I read a few pages back where someone disputed the HP testimony because the guy from HP said it wasn't a "match." That scares the heck out of me. Because that person obviously did not listen to the testimony, they are hanging a conclusion on a buzz word.
For clarity, the witness said it was not possible to *match* because by definition, you would need the original shoe to *match* it to the prototype. Since the shoe is *missing* it cannot be compared to the prototype, so the best they can say, using their standards, is that it is "consistent with."
Goodness, if someone can't *get* that, what else might they not *get*? I hope the jury is better able to assimilate information.
I think jury selection standards need to be revised, and I am serious. Instead of asking whether one has heard of a case (if one hadn't heard of this case, one would be very uninformed, that is, oblivious to their community), they ought to test for aptitude and ability to *reason, that is, make reasonable conclusions*. And they should have to pass a test for "it's boring but the juror can stay awake." Because that juror(s?) who are nodding off needs to be gone.
smh
