Why was the absence of tyre marks on the victim not considered conclusive evidence?

Question

Accepted Answer

Absence of Tyre Marks Not Conclusive Due to Victim's Clothing

The lack of tyre tread marks on the victim's body was not accepted as definitive proof that the teenager had not been run over. A pathologist testified that the victim's thick clothing could have prevented such marks from being visible, despite the incident potentially still occurring.
Pathologist's Testimony on Clothing Impact

During proceedings, a pathologist provided testimony indicating that the thickness of the victim's attire may have obscured any tyre marks that could have otherwise been imprinted. This expert opinion suggested that the absence of visible marks did not automatically rule out the possibility of the victim having been run over.
Defence Doubts Addressed by Prosecution

The defence had raised doubts regarding the incident, specifically pointing to the absence of tyre tread marks. However, the prosecution countered these claims by presenting the pathologist's explanation, arguing that the clothing acted as a protective layer, making the lack of external marks inconclusive.
Continued Possibility of the Incident

Despite the lack of direct physical evidence on the body, the possibility that the incident occurred remained. The pathologist's assessment, as relayed by the prosecution, underscored that visual tyre marks could be absent due to external factors like clothing, while still acknowledging the event itself could have transpired.

Reading history

Hide →

This history is cleared when the page is closed.

Why was the absence of tyre marks on the victim not considered conclusive evidence?

Loading

Was this article helpful?

Helpful

Not helpful

Report an issue

3

0

0

Share with friends