Purported "Bite Mark" is Consistant with the Lake Knife
- Thread starter kyleb
- Start date
kyleb
New Member
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2013
- Messages
- 1,048
- Reaction score
- 37
This is the claim you've made:
I'm guessing you consider this a mater of common sense. My admittedly meager understanding of the mater leaves me to disagree, but I'd be happy to be proven wrong.
Some seek what they believe to be the truth, while others seek truths to discern what to believe. This results in conflict, and is arguably the root of all conflict. Such is the reality of our existence, at least best I've been able to tell, and I've grown comfortable with this. In that regard, I recommend Tool's Schism, a song which has considerably helped me down that path.
kyle, I don't know that it will matter to you, but I was, in general terms because there are textbooks devoted to it, simply stating what the law requires in order for an experts opinion to be admissible. Just because it is admissible doesn't mean it is to automatically be believed. You can still give it whatever weight you choose to, but in very simple terms, in order to be admissible it has to meet those requirements so if it doesn't have some basis in fact and methodology it wouldn't be admitted by the Court. You may recall in Jessie's case, there were hearings and testimony held outside the presence of the jury to determine those exact questions in order to determine what opinions the expert could testify to in front of the jury and the Judge allowed some and disallowed others.
kyleb
New Member
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2013
- Messages
- 1,048
- Reaction score
- 37
Then cite the requirements you allude to from such a textbook, please.
I've seen a few examples of that, but none which rightly support your claim that "if an expert's opinion is not supported or substantiated by both science and the facts, a judge won't allow them to testify." Rather, from what I've seen: a person must simply be able to prove notable experience in a field to qualify as an expert witness in that field, while what basis their testimony has in science and fact is ultimately left up to the jurors to discern for themselves.
http://www.leagle.com/xmlResult.asp...1518.xml&docbase=CSLWAR2-1986-2006&SizeDisp=7
Here is a website with the Arkansas Supreme Court opinion. Again, I spent 5 minutes looking it up so one may want to sheopardize to see how this case has been interpreted and implemented or if there are more recent cases. The notable experience you speak of is certainly one of the factors that is considered, so you are correct in saying that is looked at. It's not the only factor however. For example, even though the FBI had been using "profilers" for some time and therefore had the requisite notable experience, their testimony originally was not admissible in courts because their methodology had not yet been accepted at large. Wilkins, though qualified as an expert, also wasn't permitted to testify concerning a test of suggestibility for much the same reason in the Judge's eyes.
kyleb
New Member
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2013
- Messages
- 1,048
- Reaction score
- 37
Wilkins was allowed to give his expert opinion that he thinks "Jessie would be quite suggestible", and he was allowed to elaborate on his reasoning behind that. What he wasn't allowed to do is introduce results of suggestibility testing based on a methodology which he couldn't demonstrate as being accepted at large, much like one can't present astrological charts as evidence either.
Disregarding the astrological charts comment, I agree with this and I never suggested otherwise. Whether or not I agree with the Judge's ruling is irrelevant. But, in layman's terms, you have succinctly put the requirements for the admissibility of expert testimony. It has to have some basis in fact (it can't be testimony about John Doe in Alaska if he has nothing to do with this case) and it has to have a basis in methodology(it can't be based on junk science, in your example, astrological charts). Conversely, if it does have a basis in fact (review of records/statements in this case) and a basis in methodology (psychology/DNA testing/fiber analysis/animal predation), then it is admissible.
I didn't say I did or did not find any basis, but if I have time I will go back and read his testimony some time and see if I could pull it out of there.
What I said was that it has to have that basis to be admissible, meaning that the trial Judge found it to have that basis or he wouldn't have let him testify to it in the first place. That doesn't mean an expert ways has to be accepted, but that it has the requisite basis to be conveyed to the jury and the jury can then give the expert's testimony as much weight and credence as they deem best.
I suppose the other option would be there was no basis for his testimony and the prosecution simply failed, refused or neglected to object to it, though I doubt this was the case as they did seem to challenge his testimony in certain areas as you indicated.
kyleb
New Member
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2013
- Messages
- 1,048
- Reaction score
- 37
You said:
While best I've been able to discern, Wilkins' opinion that that "Jessie would be quite suggestible" has no basis in fact, and the same goes for the more recent claims of animal predation.
All that means is that he interviewed the individual, reviewed records relative to the individual along with any other relevant evidence relating to the individual, as opposed to some other individual. It is then his opinion that based on those things, that he was suggestible. To not have a basis in fact would mean he is coming to those conclusions without interviewing the individual or reviewing any records, statements or evidence and is just blindly coming to those conclusions. I think you can trust the fact that the trial Judge in Jessie's case would have absolutely excluded those opinions had they not had some basis. It appears to me that when you state that Wilkins' opinion has no basis in fact, what you are saying is that you do not believe there is enough evidence to convince you his opinion is accurate, and you, along with the jury, are absolutely free to believe that. Just because an expert says something, doesn't make it so. It is still to be judged by a jury and given the weight and credibility that a jury deems appropriate (or us on websleuths in this instance).
I haven't read the animal predation reports yet, but to say they don't have any basis in fact, in a legal sense, means they haven't reviewed records, documents, statements, photographs, etc...related to this case in coming to their conclusions. While I haven't read them yet, I'm fairly confident that those experts would have done those things before forming their opinion as well. Now, since they have expressed their opinion, it is up to you(or a judge/jury) to determine how believable/credible that testimony is and it sounds to me that you do not find those opinions believable/credible for the various reasons you have stated.