If I'm a juror I'm thinking yep, you just showed an arm breaks a taillight. How it breaks, the exact pattern, depends on where the arm hits.
Dr Wolfe did not demonstrate to me that a dummy arm would react in the same way as a human arm, in terms of movement against jagged broken edges and causing damage to fabric.
He did demonstrate to me how John would have spun around and left his shoe behind, in test E.
Dr Wolfe compared apples and oranges, using an arm dangling on a string, and a dummy which he did not show reacts in the exact same way as a body with muscles. He showed bias when he said the results were inconsistent with the damage seen on Read's car, meaning the arm didn't hit in the exact same spot and therefore the exact same pattern of breakage was not replicated.
I've seen plenty of video now to show that an arm breaks a taillight at lots of different speeds. I don't think Brennan needs to do much work this afternoon.
JMO
Jurors may have bias and choose the expert they connect with or the one that confirms what they already thought- then it doesn’t matter what the expert says.
If a juror thinks everything can be reconstructed identically with 100% accuracy and should show identical results- neither expert would convince them of anything.
I think most jurors will note that Wolfe’s representation was better than Welcher’s. But a better and more convincing model can be misleading. I also think Wolfe comes across as capable and relatable, and Welcher at times seemed pretty full of himself.
Wolfe seemed to discount aspects that I thought were common sense important. Some experts can’t relate to regular people- to be an expert witness you have to be able to think that regular citizens- and be open to their thoughts. He seemed to be saying- this is right because I say so. Don’t look behind the curtain too closely.
Wolfe will sway some because he seems to be a likable smart good looking young man.
We are human and biased by nature.
What video are you referring to that shows that an arm breaks a taillight at lots of different speeds?
If you are referring to ARCCA’s modeling- then you think they were able to model this well enough to make conclusions?
All ARCCA tried to find out is…
What happens when something with the same mass as a human arm at various locations that line up with impacting the taillight, at various speeds- does to the taillight and the clothing.
His physics was absolutely sound- from what I can infer. Are there better tests and more tests and more materials and more angles that could be tested? Yes- always. At some point it is overkill- you are past the point of diminished returns.
Products we use all the time are tested in a manner similar to what ARCCA showed- that is how we know the limits of items we use every day.
Everything from dog chew toys, bikes, bridges, child safety seats, mini blinds, swimming pool ladders, lawn chairs, and on and on and on are tested using these kinds of modeling tests. When they fail- they are recalled. Consumer Reports does this regularly and publishes it so citizens can choose the best products. The science to do these sorts of tests isn’t new- or novel. They can because they have a budget of over $30 million, paid for by subscribers.
Good Morning America- Consumer Reports
I think both groups would be able to say more if they had a measure of the location and size of the debris field- but that wasn’t collected.
Wow, didn’t realize this was so long. I type fast
IMO