Do Paid Witnesses Intentionally Lie?

Discussion in 'Caylee Anthony 2 years old' started by aeneas1, Jun 18, 2011.

  1. aeneas1

    aeneas1 New Member

    Messages:
    173
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    not a particularly big fan of wendy murphy, but i did get a kick out of her recent rant when she called out the bug man, claiming that he exemplified for-hire liars and the commonplace tolerance for these type of witnesses. she added that such behavior, including jb's vasco stunt, made a mockery of the judicial system and that it was time for sanctions, sanctions, sanctions.

    did the bug man actually lie under oath, on behalf of those that put him on the stand, on behalf of those that paid him for his testimony? heck, i don't know. but imo there does seem to be something a little squirrely going on with some of these pay-to-play witnesses, something not entirely above board, something not entirely in step with the spirit of the judicial system.

    for example, take dr. spitz's testimony today during cross examination. did it strike everyone as entirely honest and offered in good faith? at one point ja asked ds if he recently did an interview for a detroit station, and if he went into great detail about the anthony case during said interview, which actually aired just 3 days ago. ds didn't seem to recall if he even did the interview, then he said that he did but that he only discussed logistics, not details about the case.

    ja asking him at the 3:00 mark
    http://www.wftv.com/video/28281844/index.html 3:00 p6

    the very detailed detroit interview:
    http://www.clickondetroit.com/video/28239806/index.html

    ja also asked ds about the duct tape, specifically how someone might go about wrapping a stretch of tape around the skull, from ear to ear, without disturbing the anatomically accurate positioning of the jaw. ds indignantly replied that the tape wasn't wrapped around the skull, that it was just attached to one side of the skull, that he never saw a photo or knew anything about the tape being wrapped across and around the head.

    ja asking ds about the tape, and ds's reply, at the 2:25 mark
    http://www.wftv.com/video/28281884/index.html

    ds offering a very different opinion about the positioning of the tape during the detroit interview, at the 6:35 mark:
    http://www.clickondetroit.com/video/28239806/index.html 6:35

    yep, pretty squirrely imo...
     
  2. Loading...


  3. Scamperoo

    Scamperoo New Member

    Messages:
    1,143
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    It seems as though it is very profitable to be a defense witness even if it means omitting certain information and reinterpreting the facts to suit ones employer.

    I guess the whole system has become morally bankrupt, the shame being that it doesn't seem to impact their careers, perhaps it's time to pay closer attention to these lies for hire experts.
     
  4. coloradoteacher

    coloradoteacher New Member

    Messages:
    596
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The only positive in this respect is that the American people are on to these types and often do not believe them. With the exception of OJ, most of the time, juries keep this in mind when judging the objectiveness of the witnesses.
    In Dr. WS's example, many TH are saying that he was very qualified and believable, but the average citizen is going to be more apt to believe Dr.G b/c she was just doing her job and really had nothing to gain from her testimony except for finding justice for the victim she was examining. Dr.WS even said in his testimony that her is not updated in current protocol because he hasn't been a practicing ME for some time. IMO, this shows that he runs the trial circuit and is one of many defense experts we hear about all the time.
    I also think that people like huntington are not necessarily lying but allowing for a different interpretation. If there was a cut and dry answer to this kind of science, then they wouldn't exist. He studied under Haskell, the SA bug guy and look how different they were. The jury heard this loud and clear and I doubt they will believe this young guy who was schooled by JA.
    Let's hope all of our jurisdictions have such talented SA's or DA's that can continue to show juries who these people really are and fight for justice for victims. They aren't afraid to call a spade a spade.
    HMOO :)
     
  5. aeneas1

    aeneas1 New Member

    Messages:
    173
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    can't help but wonder how often egos come into play as well when it comes to for-hire expert witnesses - for example, if the state passed on ds in favor dg (i have no idea if this was or was not the case) i could see how ds might want to take dg down a few pegs while he was at it... seems like it could be a very competitive group, expert witnesses.
     
  6. passionflower

    passionflower Just 1 tip to find a killer

    Messages:
    27,333
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Maybe not out and out lies, but avoiding the truth.
    Paid to paint a whole different picture (story) that suits the defence
    and not the state.
    I do think egos, notority and money play into their testimonies.
    Most of these paid witnesses make me sick ...........
     
  7. Reagan

    Reagan New Member

    Messages:
    919
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Henry Lee. Need I say more?
    PS who is Wendy Murphy?
     
  8. kevmob77

    kevmob77 New Member

    Messages:
    200
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I'm fully expecting Dr. Henry (if you hire me, you're guilty) Lee to be taking the stand next week. This piece of work will say whatever he's paid to say, with no regard to the facts.

    I found Dr. Spitz's testimony almost comical, actually. It was obvious he was there to testify with a pre-set agenda given to him by the defense team. My guess is that it is to cast doubt on the 1st degree, pre-meditated murder charge. If the jury can throw that charge out, then the best the defense can hope for is the 2nd degree charge- which is completely ludicrous (who in the heck looks up neck-breaking techniques on their computer?).

    I'm tired of hearing these former defense team lawyers all over the news stations, as well. From Linda Kenney Baden, Kobilinsky, and the cast of characters. There should have been a gag order placed by the judge that anyone who is or was active in this case at any point cannot talk about the case until it is over.
     
  9. carole

    carole Active Member

    Messages:
    1,568
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    38
    On of those talking heads on HLN, I think.
     
  10. tlcya

    tlcya Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    36,396
    Likes Received:
    298
    Trophy Points:
    63
    some will, some wont. The thing is, attorney (or good ones anyway) will often research opposing witnesses. They will discover when those experts have opined differently in testimony on other cases. And will often even come armed to court with transcripts of that testimony where their opinion does not seem to be in conjunction with what they are offering now. So while it may be lucrative in the short turn, it will eventually become their undoing as they will become known for being willing to have varied opinions based on who is paying them.

    And yes, I did find Spitz's waffling as demonstrated in the OP very telling.
     
  11. fla*mom

    fla*mom New Member

    Messages:
    717
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I don't really think the young buy was outright lying, he was clearly out of his league up against JA.
     
  12. Kat

    Kat Kind words do not cost much

    Messages:
    17,195
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I'm not so sure it is lying. If proven they are outright lying during sworn testimony they could face pejury charges.

    I think it's more of what a witness (talking about professional's: scientists, Dr.'s etc...) see's when they look at the evidence they are asked to testify against.

    The prosecution and the defense will do what we laymen call as doctor shop. Find a doctor who's opinion matches the evidence or refutes the evidence.

    Personally, I don't think that these professional's have any skin in the fight. They are just giving their opinions based on what they think the evidence shows.

    Then both sides get to question them and the truth will out. But no I think for the most part these witnesses do not get on the stand and deliberately and knowingly lie. I think that they are scouted out because they do think the evidence presented to them shows them whatever they are testifying to, of course there are some people who will lie. But that's in all walks of life.

    JMHO:)
     
  13. tlcya

    tlcya Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    36,396
    Likes Received:
    298
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Agreed Kat, but there are those who are known as hired guns and I have seen them sway in the wind. It really is most often what you said above, but there are those occasional ones, who will indeed be whoever cuts their check needs them to be.
     
  14. brighidin

    brighidin remember me as a time of day

    Messages:
    1,979
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Evidence and information can be interpreted many different ways. Science isn't objective, despite what scientists want you to believe. That is what we see in trials like this, I think. I'm sure defense lawyers will look hard to find someone who will read or interpret evidence in a way that bolsters their arguments.
     
  15. txsvicki

    txsvicki Active Member

    Messages:
    14,189
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Dr. S. was very evasive about the interviews in the past, such as the 48 hrs. that he couldn't remember. It's hard to believe that he couldn't remember one iota of his life, since he seems sharp as a tack and so intelligent. I don't think he, or any of the others so far would deliberatly lie or make up a scenario. They have their opinions, and IMO, they could be, and are probably right about certain things. Things could have happened a little differently that we all think.
     
  16. spqr

    spqr New Member

    Messages:
    357
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Paid witnesses say what you pay them to say, otherwise, you wouldn't pay them. Makes no sense to pay them to say something that contradicts your theory and trial direction.

    (I'm guessing a "good" attorney would inquire as to that important info first, before hiring and putting them on the stand under oath)

    JMO
     
  17. Amanda

    Amanda New Member

    Messages:
    131
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I hope the jury can see through this malarchy today. At least the nurse juror would know how hard it would be to put the jaw back into its' anatomical location
     
  18. kelian36

    kelian36 Former Member

    Messages:
    590
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I agree about Saturday's testimony Amanda. Imo it was a complete mess, total malarchy. Thinking about Saturday's 5 hour court session, wasn't there only 1 defense witness who testified? I think Dr. Spitz twisted more than a few facts.
     
  19. Just Jayla

    Just Jayla New Member

    Messages:
    3,198
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    At JAC rates?
     

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice