climbergirl
New Member
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2009
- Messages
- 20
- Reaction score
- 0
My notes
Dr. Adina Schwartz
Video tape
Professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice
Continued
Questions about Mr. Foggy's depo
He did not examine the surface of the tool
He eliminated the existence of sub class characteristics (surface)
Cappleman objected
Class characteristics Objection
Foggy used a sketch and did not exclude other types of double bladed knives other than the bayonet
Examiner should know the make and model of the tire
Test tire - Foggy testified that he did not know if it were the same
Angle of the stabbing makes a difference in the mark a tool makes in a tire Objection
Foggy claimed there were no sub-class characteristics
Lots of tools from the same batch could make the same or similar tool mark
Foggy did not have a comparison between tool marks
He did not follow his own lab's SOP
There is no database for tool mark comparison so there was nothing Foggy could compare to.
It was all based on examiners experience and training.
No objective criteria for making a tool mark identification.
There is not a clear determination of whether an specific tool is the only one that can make a mark, in Dr. Schwartz's opinion.
Experts rely on the "I know it when I see it" claim
Foggy testified that the mark was unique to a particular tool, but she disagrees
Schwartz-It's not reliable" because Foggy's experience base was minimal and he relied on the "I know it when I see it"
Cross
She has never been trained in tool mark identification
She considers herself as an expert in the literature of tool mark identification
She believes there is no expertise in tool mark id
She has not looked at the knife or the tire.
She gets paid 9K for her expert opinion
Dr. Adina Schwartz
Video tape
Professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice
Continued
Questions about Mr. Foggy's depo
He did not examine the surface of the tool
He eliminated the existence of sub class characteristics (surface)
Cappleman objected
Class characteristics Objection
Foggy used a sketch and did not exclude other types of double bladed knives other than the bayonet
Examiner should know the make and model of the tire
Test tire - Foggy testified that he did not know if it were the same
Angle of the stabbing makes a difference in the mark a tool makes in a tire Objection
Foggy claimed there were no sub-class characteristics
Lots of tools from the same batch could make the same or similar tool mark
Foggy did not have a comparison between tool marks
He did not follow his own lab's SOP
There is no database for tool mark comparison so there was nothing Foggy could compare to.
It was all based on examiners experience and training.
No objective criteria for making a tool mark identification.
There is not a clear determination of whether an specific tool is the only one that can make a mark, in Dr. Schwartz's opinion.
Experts rely on the "I know it when I see it" claim
Foggy testified that the mark was unique to a particular tool, but she disagrees
Schwartz-It's not reliable" because Foggy's experience base was minimal and he relied on the "I know it when I see it"
Cross
She has never been trained in tool mark identification
She considers herself as an expert in the literature of tool mark identification
She believes there is no expertise in tool mark id
She has not looked at the knife or the tire.
She gets paid 9K for her expert opinion