Expert Fraud

So, what is expert fraud and how does it work, actually it works very well and you can employ any expert you like and have them work for you, but this is how we are deceived. In any civil or criminal case the onus is on either the Magistrates or the Judge to give a judgement and they like it this way because they can, in most cases, control the magistrates or judge to get the verdict they want easily and without involving other parties, essentially their first trick is to put everything to one party to decide.

Manipulation - this is the most common way of dealing with something, particularly criminal cases as the Police investigate (he says laughing his head off) and they like the eyewitness as often these people have no choice in what they see and most are loyal to the Police and think they are doing their duty by being witnesses, and this is exploited by the Police to get an eyewitness to say the right thing, and if they dont say the right thing they are manipulated to say the right thing by the same Police who are allegedly impartial, and it works thus.
As an eyewitness you are conforming to the rules of evidence which under Common Law requires only first hand knowledge of an incident and the manipulation is often very subtle and usually occurs when a Constable spends a lot of time speaking to you before you are actually interviewed under caution, it is this time when the Police begin their assessment and manipulation of you and determine whether you can be manipulated and how far you can be manipulated, for example, if you offer yourself as a witness you will be seen as on the Police's side simply by offering yourself.
Before you are given the chance to make a statement the Police talk to you and use SUGGESTIVE TECHNIQUES and these are merely to make subtle suggestions as they know the brain works on ASSOCIATION and LOGIC and by listening to you and what you say, they are targetting areas where they can offer just one scenario and you associate it using logic, we can look at a scenario.

You are woken at 2 am by shouting in the street and you get up and look out of your bedroom window, you see one body lunging at another body and see the claimed victim fall over and the alleged assailent run off, now what have you actually seen?

You get to the Police Station and find out the victim has been stabbed, the Police then speak to you and suggest various things, it may be that they suggest you saw a knife when you didn't, they may refer to you seeing the victim being stabbed when you didn't, and they may suggest you saw the assailent running off after stabbing the victim when you didn't, so what did you actually see? and before you take any suggestions on board this is an actual case. Association comes into play as through suggestion and knowing the victim has been stabbed you ASSUME the alleged assailent stabbed the victim even though you never saw a knife and only saw him lunge at the victim by the Police telling you the victim has been stabbed, you saw the alleged assailent run off, and you saw the victim fall over. Now the police interview you and you tell them you saw the alleged assailent lunge at the victim and assume he stabbed him and ran off.

In reality you are operating on assumption for the benefit of the Police to obtain a conviction and give them exactly what they want by them using suggestive techniques and you using association and logic, so what actually happened?
Two males were walking home after a night out, plenty of alcohol had been consumed by both of them and on their way home they were confronted by 5 males who demanded their mobile phones and cash, the victim stood up to them and was stabbed by one of them, their was shouting which woke the witness up and by the time he got to the window the 5 males had run off and the witness was half asleep, the male who hadn't been stabbed realised his mate had been stabbed and lunged at him to stop him falling over and couldn't stop him falling. He did run off, but as he had been mugged and his phone had been stolen, he was running to find a telephone box to call an ambulance for his mate who had been stabbed, the witness heard the commotion and made an assumption and was half asleep but never saw the 5 men stab the victim.
The innocent guy was charged and prosecuted and found guilty on the evidence of one half asleep man and several constables making suggestions and him applying association and logic, them making a statement to the Police which was incorrect, the case was overturned on appeal and it cost the Police a lot in compensation.

Professional Witnesses - these are the worst kind of witness as often they have no expertise or qualifications and use bluff and bluster to dupe a court, it works very simply by the professional witness being in it solely for the money as it is a source of easy income for them, often they will lie and claim they have qualifications which are often from another country, and in many instances they buy their qualifications from a country such as America, but claim they studied there.
Professional witnesses are often people for hire to lie on your behalf, it is very rare their alleged qualifications are checked or if they are checked it is often with a cursory glance at fraudulent paperwork and certificates by a member of court or other staff who have no real idea of what they are looking at, or what they are looking for; but will tell a magistrates bench, or a judge that they have examined the witnesses professional credentials and seen their certificates, and this is enough most of the time.
If we look at an example:

A guy was a keen walker and took his dog with him, it was a rescue dog and could be a little volatile around other dogs if they displayed any aggression, to counter this he took his dogs to rural or remote locations to walk it and combine it with his hobby of walking, one day he was accused of badger baiting when a local rural resident (in good faith) rang the Police and reported him, they came along and arrested him based on no evidence apart from the suspicions of a new resident to a village. The CPS bought in a professional witness who claimed to be an expert on badgers and their habitats and stood in court and showed a few photographs and claimed the dog was trying to dig out a badger set and was trying to do so with its owner, despite the initial report making no mention of a man at the badger sett, only a dog.

What do dogs do naturally? they scent by spraying urine, they are naturally inquisitive, and most dogs track other interesting scents.

The man appeared in court and was found guilty based on no actual investigation by the Police, they couldn't find anything on the man which could be used for badger baiting, nothing which could be used to dig out badger setts, and they couldn't even put the man at the alleged badger setts, and they relied solely on an unqualified individual who lied about his qualifications and claimed they were in fact badger setts. However the man didn't stop there as he did his own investigation and several villagers told him there were no badgers in the village and surrounding areas, none of them had ever seen a badger locally, and he went and spoke to the land owner on whose land these alleged badger setts were based and was told they were foxes and not badgers.
Armed with this information the guy turned everything over to his solicitor who employed private investigators who found this so called "expert" couldn't have visited these badger setts on the day he claimed as he was an "expert" witness in another case over 200 miles away and was there for 3 days and they checked out his qualifications which were bogus, and they found he was connected to another firm of solicitors and a team of alleged expert witnesses, and uncovered a ring of bogus expert witnesses they were using to get prosecutions.

One of the mans solicitors spoke to one of the companies partners who organised a meeting with the Chief Constable and he presented him with the evidence and the Chief Constable was overjoyed with so many potential prosecutions for very little work and then he was hit with "if you prosecute them it means my clients prosecution is an unsafe prosecution" and when it went to appeal it couldn't be challenged and his prosecution was overturned. This case was actually on television.

Next, the expert witness.

good post assassin, just goes to show what we are up against.





Mavrik

Got a name or reference for the case? That looks really interesting.

Strangely its all disappeared.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-27734291
is this it?

No, but from memory I think it was one of the cases which was associated with the alleged experts and exposed a massive ring of alleged professional witnesses, there were over 50 of them in total.

Expert Witnesses - these can potentially be the worst of all witnesses for many reasons and they only differ from professional witnesses in a few key areas and these are that they have qualifications and knowledge of a subject, and they often work within, or associated to a particular subject. They also have full time jobs unless retired and they use their expert witness role as a secondary source of income and to fiddle their tax returns.

Lets begin at the beginning and ask a simple question as this highlights the fraud they use:

If we take two structural engineering experts, Professor John Smith and Joe Bloggs B. Eng, who do people give the most credibility too? in most cases it would be a Professor as we are indoctrinated to associate with titles and titles have a pecking order with professor being the highest. Here is the first fraud and manipulation, it may be subtle but as most people associate with a title they always give their title, or they are asked to give their title.

If I were to tell you that Professor John Smith PhD left school and went straight to a reputable University and attained his PhD with Honours and went straight to work with several well known institutions, what would you think.
If I were to tell you that Joe Bloggs went to Nottingham Polytechnic and trained as a steel erector and qualified and worked as a steel erector for several years and attained his B.Eng through the Open University what would you think.

Here we have the second part of the scam, not only do they state their qualifications, but they also use companies they have worked for to give them more credibility, and while to a large extent it is merely penis envy it may often tell you an expert witness has to trade on the names of organisations they have worked for to give themselves more credibility than their opponent, and this works two ways. If we assume this is a court case one side may try to portray Professor Smith PhD as more credible witness through an assumption of a professor having more credibility through their qualifications, they may also try to denigrate Joe Bloggs by him having a B. Eng and attaining it through the Open University.

They do this to bring a jury into line, which is their way of thinking instead of their opponents way of thinking and they do this by exploiting the Association and Logic of the jury as non experts in a particular field of expertise.

If we take this a stage further (as engineers) we could dispense with the B/S we are being fed by professional mouthpieces as that is all solicitors and Barristers are. Engineers would ask questions about both "experts" background and from this we could unravel some truth, so what could we conclude? We could conclude that Professor Smith PhD attained a credible qualification totally legitimately and went to work in various positions with various reputable companies, we could also find he has only ever worked with theory and hypothesis and has never worked on a construction site and wouldn't know a bolt from a nut and would think washers were something his wife put his dirty clothes into.

They may also find that Joe Bloggs worked on site as an apprentice and was excellent at his job and was rapidly promoted, we could find that he couldn't go to university due to personal situations, and he avanced himself at his own expense, in his own time, and worked for everything he has achieved without the aid of various grants and subsidies or the financial backing of his family. He has a well rounded knowledge of the structural industry based upon experience from the bottom level up and has worked to overcome real problems due to his exposure to them, and his ability to overcome them as opposed to the theoretical and hypothesis his opponent has worked with.

Lets ask the question again, who has the most credibility?

The answer is neither of them despite their posturing over qualifications, and their name dropping of the institutions they have worked for, as they are both prostitutes to the system and in most cases they are there of their own free will to charge fees for their services to their clients for their services, basically they are both in it to line their own pockets.

We must now remember that they are highly qualified professionals and in the employment of someone, they charge for these services, and they are both there in an official capacity to use their skills and expertise for the benefit of their client, so straight away we can see they are not there for justice, and they are not there for the truth. They are there to manipulate the truth to suit their client who is their employer for that situation and their sole objective is often not to tell the truth and only to present an illusion with the sole intention of using their expertise to deceive the layman with no particular expertise of that particular subject. This is the final act of their deceipt of the layman and often what they say goes over the heads of the layman and it comes down to how persuasive they are by being good orators and little else.

Now we can see how we are often duped we can see the structural engineering example I have used can be applied to any area, medical, scientific, and indeed anything.