- Joined
- Jan 25, 2024
- Messages
- 1,875
- Reaction score
- 26,701
*cough* never *cough*How many weeks until we see evidence that she hit him?
*cough* never *cough*How many weeks until we see evidence that she hit him?
Hopefully never to be heard from again.And Jen is DONE!
NOPE. More of the same that KR’s lawyers tore to shreds in trial 1.Are we actually going to get the BAC test this time instead of the weird BAC calculation that Nicholas Roberts came up with?
So, this scholar is going to approximate her calculations.NOPE. More of the same that KR’s lawyers tore to shreds in trial 1.
That was...telling. It was a very familiar and friendly, hey there, smile, greeting of looking sympathetic while judge was at it. Pretty clear and I wasn't looking or expecting that. JMc has been treated very sympathetically and 'so sorry' by this judge and it is shocking. IMOJen and the Judge smile at each other as she sits down.
Yep. The same retrograde extrapolation. It kind of made me chuckle that they got a different guy than the one who testified on this T1. I guess he wasn’t as convincing as they thought he would be.So, this scholar is going to approximate her calculations.
I feel like the whole thing is mumbo jumbo!!!Why Is Reverse Extrapolation of One’s BAC Junk Science? :: Los Angeles County Crime Lawyers Greg Hill & Associates
Free Consultation - Call (310) 782-2500 - Greg Hill & Associates aggressively represents the accused against charges in Crime & Criminal Defense cases. Why Is Reverse Extrapolation of One’s BAC Junk Science? - Los Angeles County Crime Lawyerwww.greghillassociates.com
“Summary in 50 Words or Less: Reverse extrapolation of one’s blood alcohol content to the time of driving assumes that the driver metabolizes ethanol at a certain rate (“absorption rate”), 0.015% per hour, based on an average person’s age, gender, kidney function, liver function, body fat, emotional state, hydration level, metabolism, hematocrit, breathing rate and many other “averages” that may or may not apply to the driver. The calculation also assumes the BAC was declining throughout, which may not have been true.”
CW playing tired documentary clips in lieu of, say, actual hard evidence. Yawn.
I feel like the whole thing is mumbo jumbo!!!
it really is. There is no magic formula to retrograde extrapolate BAC accurately. It really depends on Karen and her metabolism, how much food she ate, and what she was drinking. The problem is here that while they are alleging the person they are testing was drunk, they also have to trust them to be accurate in what they drank or ate at all times. Simply not realistic. The varying absorption rates and lack of verifiable info make it essentially tarot reading, IMOI feel like the whole thing is mumbo jumbo!!!
Yanetti points out that the testing from the hospital lab is not accredited the same way this Ms Knowles’ lab is.Here we go, Yanetti!!!!!
I mean, I completely understand her unwillingness to hitch herself to the CW bus. As she said, she is only making calculations based on the formulas approved by her lab, and has no idea what the standards are of the lab that actually took Karen’s blood. It makes sense to me that, even when talking to the CW, she didn’t want to make a 100% statement. Because she can’t. She’s basically a Chinese Room.This witness is the Trooper Paul of Forensic Scientists.