JA shaking his head...Lowe is an expert through experience...she's claiming Lowe didn't get a 'blind' opinion from somone else...but IIRC, she did...how does defense get away with twisting facts...
Do you know any cases dealing with Frye dealing with error rates..NO...
O/T for this thread but the other one is closed...TurnaDot, I admire anyone who can speak (and type) two languages! English is very irregular and hard to learn.
Know, no
four, for
is a form of are, singular. are for plural. there are four people. there is one person. there is a table, but there are many chairs.
i know you want to, but i still say no to that idea.
Simple frustrating examples, but I could go on and on...
Geesh.
I'll stop now, but learning to write English is a biatch!
Does anyone else think this sounds suspiciously like a college lecture on the topic??? She's moving at a lecture pace.....NOT an arguments pace. It is too vague. She is peppering the "speech" with tidbits...but relying on NON-Relevant info.
DSimms: the forensic science has not gotten the meaning of consistant with "meaning" reference to that pages highlighted give to the court. Reading from a page of paper...non numerical statement given without imperical support...now there is a virgina article...if I may...I had highlighted...in this particular situation in 2009 what they did was they looked at 137 cases...
JA: not relevant to the standards of admisson...
DSimms: at least proffer why I think this argument...this is a case where they were clearly not guilty the authors wanted to go back and say why were they convicted when they were innocent. 60% of the evidence called by the state had not data...
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.