- Joined
- Mar 1, 2013
- Messages
- 1,025
- Reaction score
- 6,405
Confirmation bias maybe, more probable is a highly developed BS meter.I am not impressed with defense witnesses so far. It might be my own confirmation bias though.
Confirmation bias maybe, more probable is a highly developed BS meter.I am not impressed with defense witnesses so far. It might be my own confirmation bias though.
My expression exactly
Is he suggesting that a 3 degree angle from 30 feet away, where the bullet is what ... 4 feet off the ground (based on his human figures) ... the shot would be taken near the ground? I haven't mapped this, but it doesn't sound right.
So this expert isn’t really an expert.According to their website, their practice areas are:
Motor Vehicle
Product Liability
Fire and Explosions
Industrial and Workplace
Marine
Construction
Not sure how any of those specialty areas correlate to a double-murder and bullet trajectories at Moselle. IMO.
![]()
Practice Areas | Accident Research
www.accident-research.com
He also took two dimensional photographs of where the casings were and incorporated those into his three-dimensional representations, which means he had to make some assumptions in doing so.Which invalidates all his measurements and conclusions.
watching both of them handle the rifle, just scary.Poot makes me nervous holding a gun. JMO
ExactlySo this expert isn’t really an expert
Lol -- I so badly want the jurors to send a message to Judge Newman suggesting this firm hire Dr. Kinsley, and can they please wrap this up.This is not effective expert testimony. I think the jurors will see it as all smoke and mirrors, an attempt to confuse rather than explain.
The speculation about the height is cringey bad.
Those measurements would fit what he's sayingThis testimony is a joke, there is no proof, just speculation. This guy wants the jury to believe someone the size of a garden gnome did the shooting.
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.