DemonKia
Posts: 5521
Joined: 10/13/2007 From: Chico, Nor-Cali Status: offline
|
Angel: As a criminal trial proceeds most everything brought out in open court is a matter of public record, so I don't think he was betraying any confidences. The journalists just don't get into all those little details in their short pieces . .. . . & specifically, the prosecutorial end of the case has to reveal all their findings to the defense before the case goes to trial, including police interview transcripts. I suspect that that particular bit came from the initial police interviews & was thus available to the public fairly early in the whole thing . . . . . . Dave: He's a lawyer, & is a qualified forensic expert in BDSM, especially erotic asphyxia issues. Forensic experts are those allowed by the court to testify in their area of expertise, & typically the most important skill set, outside of whatever technical specialty they have (psychiatry, CSI-type stuff like blood spatter or composition, coroners / medical examiners, anthropologists, etc) is that they have a fairly detailed understanding of the law. In his case, courts (ie, judges, who are the ones to make those decisions, ultimately) have accepted his expertise in BDSM issues . . . . . & the courts need experts on BDSM because apparently 'it was consensual kink play' gets used a lot as an excuse by all kinds of defendants & the courts have found need for experts to explain the intricacies of the BDSM subculture, experts who are well versed in how the law works. & as to how the journalist explained the charges, yeah, well, I'd like the journalists to get the technical details right a lot more than they do -- I suspect that your question has way more to do with that journalist being confused or misunderstanding those details than anything else . . . . .
|