Guilty... of a hair-don't.
by blogger jgl
I have been following this trial in a half-assed sort of way. Some of the testimony bothers me. Sure, it is reasonable that 2 scientists come to different conclusions over "objective" physical evidence, but it seems like both sides are strongly declaring themselves right and the other side wrong. Scientists know it is not black and white. Do you have to fake it in court?
For example, Spector claims to have been 6 feet away from where the actress shot herself. He had blood spatter on him. Can blood spatter travel 6 feet? One person says blood spatter can only travel 2 feet. Another person says it's consistent with traveling 6 feet. They both are using different studies to support themselves.
|DiMaio also defended his reliance on a German study of blood spatter in which a scientist shot calves to collect evidence on how far blood spatter can travel. American studies cited by the prosecution involved experiments shooting into sponges.|
Can't we just have one expert giving both sides of the argument? (sure, that's a stupid question)
What really bothered me is a statement that DiMaio made that went something like... since 99% of oral gunshots are suicides, statistically, this is probably a suicide. Then he implies his "statistical reasoning" is just like DNA testimony.
|Dr. Vincent DiMaio said he was basing his opinions on scientific evidence and not trying to help Spector, for whom he is working.|
Deputy District Attorney Alan Jackson accused DiMaio of relying too heavily on statistics that the majority of women who commit suicide use handguns.
"Statistics don't get us any closer to the facts of this case, do they?" asked Jackson.
"If we didn't use statistics you would have to discard DNA," said DiMaio. "DNA is all probabilities."
I'm no statistician and don't know much about no logic... but isn't there a flaw with that comparison?