The Embassy Bombing Trial vs other crimes

[MickyMacgraw]

http://www.businesswe...-civilian-trials.html

Trials like this the Uk and Us pull usually pull out every stop and use global intelligence and evidence to snare the culprit so they get their men right? Would you agree that these trials are usually watertight and the verdict a sound one?

What about smaller trials with those that are not as important such as the bride being shot dead in the carjacking in South Africa a couple of days ago?

http://news.sky.com/s...de_Anni_Dewanis_Death

These crimes are usually committed in countries that rely heavily on tourism so have to be seen to be doing something and usually they always arrest someone in connection with the crime after a short while, my question here is are these kinds of trials less safe conviction wise compared to some of the bigger ones like the Us embassy Bombing trial? What's to stop the local police grabbing a junkie off the streets and threatening, beating them or maybe even bribing them to put their hands up to the crime so they are seen by the rest of the world to have a hard stance on crime when the reality is the culprits could still be out there. Who regulates trials like these to make sure all the evidence is true and intact like some of the bigger more international crimes?

[jake-the-peg]

The central feature in this first case is that evidence against him from a key witness was ruled inadmissable because it was obtained under torture.

Er sorry - enhanced interrogation techniques.

This highlights one of the problems with such techniques - you can't hold a man's head underwater until he nearly drowns and then try to pretend that what he's telling you is reliable evidence.

in the circumstances I think your phrase "watertight" is unfortunate