged to the bar to go through this cross examination:
DA: So you were on duty at the hospital when the President was administered?
Witness X: Yes. That is correct.
DA: It must have been a lot of pressure.
WX: Sure was.
DA: You were one of the team trying to save his life?
WX: Yes.
DA: Then I would like to thank you, on behalf of us all, for your hard work.
WX: Thanks.
DA: How big was the emergency room where he was treated?
WX: I don't know of the top of my head sir.
DA: As big as this court?
WX: No *laughs* I wish.
DA: How about the office down the hall?
WX: I would say that was closer, maybe a bit bigger.
DA: So, by the time you and the doctors were in there, it was quite cosy, with the gurney with the president on, and all the equipment?
WX: Sure was. We get used to it. We work around each other.
DA: So you got a good look at the wound?
WX: Yes sir. All things considered.
DA: Well, let's consider all things sir. Did the surgeons stop work so you could look?
WX: No sir. They were saving a mans life.
DA: Which meant they were working on the wound?
WX: Yes sir.
DA: So their hands were in the way, and the rest of them. Did they let you pick up the back of his head for a look?
WX: No.
DA: Did you have time to stop and pull out a ruler to measure the wounds?
WX: No sir.
DA: How long did you stop and stare at the wound for?
WX: As I said, we were saving his life.
DA: So you had no time to take accurate measurements, photographs, or the like, and there was always other people between you and the wound. How many?
WX: It depends. Nobody was spectating sir. As I said, we had a life to save.
DA: Did you clean the blood away to accurately assess the size of the wound?
WX: No.
DA: Are you a trained pathologist?
WX: No.
DA: Are you aware that there are 39 other people who are due to testify on this matter? Were they all in that room at the same time, or were they moving around?
WX: It was hectic sir.
DA: So none of them had time to stop and take measurements either? Everybody was in the way of everybody else?
At that point, it doesn't matter what the Witness says, people were too busy saving a life, and there was no way for 40 people to crowd around and stare at JFK, whose head was not even lifted to inspect the back of his cranium, as has been pointed out before. None of the 40 witnesses were pathologists, they didn't take measurements, they didn't take photos. Sure, there were some drawings of the body?
DA: Sir, can you explain why these two different drawings show different wounds?
WX: One is in a kind of pseudo 3D and-
DA: Yes sir. A different style, I am asking why both show a different wound. With the entry and exit wounds orientated on differing parts of the head.
WX: Well, I didn't draw those sir.
DA: Which is more accurate? Or are neither accurate?
WX: I don-
DA: You don't know? But you are sure of what the body was like. You got a "good" look, and made statements...
Repeat those doubts 40 times. Who gets the slam dunk? 40 witnesses who can't all have been stood around the president? 40 Witnesses who weren't taking detailed notes as they tried to save a life? Or pathologists? Or even trained observers?
Versus the documentary record of the autopsy, witnessed by personell from the forces, supported by a photographic record? No contest. One slam dunk becomes 40 opertunities for own goals.
