I had the same thought. There’s a bunch of people on here with a lot of all round knowledge of the players so why not come here to check in on the response to your article? Any mistakes are likely to be (and were) called out immediately so then you can go back and patch things up. :lol:
4 Likes
Not forgetting forensics at all. Just have reservations about how likely it is that casings and any bullets that didn’t end up in LK’s body and such will give a precise picture of the shooting itself, let alone any events that might have led up to it.
All of the CSI-type shows on t.v. have generated some magical thinking in the popular zeitgeist about how much detail can be recovered from forensic evidence, and with how much confidence. Modern overconfidence in forensic science is rather frightening.
I am not confident about what will be presented by either the defense or the prosecution if the case goes to court. I think it’s rather bizarre that some are so convinced they know exactly what happened and how the evidence will support their theories in court.
11 Likes
LMAO I’m not talking CSI, how ridiculous to even say that. Not to reveal my nerdy True Crime self, but I have researched and read up on hundreds of murder and child exploitation cases, forensics are the key evidence in so so many.
I’m talking real forensics that are used every day in cases just like this to paint a picture. Reinactments and forensics tell the story better than witnesses ever can or will.
3 Likes
going to share with us how you know so many details about this situation? Continually insinuating you know more than us somehow without saying why, almost smells like troll.
9 Likes
Actually a lot can be recovered. Casing placement plays a roll with who loaded the gun and number of rounds fired. Say one got lodged in the dirt that was missed.
Also a lot can be done with blood splatter. The following is not specific to this case. Blood splatter can be analyzed to determine how close the attack was, if the attacker was using an object like a bat, how the bat was swung. They use technology now but the string method is tried and true. The diameter of blood drops tell a story.
Gun shot residue will be analyzed based on amount and location. Bullet wounds tell the story of entry and exit as well as the distance.
Forensics plays a huge role in cases. I do not disagree with you that shows like CSI hype it up but forensics can make or break a case. From fibers to fingerprints. To blood splatter and shell placement.
My stepmom is a detective and her specialty lies in accident reconstruction. However what people see on CSI is true, it just doesn’t happen in the time frame the episode portrays. I’ve seen her work.
I was also lucky enough to sit through several lectures with DR. Henry Lee. He was the guy who analyzed the Jon Benet case and the OJ case. He says that forensics like any science is exact as it can be. He told the story of being on the stand during the OJ trial and the prosecution asking him how exact his science is. He held up a ruler he used during the examination of the crime scene. He said this ruler told me x,y, and z. Is this ruler exact? Who knows, but this is the ruler I used.
It’s a famous part of his lectures. So while CSI glorifies forensics it’s off base in how fast it happens. But yes, what can be determined from shell casings, blood splatter, dna, fibers etc is very real. Hell my step mom has nailed someone over tread marks in the street.
2 Likes
it is absolutely not normal or legal anywhere to be carrying someone else’s gun around. unless you’re a criminal.
This is all so absurd, as was said before, the constant moving goal post in order to defend what in the end was just some guy shooting a woman.
5 Likes
I don’t disagree that there is value in some forensic science. In my opinion as a scientist, however, not all of it is truly scientific nor is it presented to juries in a way that acknowledges the limitations of the science involved (look up Innocence Project forensics info – something like half of all wrongful convictions involve shoddy forensic science or overconfident forensic expert testimony).
Forensics in this case might tell us something about the shooting (e.g. verify number of rounds fired, as you mentioned), but I suspect there is much about the minutes leading up to it that could be central to a “reasonable doubt” or “self defense” case that cannot be recovered from casings or blood or the like. Nor am I confident that every jurisdiction has people as talented as Henry Lee or your stepmom doing the analysis.
I’m just not convinced that forensic evidence is guaranteed to prove guilt here.
10 Likes
Get back to me when you’ve taken the stand to defend your science. Have any tips to explain it to the layman? And no, as of right now Dr. Lee is the leader. It’s why he was farmed out from CT to handle those cases. Just because you are not knowledgeable in the subject doesn’t mean you get to toss it out the window.
Also if you read Dr. Lee admits that his science is as exact as the tools let him be. It’s a growing area but please don’t act like it’s on par with the guessing that is psychology.
ETA: the innocence project has cases that don’t involve people who hire good competent attorneys. IE not relevant to this case.
As I have said before, every single thing I have posted has come from this thread and LK’s posts on other SM. When I have been speculating and giving my personal thoughts, I have said as much. If I were directly involved in this, why would I want to reveal it here? The posters who actually shared their experiences with LK on this forum were not treated particularly kindly by some. I have explained my passion regarding this situation once on this forum and I will not explain it again.
As far as the definition of a “troll”, it is someone who starts quarrels or upsets people by posting inflammatory or off-topic messages. Basically, a social media troll is someone who purposely says something controversial in order to get a rise out of other users. There are others on this thread that fit that definition much better than I.
True story!!! ðŸ‘ðŸ‘ðŸ‘😂😂😂
18 Likes
Huh? My scientific research is not on trial, nor is it relevant to the Barisone case. But it doesn’t mean that I don’t understand the scientific method. What an odd post.
If you actually care about how various techniques in forensic “science” measure up to scientific standards and principles, there is plenty of academic literature out there, especially on the problems with pattern matching. Or you could look up the independent report produced by the National Academy of Science a few years back. A couple minutes with Google Scholar should provide you with sources you’re far more likely to believe than little ol’ me. I don’t care at all if you believe me, but if you’re looking for an argument from authority, my point can be summarized in a statement by the Academy: “much forensic evidence – including, for example, bitemarks and firearm and toolmark identifications – is introduced in criminal trials without any meaningful scientific validation, determination of error rates, or reliability testing to explain the limits of the discipline.”
I’m not here to convince you that forensic “science” is imperfect w.r.t. science. It’s my opinion that certain techniques within that field are far more reliable than others, and that the value of much pattern and debris evidence lies in establishing very basic facts (e.g. Was a person of this size/sex at the scene? How many rounds were fired?) and not in piecing out the sort of details that might matter to a defense in this case (e.g. Was MB physically assaulted in any way before shots were fired? Why was he armed?).
16 Likes
How many feet did we move the goal posts this time?
2 Likes
Truly. Not much point in posting, Denali6298 always has to have the last word.
22 Likes
So ignore my posts rather than jump through your own butts trying to justify why this is different. I don’t think it is. Ya wanna debate it? Cool. I’m not going to. It’s not about me having the last word. By all means debate my statements and get mad I won’t change my opinion.
LadyJ summed the situation up perfectly. It’s about a guy who shot a girl.
5 Likes
I think this is way oversimplifying it. Details matter.
14 Likes
not made up ones though.
5 Likes
Not everything people are talking about is made up. These facts can and do matter, and they will be brought up by the defense.
Whether or not it’s relevant on a message board is a whole other discussion, but it’s a lot more than just a guy shooting a girl.
And for all those people hemming and hawwing about what it means about those that carry… I carry, primarily when I am going into certain neighborhoods I’m forced to frequent. Having had poor experiences with smaller “carry size” guns, I now carry a full size 9mm 15+1 in a retention holster, and I don’t care if I conceal it or not. I hope I never have to use it. I’ve had my hand on it once in a really hairy situation but fortunately did not have to draw it. I practice with it regularly. It’s loaded with hollow points, and if I ever have to draw it there’s a 100% chance I will fire it.
19 Likes
Perhaps we need a forensic scientist to analyze the traces of all that bludgeoning and identify the point of it.
18 Likes
[QUOTE=x-halt-salute;n10499136]
Perhaps we need a forensic scientist to analyze the traces of all that bludgeoning and identify the point of it.[/
OTE]
Ya know I read about what you were talking about and I only
Ya know, I looked up what you suggested and what I mentioned didn’t come into question either the articles. Well finger prints, but clearly that’s as good as the person looking at them and only one case was mentioned.
I didn’t mention bite marks. (A dog has been added to the mix) I didn’t mention striations on a bullet.(only mentioned gun shot residue) I didn’t mention tool marks. I didn’t mention them for a reason.
1 Like
