Re: Very interesting...
Actually my reply would be a) and yes, it does raise the question of who they [criminals] are.
In my post above i said "undisputed" evidence as i do perfectly understand that evidence should not be considered if there is reasonable cause to think it was made up or tampered with or even a coerced "confession".
What i have an issue with is that it is a valid defence to say "they should not have had access to the evidence that proves i am a criminal [even though i can't dispute the evidence in any way to be incorrect/made up/tampered with] so this evidence is inadmissible and without it you can't prove i did it".
As you say i seem to disassociate investigators and criminals: If the investigator commited a crime to get evidence i consider that investigator a criminal and he should be prosecuted for that crime. If the crime doesn't raise doubt that the evidence is valid i think it should not make that evidence inadmissable in court though.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
