Quote:
Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...s/andrea_yates
Andrea Yates' conviction was overturned because an expert gave testimony about a Law & Order episode that never existed. My question is why is this guy not being prosecuted for purjury? Shouldn't you see a Law & Order episode showing a mom drowning her kids before you testify about it?
I'm also wondering if the Rosenthal is going to end up going after her for the other two murders.
|
I was wondering "how in the hell did L&O become admissible evidence? Will we now see cites to "L&O, Season 5, Ep. 15" along with "286 F.2d. 115"?" and "why is a shrink testifying about L&O? Is he a TV shrink? Is he a L&O expert? A TV addict in his spare time? What?"
But in context it made more sense.
Did no one on the defense side think to fact check this at the time? Then again, I think everything's been done on L&O at some time, so presuming "psycho mom drowns kids" had been done, too, isn't that far a stretch. Still, the DA almost always wins on that show, so you'd think they would check it out to confirm the claimed "NGBRO Insanity" verdict.
