Posted on 10/25/2007 2:49:37 PM PDT by diefree
NEW YORK -- The city's medical examiner concluded a detective who got sick after working at Ground Zero got the lung disease that killed him by injecting ground-up pills, his spokeswoman confirmed Thursday.
Chief Medical Examiner Charles Hirsch has concluded that retired police detective James Zadroga was injecting pills into his bloodstream, leaving traces of the pills in the lung tissue, spokeswoman Ellen Borakove told The Associated Press.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsday.com ...
Couldn’t get into NYTimes with bugmenot or by setting up an account. Apparently they don’t like my security settings.
Here’s a story where the accussed (a NYC cop) hired a medical examiner from Suffolk County. He was found not guilty. He was just awarded back pay for the year he spent in jail. The NYPD tried to say he didn’t deserve his pay because he didn’t show up for work.
“The battle of the medical examiners heated up long before the start of the trial. Bullock, who had been held in jail for a year, was released last October after a defense medical expert found evidence that a city medical examiner botched the autopsy.
According to court papers, Assistant Medical Examiner Dr. Heda Jindrak initially found that Towe died from asphyxiation, based on her determination that the hyoid bone had been broken.
Suffolk County Chief Medical Examiner Dr. Charles Wetli, hired by the defense, determined the bone was not broken. Upon further examination of tissue and X-rays, Dr. James Gill, head of the Bronx Medical Examiner’s office, concluded the bone had not been broken”.
http://www.nydailynews.com/archives/boroughs/2004/02/09/2004-02-09_jury_weighing_2_tales__coron.html
Some ‘exonerated’by DNA are innocent. But not all are. And I’d need more than someone coming up with a test showing some non-matching DNA before I’d overturn a jury verdict.
Like who?
And I’d need more than someone coming up with a test showing some non-matching DNA before I’d overturn a jury verdict.
Almost all of the convictions overturned are based on eyewitness testimony, and it's abundantly clear that DNA is more accurate than eyewitnesses, even the victim.
well, the above looks pretty bad
1. to clear, as of an accusation; free from guilt or blame; exculpate: He was exonerated from the accusation of cheating.
2. to relieve, as from an obligation, duty, or task.
yes, eye witness testimony is the worst, especially if the witness doesn’t know the person.
the amount of false confessions is also unbelievable.
I have no problem with NY Times, I thought they did away with the password thingy.
I agree. You can get anyone to say what you want them to, for the right amount of money.
I have to disagree as both sides have the right to present their case. Forensic means “for the court” and a forensic expert is supposed to interpret scientific evidence based on his expertise and current scientific knowledge and should not be influenced by money. I know this doesn’t always happen but the side an expert is working for doesn’t define a whore, their testimony does. They usually are equal opportunity whores. Innocent until proven guilty?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.