Quizzes & Puzzles0 min ago
reality in tv/film...
3 Answers
i watched a film made in 1966 called hotel paradiso, well, i stumbled across it on a bored sunday, as im watching, theres a classic run around scene where kids, some old guy, a woman, and police are chasing them up and down the stairs. the police man stops everyone and rather than investigate whats happening, just arrests them all to question them at the station. could police officers actually do this in the 1960's?
then i watched a detective programme. he's at the coronnor asking about pt's death. then he gets out a letter of some kind, which is obviously evidence and starts talking about it with the coroner. Could the detective really do this? i mean, its supposed to confidential stuff right...whats to say the coronor isnt the killer for a start? highly unlikley but ya never know!
can anyone answer?
then i watched a detective programme. he's at the coronnor asking about pt's death. then he gets out a letter of some kind, which is obviously evidence and starts talking about it with the coroner. Could the detective really do this? i mean, its supposed to confidential stuff right...whats to say the coronor isnt the killer for a start? highly unlikley but ya never know!
can anyone answer?
Answers
1 to 3 of 3
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by dannyday5821. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Tha problem with US law is that it is relevant to the State and things like the death penalty were made the govenors responsiblity. The likelihood of the 60's police carrying out such actions is highly likely, due to lack of force depth and training. The higher trained members of the force were either FBI, or CIA.
As for the coroner speaking about evidence to the detective; I think that it's all about circumstance. You have to look at the relevance to the case and sensitivity. If the evidence was out of a sealed contamination bag then it couldn't have been that sensitive as not too share it with the coroner, especially if it was relevant to the dead body and possibilties leading towards the death of the victim. The US have many laws which are generic, but even more that are indicative to each State. Sorry it's such a boring drawn out answer.
As for the coroner speaking about evidence to the detective; I think that it's all about circumstance. You have to look at the relevance to the case and sensitivity. If the evidence was out of a sealed contamination bag then it couldn't have been that sensitive as not too share it with the coroner, especially if it was relevant to the dead body and possibilties leading towards the death of the victim. The US have many laws which are generic, but even more that are indicative to each State. Sorry it's such a boring drawn out answer.
-- answer removed --
1 to 3 of 3
