tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7831518087498541513.post5303270793177214240..comments2023-05-06T02:39:25.916-07:00Comments on Debating the Anthrax Attacks of 2001: Subject: Circumstantial Evidence - Part 2Ed Lakehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00517078636884309733noreply@blogger.comBlogger86125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7831518087498541513.post-26242034421401817892013-07-26T06:48:49.170-07:002013-07-26T06:48:49.170-07:00Mr. Rowley,
I assume you got that idea from the ...Mr. Rowley, <br /><br />I assume you got that idea from the World War II practice of having Navaho "windtalkers" talk to each other in their native language on radios and walkie-talkies as a way of preventing the Japanese from figuring out what was being said.<br /><br />http://www.navajocodetalkers.org/<br /><br />EdEd Lakehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00517078636884309733noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7831518087498541513.post-32830203287139213212013-07-25T16:09:33.812-07:002013-07-25T16:09:33.812-07:00The problem was, however, that no Union soldier on...The problem was, however, that no Union soldier on the other end where the message was received could read Hungarian, either.<br />=================================================<br />Better would have been: to get a few native American Union soldiers from a tribe whose range was limited to the North.<br /><br />The Iroquois, say. The likelihood of a Southerner knowing<br />the Iroquois language would have been infinitesimal. Plus, even language identification would have been difficult in the extreme. Only question in my mind is: did Iroquois have a written form in the 1860s? And if so, would a set of Iroquois Union soldiers have been literate in the language?r rowleynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7831518087498541513.post-87155467575379682662013-07-24T08:18:16.455-07:002013-07-24T08:18:16.455-07:00Here's part of the 2004 Chicago Tribune articl...Here's part of the 2004 Chicago Tribune article from my web site:<br /><br />---------<br />FORENSICS UNDER THE MICROSCOPE<br />Unproven techniques sway courts, erode justice<br /><br />By Flynn McRoberts, Steve Mills and Maurice Possley, Tribune staff reporters. Tribune researcher Judith Marriott contributed to this report<br />Published October 17, 2004<br />The Chicago Tribune<br /><br />Settling into the witness chair of a Kane County courtroom, Stephen McKasson tutored jurors in a murder trial on the wonders of a rarely used divining tool: lip prints.<br /><br />The Illinois State Police crime lab examiner told them forensic science accepts that lips have unique creases and he could match the prints found on duct tape at the crime scene to the defendant, Lavelle Davis.<br /><br />Davis was convicted and sentenced to 45 years. The lip print, one juror in the 1997 trial recalled, "proved that he had actually committed the crime."<br /><br />There was just one problem: What McKasson asserted about lip prints isn't true.<br /><br />The story of how an unproven forensic theory helped send a man to prison might seem like a legal curiosity befitting an episode of "CSI: Crime Scene Investigation."<br /><br />But a Tribune investigation of forensics in the courtroom shows how Davis' conviction exemplifies the questionable science, flawed analysis and shoddy lab practices that sometimes undermine the quest for justice. Long considered unbiased and untainted, crime labs and analysts are facing new scrutiny and tough questions about their accuracy.<br /><br />At the center of this upheaval is the advent of DNA testing, which has injected a dose of truth serum into other forensic tools. With its dramatic precision, DNA has helped reveal the shaky scientific foundations of everything from fingerprinting to firearm identification, from arson investigation to such exotic methods as bite-mark comparison.<br /><br />It is difficult, if not impossible, to quantify precisely how many cases have been affected by faulty forensic testimony or poor analytical work, partly because defense attorneys often haven't challenged forensic evidence. Many lack the resources to do so, others assume the science is unassailable, and some simply don't bother.<br /><br />But the 200 DNA and Death Row exoneration cases nationwide in the last 20 years offer one clue. More than a quarter--55 cases with 66 defendants--involved forensic testing or testimony that was flawed.<br /><br />The Tribune investigation included hundreds of interviews across the country, an examination of thousands of court documents and an analysis of criminal cases that turned on forensic evidence. Among the findings:<br /><br />- Fingerprinting is so subjective that the most experienced examiners can make egregious mistakes. This year, in a stunning embarrassment, the FBI was forced to admit it wrongly linked an Oregon lawyer to the Madrid terror bombing case because of an erroneous fingerprint comparison.<br /><br />- Prosecutors continue to rely on experts who embrace debunked theories about arson. Among the hard-to-kill myths is "crazed glass"--glass lined with a spider web of cracks--which was thought to be evidence of an accelerant until researchers learned it could occur when hot glass is sprayed with water, as in putting out a fire.<br /><br />- Forensic dentists, who link suspects to bite marks left on crime victims, continue to testify despite having no accepted way to measure their rate of error or the benefit of peer review. <b>DNA testing has shown that even the field's leading practitioners have made false bite-mark matches.</b><br /><br />- Scandals at labs from Maryland to Washington state have spotlighted analysts who have incorrectly assessed evidence, hidden test results helpful to defendants and testified falsely in court. The scandals underscore the often-ineffective standards governing crime labs.<br />----------<br /><br />EdEd Lakehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00517078636884309733noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7831518087498541513.post-26372111253556040812013-07-24T08:13:43.832-07:002013-07-24T08:13:43.832-07:00In addition to what I personally wrote about how t...In addition to what I personally wrote about how the Daubert standard and other matters were causing a crackdown on how forensic evidence is presented in court, I also provided links to some news articles on the subject. Here's one that can be found at http://www.anthraxinvestigation.com/nyt3.html<br /><br />-----<br />The New York Times<br />Science Found Wanting in Nation’s Crime Labs <br /><br />By SOLOMON MOORE<br />Published: February 4, 2009<br /><br />Forensic evidence that has helped convict thousands of defendants for nearly a century is often the product of shoddy scientific practices that should be upgraded and standardized, according to accounts of a draft report by the nation’s pre-eminent scientific research group.<br /><br />The report by the National Academy of Sciences is to be released this month. People who have seen it say it is a sweeping critique of many forensic methods that the police and prosecutors rely on, including fingerprinting, firearms identification and analysis of bite marks, blood spatter, hair and handwriting.<br /><br />The report says such analyses are often handled by poorly trained technicians who then exaggerate the accuracy of their methods in court. It concludes that Congress should create a federal agency to guarantee the independence of the field, which has been dominated by law enforcement agencies, say forensic professionals, scholars and scientists who have seen review copies of the study. Early reviewers said the report was still subject to change.<br /><br />The result of a two-year review, the report follows a series of widely publicized crime laboratory failures, including the case of Brandon Mayfield, a lawyer from Portland, Ore., and Muslim convert who was wrongly arrested in the 2004 terrorist train bombing in Madrid that killed 191 people and wounded 2,000.<br /><br />American examiners matched Mr. Mayfield’s fingerprint to those found at the scene, although Spanish authorities eventually convinced the Federal Bureau of Investigation that its fingerprint identification methods were faulty. Mr. Mayfield was released, and the federal government settled with him for $2 million.<br /><br />In 2005, Congress asked the National Academy to assess the state of the forensic techniques used in court proceedings. The report’s findings are not binding, but they are expected to be highly influential.<br /><br />“This is not a judicial ruling; it is not a law,” said Michael J. Saks, a psychology and law professor at Arizona State University who presented fundamental weaknesses in forensic evidence to the academy. “But it will be used by others who will make law or will argue cases.”<br /><br />Legal experts expect that the report will give ammunition to defense lawyers seeking to discredit forensic procedures and expert witnesses in court. Lawyers could also use the findings in their attempts to overturn convictions based on spurious evidence. Judges are likely to use the findings to raise the bar for admissibility of certain types of forensic evidence and to rein in exaggerated expert testimony.<br />------<br /><br />Ed<br />Ed Lakehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00517078636884309733noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7831518087498541513.post-80195335716523342672013-07-24T08:02:38.451-07:002013-07-24T08:02:38.451-07:00My May 14-15, 2006 comment on my web site goes int...My May 14-15, 2006 comment on my web site goes into a lot of detail about the Daubert ruling and how it relates to the Amerithrax case.<br /><br />Here's a comment from 2008:<br /><br />-----------<br /><b>January 30, 2008</b> - Someone sent me a link to a site www.dauberttracker.com which seems to be designed to help defense lawyers fight criminal cases which involve new kinds of scientific evidence -- like microbial forensics. This seems to add to the list of reasons why the case against the anthrax killer might be a very difficult fight in court.<br />---------<br /><br />I wrote a lot about the Daubert ruling during January and February 2008.<br /><br />I also wrote about the Daubert Standard in my September 25, 2009 comment.<br /><br />And I wrote this in 2012:<br /><br />-----------<br /><b>October 16, 2012 (A)</b> - Tomorrow, NOVA on PBS will be airing a documentary titled "Forensics on Trial." Part of the program description is as follows:<br /><br /><i>There is a startling gap between the glamorous television world of “CSI” and the gritty reality of the forensic crime lab. With few established scientific standards, no central oversight, and poor regulation of examiners, forensics in the U.S. is in a state of crisis. In "Forensics on Trial", NOVA investigates how modern forensics, including the analysis of fingerprints, <b>bite marks</b>, ballistics, <b>hair</b>, and tool marks, can send innocent men and women to prison—and sometimes even to death row.</i><br /><br />Needless to say, Anthrax Truthers will be watching it to see what they can use to argue that the case against Bruce Ivins was flawed. <br /><br />Following NOVA, most PBS stations will be airing the NOVAScienceNow program "Can Science Stop Crime." Part of that program description is:<br /><br /><i>What's the secret to stopping crime? David Pogue gives the third degree to scientists pushing the limits of technology, not only to solve horrific murders but also to try to prevent crimes before they even happen. Pogue learns the latest techniques, from unraveling the clues embedded in a decomposing corpse, to detecting lies by peering directly into a suspect's brain, to tracking the creation of a criminal mind.</i><br /><br />I don't expect the anthrax attacks of 2001 to be mentioned in either of these programs, but it might happen. Either way, they look like interesting programs to me. I've already set my DVR to record them.<br /><br />Someone who just read the above comment advised me that PBS Frontline had a show on the same topic on April 17, 2012. It was called "The Real CSI." From the show titles, the NOVA show seems to be about new problems with using forensic evidence in court, and the Frontline show was about how real life crime scene investigation differs from what is seen on TV. It looks like basically the same subject but different points of view.<br />------------<br /><br />In my February 27, 2013 comment I address Mr. Rowley's beliefs about "forensic linguistics" and how very little in that field would meet the new Daubert standards.<br /><br />EdEd Lakehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00517078636884309733noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7831518087498541513.post-65725051158221627792013-07-24T07:32:29.344-07:002013-07-24T07:32:29.344-07:00Parts of a comment from my web site:
-------
Nove...Parts of a comment from my web site:<br /><br />-------<br /><b>November 27, 2005</b> - During the past week I read sections of "Microbial Forensics", a book of scientific articles compiled and edited by Roger Breeze, Bruce Budowle and Steven Schutzer. (Roger G. Breeze works for Centaur Science Group in Washington, DC. Bruce Budowle is a senior scientist in the Laboratory Division of the FBI headquarters in Quantico, VA. Steven E. Schutzer is a physician-scientist who works in the Department of Medicine at the University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey at Newark.)<br />...<br /><br /><br /><br /><i> Webster's defines "forensic" as "belonging to courts of judicature" and "used in legal procedings." The ultimate goal of forensic sciences is to find evidence or information that will either incriminate or exclude a subject, enabling arguments in court that can prove to a reasonable degree of certainty that the crime was or was not committed by the accused. As such, many signatures comprise a forensic study. One signature alone is must often insufficient to convincingly prove guilt or innocence. It is the great preponderance of evidence, rather than the "smoking gun," that most commonly convicts a criminal.</i><br /><br />The last chapter in the book is titled "Admission Standards for Scientific Evidence", and it describes what is required before a proscecutor or defendant's attorney can present in court any scientific evidence based upon new scientific techniques. As it says in my book, the standard being applied is called the "Daubert Standard" which resulted from a Supreme Court decision handed down in Daubert v Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals. And the best way to make certain that a new science will meet the "Daubert Standard" is to have the science developed under the auspices and guidance of a "working group." That was done with microbial forensics. The FBI helped create the Scientific Working Group for Microbial Genetic Forensics (SWGMGF) to make certain the new science would have a solid foundation before anyone took anything to court.<br />------<br /><br />EdEd Lakehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00517078636884309733noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7831518087498541513.post-34515930260440222722013-07-24T07:26:03.461-07:002013-07-24T07:26:03.461-07:00A comment from my web site:
-----------------
Oct...A comment from my web site:<br /><br />-----------------<br /><b>October 17, 2004</b> - Although not specifically about the anthrax case, a new series in The Chicago Tribune about problems with forensic evidence titled "<a href="http://www.anthraxinvestigation.com/misc8.html#ct041017" rel="nofollow">Forensics Under The Microscope</a>" helps explain why there was a critical need to formally develop, recognize and validate the new science of "microbial forensics" before it could be put to use in identifying the anthrax mailer, or the originating lab, or anything else about the case.<br /><br />The article illustrates problems with forensic methods which have been in use or many years. A new method will definitely be challenged by the defense, so it's critical to make certain the first case to use the new science is rock solid. <br /><br />Here are a few key paragraphs from the article:<br /><br /><i> In addition to the advent of DNA testing, U.S. Supreme Court rulings have sought to impose greater scientific rigor on forensic testimony.<br /><br /> In a defining 1993 decision, Daubert vs. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, the court demanded that such testimony not simply meet the existing standard of "general acceptance" in its field, but also address some of the hallmarks of scientific inquiry--testing, peer review and rates of error.</i><br /><br />And:<br /><br /><i> In 1993, the U.S. Supreme Court created the stricter Daubert standard, which held that trial judges also "must ensure that any and all scientific testimony or evidence admitted is not only relevant, but reliable."</i><br /><br />So, along with last week's <a href="http://www.anthraxinvestigation.com/misc8.html#usa41014" rel="nofollow">USA Today article</a> about "sloppiness" in USAMRIID labs, it's begining to look like the case for the defense is developing even before there is a known culprit to defend. On the other hand, it appears that the FBI is aware of that and is doing all the "testing, peer review and rates of error" work to head off problems.<br />--------<br /><br />EdEd Lakehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00517078636884309733noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7831518087498541513.post-55258527387658392912013-07-22T09:58:09.575-07:002013-07-22T09:58:09.575-07:00Mr. Rowley,
Neither of your posts today is worthy...Mr. Rowley,<br /><br />Neither of your posts today is worthy of a response. You're just being argumentative.<br /><br />You don't even try to resolve issues. All you seem to do is argue about words. It's really getting tedious.<br /><br />EdEd Lakehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00517078636884309733noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7831518087498541513.post-33094705948350782242013-07-22T09:51:22.947-07:002013-07-22T09:51:22.947-07:00The key point to all this is that everyone was ext...The key point to all this is that everyone was extra careful when putting together the evidence against Ivins.<br />=============================================<br />Your careless and habitual use of the word "everyone" or "everybody" is noted.<br />----------------------------------------------<br />Everyone has been extra careful since the Daubert decision in 1993, [...]<br />======================================<br />There he goes again: making blanket statements via promiscuous and unwarranted use of the words "everyone" and "everybody".r rowleynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7831518087498541513.post-17279915041450894232013-07-22T09:47:28.817-07:002013-07-22T09:47:28.817-07:00R: My point is that bite marks are unreliable evid...R: My point is that bite marks are unreliable evidence.<br /><br />E: Everyone knows that. So why bring it up?<br />================================================<br />"Everybody" does not know that. It was in one AP story in June.<br />Does "everybody" read every AP story that comes down the pike?<br /><br />Answer: no they don't.<br /> <br />Question: did Mister Lake HIMSELF mention this AP story with 24 hours of it coming out? No. 48 hours? No. Did Mister Lake EVER bring up this new development vis-a-vis the reliability of "bite make evidence" on the website prior to my introducing it to the thread? No, he did not. Unlike you, Mister Lake, I'm not psychic, so I don't know what you know, let alone what "everybody" knows (by the way, that's a fairly solipsistic "everybody"), save only in those instances where you discuss something in the Thoughts and Comments section. Which you did not do on this topic.<br /><br />You remind me of that Martin Short SNL character, who, smoking nervously, says to this or that statement, "I knew that. Why wouldn't I know that?".<br />------------------------------------------------------------ <br /><br /><br />Here's a hypothetical debate between R and E:<br />===================================================<br />Why INVENT a "hypothetical debate" when upthread you've got a genuine, let's say, pseudo-debate, wherein you "ask" over and over and over and over again "what's you point?". And I answer it in various ways, until I see it's hopeless.....<br /><br />Should I ask every time you post about Tsarnaev Bros. "What's your point?". THAT (ie doing such a thing) would seem pointless.<br />-------------------------------------------------<br />Mister Lake wrote:<br />Leaving false statements unchallenged promotes ignorance.<br />-----------------------------------------------------------<br />Since my post of July 11, 2013 at 12:38 PM on this thread<br />I don't see you "challenging" any false statements, merely stating your bewilderment that I should offer true ones. True ones about things that "everybody" (!!) knows.<br />r rowleynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7831518087498541513.post-11419761584116296522013-07-20T08:00:50.700-07:002013-07-20T08:00:50.700-07:00I forgot to mention hair and fiber analysis. Ther...I forgot to mention hair and fiber analysis. There's a big study underway to see how many people may have been falsely convicted as a result of prosecutors overstating the reliability of hair and fiber analysis. Click <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/crime/us-reviewing-27-death-penalty-convictions-for-fbi-forensic-testimony-errors/2013/07/17/6c75a0a4-bd9b-11e2-89c9-3be8095fe767_story.html" rel="nofollow">HERE</a>.<br /><br />The key point to all this is that everyone was extra careful when putting together the evidence against Ivins. Everyone has been extra careful since the Daubert decision in 1993, since the Daubert decision gave the defense ammunition to challenge any dubious science-based testimony.<br /><br />EdEd Lakehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00517078636884309733noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7831518087498541513.post-34698889622288514372013-07-18T14:56:22.162-07:002013-07-18T14:56:22.162-07:00Here's a hypothetical debate between R and E:
...Here's a hypothetical debate between R and E:<br /><br /><b>--------<br />R: Bite marks are unreliable evidence.<br /><br />E: So?<br /><br />R: So, bite marks are unreliable evidence.<br /><br />E: What's your point?<br /><br />R: My point is that bite marks are unreliable evidence.<br /><br />E: Everyone knows that. So why bring it up?<br /><br />R: Because bite marks are unreliable evidence.<br /><br />E: I still don't see your point.<br /><br />R: Why are you arguing with me?<br /><br />E: I'm not arguing, I'm asking a question.<br /><br />R: You're arguing. I said that bite marks are unreliable evidence and you start an argument.<br /><br />E: So, now we're arguing about arguing?<br />---------</b><br /><br />Who started the argument? <br /><br />As I see it, the argument began when "R" made a false claim in the question: "Why are you arguing with me?"<br /><br />There was no argument before that point. R's question <b>falsely</b> implied that there WAS an argument.<br /><br />E then argued that there was no argument.<br /><br />I think that everyone understands that making a false statement is a way to start an argument.<br /><br />Of course, if a false statement isn't challenged, then there is no argument. <br /><br />But, is the argument started by the false statement or by the claim that the statement is false?<br /><br />It takes two to make an argument. So, simply ignoring false statements is one way to avoid arguments.<br /><br />But that's not why we're here. So, I think we should agree that making false statements is how arguments are started, not by challenging the false statement. <br /><br />Leaving false statements unchallenged promotes ignorance.<br /><br />Challenging false statements promotes finding the truth.<br /><br />EdEd Lakehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00517078636884309733noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7831518087498541513.post-90390427174034174822013-07-18T14:05:15.796-07:002013-07-18T14:05:15.796-07:00R. Rowley wrote: "What do you mean "too ...R. Rowley wrote: <i>"What do you mean "too unreliable to be used in court"? It's being used in court. Ted Bundy*, decades ago, was convicted partially on 'bite mark evidence'. It can't be any more 'used in court' than that!"</i><br /><br />What I meant was, "too unreliable to be used in court <b>any more</b>." As you say, the Ted Bundy case was years ago. The bite mark evidence issue came up years ago. There's a New York Times article from January 2007 <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/28/weekinreview/28santos.html?_r=0" rel="nofollow">HERE</a> about it. <br /><br />Click <a href="http://reason.com/blog/2009/02/28/the-national-academy-of-scienc" rel="nofollow">HERE</a> to view what the National Academy of Sciences thought about bite mark evidence in 2009.<br /><br />Cops can evidently still use bite mark evidence to ELIMINATE suspects, but not to convict suspects. So, it would probably never be used in court any more.<br /><br />Over the past 11 years I did a lot of reading about questionable scientific evidence and did a lot of research into effects of the 1993 Daubert v Dow Pharmaceuticals case. The evidence pointing to flask RMR-1029 had to meet the new standards set by the Daubert case. The Daubert case was about scientists using unverified scientific techniques to support a claim that the drug Bendectin caused the birth defects. As a result, the Supreme Court set new standards for scientific evidence. Bite mark evidence was a "science" that quickly proved to be largely unreliable. <br /><br />Certain ballistic evidence has also been shown to be unreliable, and lawyers now have to do a better job of proving ballistic evidence is reliable.<br /><br />And, of course, there was the case where fingerprint evidence was shown to be wrong in the train bomb case in Spain a while back. Fingerprint evidence pointed to a guy in Oregon who had never been to Spain. That story made headlines everywhere.<br /><br />EdEd Lakehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00517078636884309733noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7831518087498541513.post-63674135954616176932013-07-18T11:20:43.249-07:002013-07-18T11:20:43.249-07:00Posted by Mister Lake:
-----------------
So, it...Posted by Mister Lake:<br />-----------------<br />So, it's another so-called "science" that is too unreliable to be used in court.<br />==========================================<br />What do you mean "too unreliable to be used in court"? It's being used in court. Ted Bundy*, decades ago, was convicted partially on 'bite mark evidence'. It can't be any more 'used in court' than that! The only question is: will the recent reversals of convictions bring about 1)reform of 2)limitations to such "bite mark evidence" and/or the way that experts present it?<br />========================================<br />You seem to have brought it up as a way of arguing some other point, like - if bite mark evidence is unreliable, who can say what other "scientific evidence" might also be unreliable?<br />==========================================<br />No, that is just you ANTICIPATING stuff than I (and I'm sure other people) am (are) going to write/say.<br /><br />As I noted already, Amerithrax (but not just Amerithrax: any CONCRETE real-life case that I can sink my teeth into)makes me curious about the whole gamut of criminal investigation/procedural matters. And since, for 1-3 months now, we have been discussing expert vs lay testimony, this AP item caught my attention in a way it wouldn't have pre-Amerithrax (for me, pre-Amerithrax=pre-2005, though that's just my intellectual fascination with the topic, as I'm a Johnny-come-lately).<br />======================================================<br />Otherwise, you were just making a statement that means nothing because it just says what everyone else already knows.<br />---------------------------------------------------<br />Oh, so the next time you write something about a case I already know about, I should write (over and over and over again) 'What's your point?' ?????<br />(And by the way, I do NOT remember that as being a humongous above-the-fold story in the NY TIMES about the bite-mark-evidence, and since I participate regularly at one newspaper blog section, it can't have made much of a national splash: a one-day story basically)<br /><br /><br />*Least you misunderstand, I do NOT think Bundy was innocent.<br />He probably killed 20 or 30 persons. I'm just talking about procedure.r rowleynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7831518087498541513.post-53581652763000077472013-07-18T10:14:20.400-07:002013-07-18T10:14:20.400-07:00R. Rowley wrote: "My "point" was ex...R. Rowley wrote: <i>"My "point" was exactly what I wrote: that the reliability of bite mark evidence is in doubt and that there's a possibility its role in criminal trials of the future MIGHT change. Isn't that ENOUGH Of a point?!?!?"</i><br /><br />It's not just a <b><i>possibility.</i></b> Your post said, <i>the DNA testing revealed the erroneous convictions wrought by 'bite mark evidence'."</i> The article for which you provided a link says,<br /><br />--------<br /><i>DNA has outstripped the usefulness of bite mark analysis: <b>The FBI doesn’t use it and the American Dental Association does not recognize it.</b><br /><br />“Bite mark evidence is the poster child of unreliable forensic science,” said Chris Fabricant, director of strategic litigation at the New York-based Innocence Project, which helps wrongfully convicted inmates win freedom through DNA testing.</i><br />-------<br /><br />So, it's another so-called "science" that is too unreliable to be used in court. With the Daubert ruling, the Supreme Court set new standards to weed out the kinds of "science" that can produce totally unreliable results like bite-mark evidence.<br /><br />I think everyone knows this. But, maybe you didn't.<br /><br />So, what you wrote was like saying, "Columbus discovered America."<br /><br />The response would be: "Yes. So what?"<br /><br />Asking "So what?" is not starting an argument. It's just a question about why you mention something that everyone already knows. <br /><br />You seem to have brought it up as a way of arguing some other point, like - if bite mark evidence is unreliable, who can say what other "scientific evidence" might also be unreliable? <br /><br />And, since we're supposed to be discussing the anthrax attacks, it would appear that you want to argue that some forensic evidence in that case <b><i>MIGHT</i></b> some day be shown to be unreliable. And, if so, why believe <b>ANY</b> scientific findings? <br /><br />I was trying to figure out your "point" to see if that is the "point" you were trying to make without actually making it.<br /><br />Otherwise, you were just making a statement that means nothing because it just says what everyone else already knows.<br /><br />EdEd Lakehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00517078636884309733noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7831518087498541513.post-71496755763287638092013-07-18T09:45:44.441-07:002013-07-18T09:45:44.441-07:00You start an argument because I ask such a questio...You start an argument because I ask such a question.<br />============================================<br />You need remedial reading lessons: my last three posts have no "argument" (in any sense of that word) in them whatsoever:<br /><br />1)In my post of July 11, 2013 at 12:38 PM I comment on an AP story about the reliability of "bite mark evidence". No "argument" in any sense of that word. (But if you disagree, QUOTE ME and tell me WHAT I'm supposedly "arguing"! (in ANY sense of the word)).<br /><br />2)This was followed by Mister Lake asking "what's your point?" (!!!). (post of July 11, 2013 at 1:37 PM)<br />My "point" was exactly what I wrote: that the reliability of bite mark evidence is in doubt and that there's a possibility its role in criminal trials of the future MIGHT change. Isn't that ENOUGH Of a point?!?!?<br /><br />3) My subsequent post (July 11, 2013 at 2:42 PM) was as follows: (trying to explain what's ALREADY crystal-clear to all other readers)<br />---------------<br />Well, what surprised me about it was: I pictured areas of expertise as an ever-expanding circle, but, if what they anticipate in this article holds true, then there might be some contractions in this area of evidence.<br />-------------------------------<br /><br />4)Mister Lake professed not to understand THAT either! (!!!!)<br />------------<br />That explanation doesn't help at all*. I still do not understand what you are trying to say. I think I understand the "ever expanding circle" part and the "contractions" part, but what's your POINT?<br /><br />*What is there NOT to understand?!?!?!?!?<br />=====================================<br />Evidently in the Lakean "dialect" if you keep asking "what is your point?" after the person has ALREADY explained what their point is this constitutes 'contributing' to a conversation!<br />=================================================<br />What I see in the above posts between Mister Lake and me is: Mister Lake trying to start an argument via repeating "what's your point?" over and over and over again. You'll have to find another patsy for that.<br /><br />And as always when he's trying to start an argument, he accuses ME of trying to start one.<br /><br />(You be the judge, oh noble reader!)<br /><br />r rowleynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7831518087498541513.post-61994819115194710322013-07-17T12:55:05.739-07:002013-07-17T12:55:05.739-07:00R. Rowley wrote: "If it's so "ordina...R. Rowley wrote: <i>"If it's so "ordinary" then just give me an example of an "amino acid code" being introduced into evidence in a MATERIAL way in a trial."</i><br /><br />You're playing <b><i>WORD GAMES</i></b> again. I used the term "ordinary evidence" merely to indicate that it is just <b>regular</b> evidence that any lawyer could present in almost any court.<br /><br /><b>"Ordinary" is NOT a legal term. Neither is "regular."</b><br /><br />So, you argue that it's not "ordinary" (and probably not "regular") because an "amino acid code" has never been used in a trial before.<br /><br /><b>There is NO RULE that says that something cannot be presented as evidence if it's never been presented as evidence in a trial before.</b><br /><br />The "amino acid code" is "ordinary" or "regular" evidence because <b>there is NO RULE that says such evidence cannot be presented in court.</b><br /><br />I used the term to distinguish it from "PREJUDICIAL" evidence as VIEWED BY THE LAW, i.e., <b>evidence that doesn't have anything to do with the case but which may sway the jury anyway</b>, like evidence that does nothing but show the defendant is a terrible person. That type of evidence CANNOT be presented. It does NOT help to resolve the issue being tried.<br /><br />In the Zimmerman trial, I think they used a slab of concrete as "evidence." How many times has a slab of concrete been used as evidence in a case before?<br /><br />There were <b>250 items of evidence</b> entered. Do you think the judge somehow <b>knows</b> every one of the billions of items of evidence that have been used in American courts in the past 225 years, and then decides if each item has been used as evidence before, and if it hasn't they don't allow it? That is <b>NOT</b> the way things work in court.<br /><br />If an item of evidence helps resolve the issue being tried (i.e., Ivins' guilt or innocence) <b>IT IS ALLOWED.</b><br /><br /><b>The coded letter would be allowed because it helps to prove Ivins' guilt - which is the issue being tried.</b><br /><br />R. Rowley also wrote: <i>"That is NOT the typical transparent-as-can-be code generally used by drug dealers and the like that we already made reference to... "</i><br /><br /><b><i>WHO CARES?</i></b> There is no rule that says a new kind of code cannot be used in court because it's never been used in court before.<br /><br />You keep claiming things cannot be presented as evidence because of rules that exist only in your mind.<br /><br />The laws were written with the assumption that no two cases are exactly alike. They do NOT write new laws every time something unusual pops up. <b>The only rule governing the admissibility of the coded letter is whether or not the item helps resolves the issue being tried. If it helps, <i>it is ALLOWED.</i> If it doesn't help, it is NOT allowed.</b><br /><br />EdEd Lakehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00517078636884309733noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7831518087498541513.post-20188349375460680212013-07-17T12:41:14.989-07:002013-07-17T12:41:14.989-07:00R. Rowley wrote: "Why aren't YOU interest...R. Rowley wrote: <i>"Why aren't YOU interested in the role of realms of expertise used in criminal trials? It would seem to be an inevitable interest, naturally acquired after so much disputing on the role of such realms IN Amerithrax."</i><br /><br />I cannot make any sense of what you write: "the role of realms of expertise used in criminal trials"? It's like asking why I'm not interested in physics since physics is so important to criminal trials. Who says I'm NOT interested in physics?<br /><br />However, when someone says something like "things aren't the way I thought they were," the natural response is, "What's different?" or "What's not the way you thought it was?"<br /><br />You start an argument because I ask such a question.<br /><br />If you don't want a response, why bring it up?<br /><br />You seemed to be saying that you've learned something new (about <b>the legal system</b>, not just about bite marks), but you wouldn't say what it was. I was wondering what that was, and when I asked, you argue that I'm arguing.<br /><br />EdEd Lakehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00517078636884309733noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7831518087498541513.post-31752499598854587522013-07-16T17:47:22.713-07:002013-07-16T17:47:22.713-07:00You think ORDINARY evidence like Agent Steele'...You think ORDINARY evidence like Agent Steele's testimony about the hidden message in the letter is "prejudicial."<br /><br />I say it's ORDINARY evidence and NOT "prejudicial," it's just PART of the case against the defendant.<br />===================================================<br />If it's so "ordinary" then just give me an example of an "amino acid code" being introduced into evidence in a MATERIAL way in a trial. Any trial. I don't think that<br /> there are any such instances. Furthermore, since no one in the Task Force in the years 2001-2009 claimed that that text HAD such an amino acid code, it must have been extraordinarily 'unordinary' to have escaped the attention of so many persons......That is NOT the typical transparent-as-can-be code generally used by drug dealers and the like that we already made reference to...<br />r rowleynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7831518087498541513.post-52035507099373787572013-07-16T16:10:38.253-07:002013-07-16T16:10:38.253-07:00Your notion stated HERE is: "So, the defense ...Your notion stated HERE is: "So, the defense would have filed pre-trial in limine motions to eliminate from presentation in front of the jury:<br /><br />2)all evidence related to 'amino acid code' in Amerithrax letters(in accord with Rule of Evidence 701 c)), unless presented by certified expert in cryptology (in accord with Rule of Evidence 702). "<br /><br />My notion of "in limine" from HERE is: <br /><br />"A motion in limine is most often made to exclude evidence by a party who believes that evidence would prejudice the jury against him or her. "<br />===============================================<br />The two statments are not in conflict.r rowleynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7831518087498541513.post-90413282647679342272013-07-16T16:08:36.289-07:002013-07-16T16:08:36.289-07:00R. Rowley wrote: "Well, what surprised me abo...R. Rowley wrote: "Well, what surprised me about it was: I pictured areas of expertise as an ever-expanding circle, but, if what they anticipate in this article holds true, then there might be some contractions in this area of evidence."<br /><br />That explanation doesn't help at all. I still do not understand what you are trying to say. I think I understand the "ever expanding circle" part and the "contractions" part, but what's your POINT?<br />=================================================<br />MY "point" is my interest in the subject matter quite apart from Amerithrax. Why aren't YOU interested in the role of realms of expertise used in criminal trials? It would seem to be an inevitable interest, naturally acquired after so much disputing on the role of such realms IN Amerithrax.<br /><br />But apparently for YOU the only way that someone has a "point" is if they are disputing you. Wny is that?<br /><br /><br /><br />r rowleynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7831518087498541513.post-3262330918204353352013-07-12T07:40:25.410-07:002013-07-12T07:40:25.410-07:00R. Rowley wrote: "Well, what surprised me abo...R. Rowley wrote: <i>"Well, what surprised me about it was: I pictured areas of expertise as an ever-expanding circle, but, if what they anticipate in this article holds true, then there might be some contractions in this area of evidence."</i><br /><br />That explanation doesn't help at all. I still do not understand what you are trying to say. I think I understand the "ever expanding circle" part and the "contractions" part, but <b>what's your POINT?</b> <br /><br />EdEd Lakehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00517078636884309733noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7831518087498541513.post-82579662697855879932013-07-12T07:35:51.272-07:002013-07-12T07:35:51.272-07:00R. Rowley wrote: "how does your notion differ...R. Rowley wrote: <i>"how does your notion differ from mine on in limine hearings?"</i><br /><br />Your notion stated <a href="http://anthraxdebate.blogspot.com/2013/06/subject-rule-of-evidence-701-c.html?showComment=1372779000697#c1135932667647912805" rel="nofollow">HERE</a> is: <i>"So, the defense would have filed pre-trial in limine motions to eliminate from presentation in front of the jury:<br /><br />2)all evidence related to 'amino acid code' in Amerithrax letters(in accord with Rule of Evidence 701 c)), unless presented by certified expert in cryptology (in accord with Rule of Evidence 702). "</i><br /><br />My notion of "in limine" from <a href="http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/motion_in_limine" rel="nofollow">HERE</a> is: <br /><br /><i>"A motion in limine is most often made to exclude evidence by a party who believes that evidence would prejudice the jury against him or her. "</i><br /><br />You think ORDINARY evidence like Agent Steele's testimony about the hidden message in the letter is "prejudicial."<br /><br />I say it's ORDINARY evidence and NOT "prejudicial," it's just PART of the case against the defendant.<br /><br />Prejudicial generally means: "an opinion formed before the facts are known." An example would be: "the government is evil, so nothing they say can be trusted." Or, "foreigners must have done it, because all foreigners are untrustworthy and Americans are all good people." <br /><br />Prejudicial can also mean that it appeals to the EMOTIONS instead of to facts and logic, such as testimony about how terrible the defendant is or how horrific the crime was.<br /><br />In other words, <b>no facts or evidence are needed, because prejudiced BELIEFS or EMOTIONS are sufficient to determine guilt or innocence.</b> The matter has been pre-judged. <br /><br />In the Zimmerman trial, the "in limine" hearing was called to keep an "expert" from taking the stand to declare that Zimmerman didn't break any law. That's prejudicial testimony because the JURY is supposed to decide if Zimmerman broke the law or not. The "expert" had already PRE-JUDGED the case. <br /><br />In the Ivins' trial, Agent Steele's testimony about the hidden message in the letter would have been just be one more piece of evidence for the jury to consider before making their decision. There's nothing "prejudicial" about it because it doesn't say "Ignore all the other evidence because this BELIEF overrides all the facts and evidence."<br /><br />"In limine" meetings are NOT and CANNOT be held to exclude ordinary evidence. They're mainly held to exclude PREJUDICIAL testimony that is based upon BELIEFS or EMOTIONS and not upon facts and logic. <br /><br />EdEd Lakehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00517078636884309733noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7831518087498541513.post-80185195709710520402013-07-11T14:45:35.926-07:002013-07-11T14:45:35.926-07:00R. Rowley wrote: "No, I look at a trial like ...R. Rowley wrote: "No, I look at a trial like this as an opportunity to learn, NOT an opportunity to rail against "Truthers" or "Conspiracy theorists" or whatever..."<br /><br />I merely pointed out that they used an "in limine" meeting in the case, and what was done supported MY argument, not yours about how "in limine" meetings work. <br />================================================<br />Okay, I don't follow that: how does your notion differ from mine on in limine hearings?r rowleynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7831518087498541513.post-79363249183807117752013-07-11T14:42:24.970-07:002013-07-11T14:42:24.970-07:00R. Rowley wrote: "In other words (to clarify ...R. Rowley wrote: "In other words (to clarify the first sentence)the DNA testing revealed the erroneous convictions wrought by 'bite mark evidence'."<br /><br />I know all about the "bite mark" evidence.<br /><br />What I don't know is why you mention it. What's your point?<br />===========================================<br />Well, what surprised me about it was: I pictured areas of expertise as an ever-expanding circle, but, if what they anticipate in this article holds true, then there might be some contractions in this area of evidence.r rowleynoreply@blogger.com