I'm not so extreme that I totally disbelieve any and all toolmark analysis, but I see the flaw in its methodology and application. I certainly do here, where it seems we don't know chain of custody for the round or the expertise of the examiner yet. It's one of those things I guess I will have to hear testimony on to judge.
If I’m a juror, show me 1) a sample of true matched pairs created from one gun, 2) a sample of mismatched pairs created from two different guns, same model, and 3) the CS bullet juxtaposed with the test-fed round. High-quality photos, of course. Ask me, “Does pair 3 look more like the pairs in 1) or in 2)?”
The pilot only has that if he's also a Corrections Officer!
Here ya go, posted it yesterday.
When thinking about asking jurors to be their own experts, I'm having painful flashbacks
One problem with that is you and I aren't actually experts, so how would we know the difference? What if the CS bullet juxtaposed with a test-fed round from another gun of same make and model are also exact matches? What about the same with a gun from a different make and model? The problem with the method is the control and the worry that bias will influence our decision. I don't have the answer obviously.
OK. Got me on that one.
No case is won or lost with one brick unless you have a clear video of the defendant perpetrating the crime. Seldom happens that way.
Oh ok, I should have read more closely that you were correcting your previous post.
Sorry if I was snippy, it was a bit embarrassing.
@Scion
Yes! And please post more, we need all the help we can get.
We’re still arguing over how he could have flunked yet another test and still be innocent.One problem with that is you and I aren't actually experts, so how would we know the difference? What if the CS bullet juxtaposed with a test-fed round from another gun of same make and model are also exact matches? What about the same with a gun from a different make and model? The problem with the method is the control and the worry that bias will influence our decision. I don't have the answer obviously.
That's kind of the nature of the beast. People that pass all the tests rarely wind up on trial. In the extremely unlikely event that RA is proven innocent some day, we can still say it "He sure looked guilty!"
I only really comment about evidentiary rulings, because I like that stuff and encounter a ton of them in my area of practice. I seriously have zero input on RA's guilt or innocence. Of course I have heard "facts" of the case, but until they pass the reliability test to be admitted as evidence, I take them all with heavy skepticism. Others don't and it doesn't bother me at all. It's never an argument in here for me; I have enough argument in my daily life to get my fill. I just want to see a fair trial with a fair outcome. That, to me, is justice.
Sorry if I was snippy, it was a bit embarrassing.
From your examination of the documents, could you determine which ones were test fired?
Yes, and I have promised to eat my favorite pink golf visor if that happens. Hope it doesn't come to that. lol
I believe RA has alcohol and anger management issues. JMO
