ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Trials and Errors
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags Amy Adams , Ellie France , Mark Lundy , murder cases , New Zealand cases

Reply
Old 26th May 2019, 07:04 PM   #1721
Fixit
Scholar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 103
Originally Posted by Chris_Halkides View Post
Jonathan Eaton: "...and I’m saying that’s not a substitute for the legal threshold for admissibility and it needs to be seriously debated because all we’ve got is the subjective opinions of clinicians who use IHC, they are not experts in IHC because there’s no such field of expertise, and they are giving their subjective opinions when they are searching for brain when that is not their practice. Their practice is to look at identified tissue and find disease, and now it’s being used to say “I’ve got unidentified tissue. Can you tell me if it’s brain?” Not “Can you tell me what it is?”, “Can you tell me if it’s brain?” And when one reads the PCAST report from 2016, which came after trial, and where it talks about foundational and scientific validity, this falls short on so many levels."

This is an important point with respect to the IHC, that there is no such thing as [forensic] IHC and that it is being used differently in this case from its normal uses.

Yes Chris, one of the most important points made of many. The presentation was interesting in that I felt the Court were of one mind on misapprehended facts, then turned as JE was able to explain such details as contained above. The next step naturally is to criticise the Court for allowing the Crown to stay outside forensic science norms in at least 4 ways, forensic safety chain, the use of IHC, mRNA and a worthless peer review of known material.
Fixit is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th July 2019, 02:26 PM   #1722
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 8,274
There is a one day hearing at the supreme court on 27th August

Ding ding another round would original prosecutor Ben van der Kolk like to say.

I guess that's about right eh Ben?
Samson is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Trials and Errors

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:39 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.