I've seen many trials on TV (48 Hours, etc.) where each side's expert has a different set of facts (or as I call it, a different opinion).
Originally Posted by munchkin
They may choose to highlight or question different facts, but there still has to be a factual basis for the information given. You can't say "Well, there were fingerprints at the scene and they've been tested and shown to be the accused's fingerprints, and there are ten witnesses saying they saw the accused there, and the accused confessed to doing it, but my opinion is that he didn't do it because he is a nice guy."

You can say "Well, his fingerprints were there, but he was there earlier that day, and there are ten witnesses, but it's cross-racial identification / it was dark and they couldn't see clearly / the police did the ID improperly and made suggestions to the witnesses, and the accused confessed but he has a low IQ and was improperly coerced into it by the police and denied his rights, so there is insufficient evidence to convict." You'd need some proof he was there earlier through a witness or something, an exert on the problems with cross-racial identification, testimony from the witnesses as to sloppy work by the police, etc. for this theory to be given any weight. It isn't just some lawyer's crazy opinion.
Originally Posted by Amneris
I have seen "expert" witnesses regarding someone's mental state and the other side's expert disagrees. I have seen "expert" witnesses regarding blood spatter and the other side's expert disagrees. If something is a clear cut fact, I know it can't be disputed but there are many so called "facts" out there that aren't clear cut and two different experts can come to two different conclusions. That is all I am saying.
Originally Posted by munchkin
That I agree with. Facts can certainly be manipulated, refrd, etc.
Get used to me. Black, confident, cocky; my name, not yours; my religion, not yours; my goals, my own; get used to me. -Muhammad Ali