Purported "Bite Mark" is Consistant with the Lake Knife

[Nova]

a) The fact that the knife was found in close proximity to Baldwin's house connects it to him. Granted, that's not a direct connection like fingerprints or DNA would be, but I never imagined any such direct connection, which is why your argument implying I did is a strawman.

b) The fact that knife is consistent with wounds on Stevie Branch demonstrates the possibility that it could have been used in the murders. No it doesn't come anywhere close to proving that knife was used in the murders, but I never imagined any such level of proof, which is why your argument implying I did is a strawman....

So, basically, you are saying nothing, so that anyone who refutes your claims is constructing a "straw man". How convenient.

 

[kyleb]

No, not at all. Rather, a strawman is "a weak or sham argument set up to be easily refuted", and you set up and knocked down a couple of those all by yourself in your ongoing effort to avoid acknowledging the facts I've pointed out here.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

You've pointed out no facts, merely expressed your opinion.

 

[kyleb]

Nonsense. This is all fact:

a) The fact that the knife was found in close proximity to Baldwin's house connects it to him. Granted, that's not a direct connection like fingerprints or DNA would be, but I never imagined any such direct connection, which is why your argument implying I did is a strawman.

b) The fact that knife is consistent with wounds on Stevie Branch demonstrates the possibility that it could have been used in the murders. No it doesn't come anywhere close to proving that knife was used in the murders, but I never imagined any such level of proof, which is why your argument implying I did is a strawman.

You can ignore such facts all you like, but you can't refute them.

 

[gheckso]

a) The fact that the knife was found in close proximity to Baldwin's house connects it to him.

Okay, I think I'm done reading this thread now.

 

[kyleb]

As I explained to CR: you can ignore such facts all you like, but you can't refute them. In regard to the fact you quoted, the knife was found in close proximity to Baldwin's home only connects it to him as much as it connects it to everyone else who lives in close proximity to where the knife was found, and it doesn't come anywhere close to proving any of them ever had any contact with that knife. It's a weak connection to all those people, but the fact remains that it is a connection to those people, Baldwin included.

 

[gheckso]

The problem doesn't just remain at the knife being in any proximity of Jason's house, to me anyhow, I still haven't seen any irrefutable evidence that this knife has been used in any crime. So I find it hard to accept any evidence/facts beyond this such as the serration marks.

I find an old link to a message board where a member has done his own comparisons also, worth a look as I noticed your overlays earlier.
http://www.wm3blackboard.com/forum/index.php?topic=1724.30

 

[kyleb]

It's impossible to find proof that any knife which has sat in a lake for a while has been used in any crime. The currents of the lake eventually will wash away any fingerprints, blood, and tissue, and the latter two will be contaminated beyond recognition by bacteria in the lake water long before that. Even if you had video of someone using a knife to murder another, and a visually identical knife found in a remote lake which only the person on video committing the murder has any record of recently being near: that wouldn't prove the knife found in that lake is the same one seen in the video. In any case one must consider all the available evidence as a whole to rightly determine what connections exist beyond any reasonable doubt, and one must also accept the fact that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

As for the comparisons you've linked, I've some qualms with the analysis, but I'd prefer this thread not be sidetracked into discussing wounds others than those in the autopsy photo which is the topic at hand. Surely you realize that proving some wounds are inconstant with a particular knife doesn't remove the possibility that other wounds were inflicted by that same knife? Regardless, if you'd like to start a thread discussing the comparisons you've linked, I'll be happy to participate.

 

[UdbCrzy2]

Kyleb, you have done an excellent job explaining this. This is very interesting and I'm glad that I got to read it.

 

[reedus23]

From what I've seen of the hearing transcripts, that's still all a matter of them stating opinions, not actually substantiating them. If you'd like to contend otherwise, please note the exact spot in the transcripts you are referring to and quote whatever portion you find most relevant.

I haven't read this testimony, but in general, if an expert's opinion is not supported or substantiated by both science and the facts, a judge won't allow them to testify.

 

[kyleb]

Well, if you do manage to find something beyond bare assertions to support the claims of animal predation, please get back to me.

 

[reedus23]

Well, if you do manage to find something beyond bare assertions to support the claims of animal predation, please get back to me.

If you are speaking to me, I didn't say anything about any particular expert or their opinions. My statement was about expert witnesses in general and that the Courts will not allow them to testify if their opinions are not based in the facts and their methodology supported by the scientific community. Whether it's animal predation or DNA or ballistics or anything else.

 

[kyleb]

Sure, you made a bare assertion about expert witnesses in general, lacking anything to subsanate it in general let alone anything to demonstate it as applicable to the case at hand. So again: if you do manage to find something beyond bare assertions to support the claims of animal predation, please get back to me.

 

[reedus23]

Sure, you made a bare assertion about expert witnesses in general, lacking anything to subsanate it in general let alone anything to demonstate it as applicable to the case at hand. So again: if you do manage to find something beyond bare assertions to support the claims of animal predation, please get back to me.

Take them for whatever you want. Feel free to read the Foote case and its progeny for in depth discussion on what it takes for expert testimony to be admissible if you want to substantiate what it takes for expert testimony to be admissible and for a demonstration of why it's applicable to this case and I would imagine every case an expert is called in.

 

[kyleb]

Feel free to read the Foote case and its progeny

That would be anicdotal evidence, and hence woudn't come anywhere close to substantating your generaliztion. That said, please feel free to adresss the physical evidence which is the topic of this thread.

 

[reedus23]

That would be anicdotal evidence, and hence woudn't come anywhere close to substantating your generaliztion. That said, please feel free to adresss the physical evidence which is the topic of this thread.

No, that is just the law in the State of Arkansas when it comes to expert testimony. Of course, feel free to let me know if the law has changed and I will make a note of it. I am not familiar with Arkansas law and frankly didn't spend more than 2 minutes looking up the Arkansas Supreme Court case that set forth the standard for expert testimony. I will leave the rest to you.

 

[kyleb]

I'm not going to go digging for whatever evidence you're implying supports your claim. You say you found as much, so why not post the link? Or better yet, why don't you just quit trying to argue around the topic of this thread and actually start addressing it?

 

[reedus23]

I'm not going to go digging for whatever evidence you're implying supports your claim. You say you found as much, so why not post the link? Or better yet, why don't you just quit trying to argue around the topic of this thread and actually start addressing it?

You're not getting it. I'm not citing evidence. I'm trying to pass on a little info on experts. I'll move on and let y'all get back to the topic of the thread. I only tried to offer some guidance when it comes to expert testimony.

 

[kyleb]

I get exactly what you're doing here. You're making a claim without providing any evidence to back it, and doing so in defense of a claim made without providing any evidence to back it no less.

 

[reedus23]

I get exactly what you're doing here. You're making a claim without providing any evidence to back it, and doing so in defense of a claim made without providing any evidence to back it no less.

What claim am I making?