View Single Post
Old 2nd August 2017, 03:30 PM   #199
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Stacyhs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 32,926
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
PAGE 76 - 77
Ergon <snip> does not provide the surrounding context of what he claims Gill wrote. In fact, unless he has a copy of the book itself, all he can read from it is from the "Look Inside" search on Amazon. And this is the only part that Ergon paraphrases:

Quote:
Try reading Peter Gill's "Misleading DNA Evidence" where he contradicts himself on the case by saying chances of getting a reportable profile via passive transfer is "very low" >24 hrs after last contact (p76-77)

By looking at the Look Inside results on Amazon, we can see that Gill is discussing published scientific literature but we cannot see what Gill himself is saying about it. This is the abstract describing the chapter wherein pages 76-77 are included:

Quote:
Abstract

It is never a good idea to highlight problems without providing the remedy. “Trace-DNA” is valuable evidence provided it is reported by constant reference to the published literature to support inferences. DNA evidence retrieved from underneath fingernails is used as the example. This is the best-researched evidence transfer that is commonly reported in serious violent assaults. Typically, a victim defends him/herself against an assailant and DNA is transferred from the perpetrator. Once a suspect is identified, a common defense will be that the transfer was from innocent transfer via passive social contact several days earlier. It is possible to evaluate the relative likelihoods of the prosecution vs. the defense propositions of transfer and persistence by referring to published experimental evidence. A generalized statement format is described, along with the limitations of evidence that can be adduced. The method explained follows the “scientific method” in order to avoid “speculation” on the part of the scientist. This reduces the chance of cognitive errors, especially confirmation bias.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...24172142000036

So, no. PAGE 76-77 is not providing a quote from GILL. It merely cites the pages from which ERGON is paraphrasing something that Gill is referencing.


Edited by Loss Leader:  Edited, possible Rule 8

Last edited by Loss Leader; 3rd August 2017 at 08:57 PM.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top