Edukator:
"Inquisitorial" just means the judge takes an active role in investigating as opposed to our "adversarial" system. It's a perfectly accurate, unobjectionable standard term.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inquisitorial_system
You've brought up your "credentials" and your experience in numerous legal systems - in what capacity was that, then?
Because if you're going to make absolute howlers like not knowing what an inquisitorial legal system is (and not have the wit to google it)...
I'm asking the jury to doubt police statements just as they should doubt the word of the accused.
This is not the law of England. In fact, the law is that there is not a balancing test between the dubiousness of the word of the accused and the word of the police (by which you probably mean prosecution witnesses). The law is that the prosecution should prove that the defendant is guilty of the offence beyond all reasonable doubt, which is a somewhat different test.
Your enthusiasm for the inquisitorial (now that we've all learned what that means) system of justice is perplexing considering your distrust of wily lawyers, considering the process in the cour d'assises actually involved a conclave of judges with lay people. If there were ever a situation that were prone to "professional advantage", that would be it.
Your supposed having appeared as an expert witness doesn't speak for your supposed "credentials" to speak about comparative legal practice or procedure.
Basically, you know nothing, you're a bullshitter and you should crawl back under your bridge.