|
|
|
| Authored by: Wol on Wednesday, February 27 2013 @ 11:45 AM EST |
That means that you'll be right 19 times out of 20.
As far as statisticians are concerned that is "beyond reasonable
doubt".
I think the real problem with scientists is probably that they bring a lot of
external knowledge to the jury room that they are not supposed to use. I'd find
it hard not to.
For example, fingerprints. What if the prosecutions says "there was a
match" and the defence says "there can't be, I'm innocent". I
have heard that for "perfect" confidence, you need 16 matches and no
discrepancies. Apparently the DPP (Department of Public Prosecutions) is trying
to change the guidelines given to their investigators to say "1 match and
don't look for discrepancies".
I think I'd have to ask explicitly WHAT criteria the DPP used, and what criteria
did the scientists set. I doubt the Judge would be too happy at me asking, but
it would be hard to refuse to answer. Mind you, if the DPP were pulling a fast
one, the Judge would probably clock it and then THEY would be in trouble.
Cheers,
Wol[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
