The inquisitorial process can be described as an official inquiry to ascertain the truth, whereas the adversarial system uses a competitive process between prosecution and defence to determine the facts.

Where at trial, if the expert witnesses the prosecution/defence cannot agree on the facts of the evidence to be presented to the court, they should be barred from giving evidence to the jury!

Where the cause of death is not determined - no murder charges should be brought!

If medical experts cannot determine the cause or mechanism of death, then how can a jury?

In the absence of solid evidence of murder, a case should not be prosecuted.

Neither should evidence be allowed into court where prosecution and defence cannot agree on the value of the evidence. There is a very strong case for using the 'inquisitorial system' used in Europe rather than the 'adversarial system' used in the UK justice system.

Europe - 'Inquisitorial system' - "The evidence/facts should be agreed upon before the trial proceeds; if the prosecution and defence cannot agree, then the disputed evidence/facts should not be allowed into court to be presented to a jury. This is the common procedure in most other European Countries. (Despite this, Miscarriages do occur)

UK - 'Adversarial System' - In the UK's adversarial system, juries can be susceptible to misdirection by expert witnesses based on expediency, distortion of facts, tunnel vision, or malfeasance. The bottom line is that no one is ever held responsible. The tragedy is followed by cover-ups and the logic of the ostrich, and it continues.

In Europe, they use the 'inquisitorial system' If it's a science, then the facts should be agreed upon before the trial proceeds; if they cannot come to an agreement, then it should not be allowed in court, as the onus is on innocent until proven guilty.

An inquisitorial system in forensics would go a long way toward preventing miscarriages of justice and the unnecessary suffering that the innocent and their families endure.

The “Uncertainty Principle” permeates the criminal justice process such that wrongful convictions are an inevitable risk and moreover that, while there are certain safeguards that protect from some of the problems of the past, there remains a high potential for such events to occur. This potential is exacerbated by the current political “convictionist” rhetoric and policy framework and by trends and developments in the media world and the consequent social influence of this.

Further concerns are expressed at the continuing reluctance of post conviction agencies, most notably the Court of Appeal, to fully recognise the risks inherent in the system. Consequently post-conviction procedures continue to function on the principle of finality within the system and prioritise the protection of the decisions of the lower courts. It is argued that the principle should not be finality but uncertainty and that the protection of the innocent rather than the protection of the image of the system should be the paramount concern.