Again do you have anything to back up your assertions?
Yes. I'm a self-educated man, but I am very knowledgeable about the law - more so than some practising solicitors. In fact, some weeks ago, I was explaining the intricacies of trust law to a solicitor who specialises in private client work, which may be more a commentary on standards in that profession than my cognitive abilities. Nevertheless, I know things. I read books. I have a lot of experience of criminal law and practice and the ways of the courts, including how evidence is collected, the different types of evidence, how witnesses are adduced, etc.. And I've also spent a lot of time in the sort of place where you have time to read lots of books, especially law-related books, among other materials.
If you think I'm wrong (and I may be, I'm not omniscient and don't pretend to be), then we can either leave it or you can consult a practising solicitor, who - I believe - may well confirm that when a defendant or appellant needs to obtain expert evidence, he will (as a rule, exceptions allowing) seek to control the selection of expert(s), the terms of reference and sometimes (depending on the field or discipline involved), the methodology and (if applicable) technology used. The point is that that is perfectly normal and there is nothing suspicious about it, and any defendant or appellant who is not allowed this freedom by a would-be benefactor may well turn down that help on the basis that the outcome of an undirected expert may be unhelpful or even prejudicial. The defendant or appellant in any criminal case is perfectly entitled to take this view, there is nothing wrong with it - to the contrary, it would be strange otherwise. However, at all times, the first duty of the expert is to the court and nothing changes that.
I accept that sometimes would-be appellants seeking to overturn wrongful convictions avail themselves of the help of third parties who direct the expert evidence themselves, without input from the appellant, but that doesn't change what I have said, which is that a directed expert is the normal practice, provided that at all times the expert retains his autonomy and independence as an expert and fulfils his overriding duty to justice.
In other words, and to put it plainly - he must follow the instructions of the defendant in terms of what he is looking for and (sometimes, if the field or discipline of the expert makes this appropriate) how and in what manner he looks for it, but he can't fabricate evidence or findings, or produce misleading findings or in any way lie, exaggerate or mislead the court about material matters. Nor can he overstep his conclusions without making it clear that he is only proffering an opinion. Nor should be misrepresent his expertise.
I hope that explains it fully.
