While I don't dispute your analyzes of the legal system, it do paint a rather grim picture. Evidence in this case can then only ever be used in one direction.
Had the handwriting and name been that of the suspect, it would without doubt be used as evidence to crucify the suspect. However, if the handwriting and name is about someone else, then the evidence is regarded as confusing and thus discarded.
It looks to me as a realistic, maybe a bit cynical view of the legal system. Is this really how empirical evidence should be used?
Had the handwriting and name been that of the suspect, it would without doubt be used as evidence to crucify the suspect. However, if the handwriting and name is about someone else, then the evidence is regarded as confusing and thus discarded.
It looks to me as a realistic, maybe a bit cynical view of the legal system. Is this really how empirical evidence should be used?