DogMom2JoeAndWillie
Real chemists do it in the hood....and periodicall
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2009
- Messages
- 685
- Reaction score
- 1
NTS, I believe you are demanding more than the SA will be required to prove. You need scientific certainty. Prosecutors are not required to establish guilt to a 100% scientific certainty. That said, IMO, you may be disappointed because the expert testimony will not satisfy your standard of proof.
I agree with you, magnolia, with 100% certainty. Typically, scientific data is not (and can never be) 100%. That's the "nature of the beast"... in scientific research you do not PROVE anything with 100% certainty...EVER.
My point is that if anyone here expects the defense (OR the prosecution) to prove anything relating to scientific data to the degree that they are "100% certain", then they're CRAZY. No sane scientist is going to present the conclusions that they draw from an experiment as if it's 100% accurate... because ALL GOOD science takes error into account. Saying that you're 100% certain in a laboratory report REALLY IS "junk science" (as CA likes to call it)... presenting information in the way that it has been so far in this case is NOT "junk science".
ETA: You may notice that I said I agree with magnolia with 100% certainty... I'm allowed to say that because my OPINION is NOT scientific data. Hope this makes sense
ETA#2: I really hope CA isn't silly enough to think we've overlooked her presence.... 'cause I sure haven't overlooked it! Hope I don't get in trouble for shooting her a quick "Hi, CA!" since I KNOW she's reading here...