VKMHVM2

__________________
It's All Here!

Dr. Albert Pastore: An Independent Investigation of 9-11 and the War on Terrorism

"Missing Links" - the 911 film THEY do NOT want you to see!

anhailla

excuse me?..I'll tell ya what, I will post the transcripts.
remember no insults on this thread.....

__________________
...either I go, or that wallpaper does.

Oscar Wilde

slowhand

Rabbit looking for peace??..Thats a good one!..Where was all the peace since the day he logged in here?..All he's been doing is heckling people..Give him the nobel peace prize!!

VKMHVM2

I posted audio files of the transmissions.

__________________
It's All Here!

Dr. Albert Pastore: An Independent Investigation of 9-11 and the War on Terrorism

"Missing Links" - the 911 film THEY do NOT want you to see!

Denie

Why don't we post the definition of scientific evidence and then apply that what has been posted thus far. Speculation of phone calls, plane routes, etc. are not scientific evidence.

So, White Rabbit, post the definition of scientific evidence as it pertains to pure science. Maybe use a science dictionary as the source to be non-bias.

anhailla

http://files.findlaw.com/news.findla...transcript.pdf


http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2006/images/0...transcript.pdf


There are to links to the OFFICIAL transcript. There was a struggle and anyone reading the transcript can clearly grasp that

__________________
...either I go, or that wallpaper does.

Oscar Wilde

anhailla

well, I posted the transcript of the entire tape.

__________________
...either I go, or that wallpaper does.

Oscar Wilde

White Rabbit

My sentiments exactly as usual.

White Rabbit

Scientific evidence

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Jump to: navigation, search
This article is about the concept of scientific evidence in pure science. For the legal term, see Scientific evidence (law).
Scientific evidence is evidence which serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis [citation needed]. Such evidence is expected to be empirical and properly documented in accordance with scientific method such as is applicable to the particular field of inquiry [citation needed]. Standards for evidence may vary according to whether the field of inquiry is among the natural sciences or social sciences [citation needed].
Contents

[hide]

• <LI class=toclevel-1>1 Principles of inference <LI class=toclevel-1>2 Utility of Scientific Evidence <LI class=toclevel-1>3 Philosophic versus Scientific Views of Scientific Evidence <LI class=toclevel-1>4 See also
• 5 References

[edit] Principles of inference

Evidence is information, such as facts, coupled with principles of inference (beliefs and assumptions), that make information relevant to the proof or disproof of a hypothesis [citation needed]. Scientific evidence is evidence where the dependence of the evidence on principles of inference is not conceded, enabling others to examine the background beliefs or assumptions employed to determine if facts are relevant to the proof or disproof of a purported hypothesis[1].
A person’s assumptions or beliefs about the relationship between alleged facts and a hypothesis will determine if that person takes the facts as evidence[1]. Consider, for example alternative uses of the observation that day and night alternate at a steady rate. In an environment where the observer makes a causal connection between exposure to the sun and day, the observer may take the observation of day and night as evidence for a theory of cosmology. Without an assumption or belief that a causal connection exists between exposure to the sun and the observance of day, the observation of day will be discounted as evidence of a cosmological theory.
A person’s assumptions or beliefs about the relationship between alleged facts and a hypothesis will also determine how a person utilizes the facts as evidence. Continuing with the same example, in an environment where geocentric cosmology is prevalent, the observation of day and night may be taken as evidence that the sun moves about the earth. Alternatively, in an environment where heliocentric cosmology is prevalent, the same observation may be taken as evidence that the earth is spinning about an axis[1]. In summary, beliefs or assumptions about causal relationships are utilized to determine whether facts are evidence of a hypothesis.
Background beliefs differ. As a result, where observers operate under different paradigms, rational observers may find different meaning in scientific evidence from the same event[2]. For example, Priestly, working with phlogiston theory, took his observations about the decomposition of what we know today as mercuric oxide as evidence of the phlogiston. In contrast, Lavoisier, developing the theory of elements, took the same facts as evidence for oxygen[3]. Note that a causal relationship between the facts and hypothesis does not exist to cause the facts to be taken as evidence[1], but rather the causal relationship is provided by the person seeking to establish facts as evidence.
A more formal method to characterize the effect of background beliefs is Bayesianism[4]. Bayesian theory provides that one’s beliefs depend on evidence to which one is exposed and one’s prior experiences (probability distribution, in Bayesian terms)[5]. As a result, two observers of the same event will rationally arrive at different evidence, given the same facts, because their priors (previous experiences) differ.
The importance of background beliefs in the determination of what facts are evidence can also be illustrated using syllogistic logic as provided by Aristotle. A standard syllogism is a triad where two propositions jointly imply the conclusion[6]:

All men are mortal,
Aristotle is a man; therefore
Aristotle is mortal.

If a person does not believe the propositions are affirmative, the facts will not be accorded the status of evidence. For example, believers of Intelligent Design will arrive at a different result from the following syllogism than followers of Darwinism:

Nothing which shows evidence of design has been produced by evolution,
All animals show evidence of design; therefore
No animal was produced by evolution.

[edit] Utility of Scientific Evidence

Philosophers, such as Karl R. Popper, have provided influential theories of the scientific method within which scientific evidence plays a central role[7]. In summary, Popper provides that a scientist creatively develops a theory which may be falsified or verified by testing the theory against evidence or known facts. Popper’s theory presents an asymmetry in that evidence can prove a theory wrong, by establishing facts that are inconsistent with the theory. In contrast, evidence cannot prove a theory correct because other evidence, yet to be discovered, may exist that is inconsistent with the theory[8].

[edit] Philosophic versus Scientific Views of Scientific Evidence

The Philosophic community has invested extensive resources to address logical requirements for scientific evidence by examination of the relationship between evidence and hypotheses, in contrast to scientific approaches which focus on the candidate facts and their context[9]. Bechtel, as an example of a scientific approach, provides factors (clarity of the data, replication by others, consistency with results arrived at by alternative methods and consistency with plausible theories) useful for determination if facts rise to the level of scientific evidence[10].
A variety of philosophical approaches are available for the evaluation of evidence, many of which focus on the relationship between the evidence and the hypothesis, to determine if the facts rise to the level of evidence. Carnap recommends distinguishing such theories of evidence using three concepts: whether the theory is classificatory (does the evidence confirm the hypothesis), comparative (does the evidence support a first hypothesis more than an alternative hypothesis) or quantitative (the degree to which the evidence supports a hypothesis)[11]. Achinson provides a concise presentation by prominent philosophers on evidence, including Carl Hempel (Confirmation), Nelson Goodman (of grue fame), R. B. Braithwaite, Norwood Russell Hanson, Wesley C. Salmon, Clark Glymour and Rudolf Carnap[12]

[edit] See also

• Anecdotal evidence

[edit] References

1. <LI id=_note-philsci>^ a b c d Longino, Helen (March 1979). Philosophy of Science , Vol. 46, pp. 37-42. <LI id=_note-0>^ Thomas S. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolution (1962). <LI id=_note-1>^ Thomas S. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolution, 2nd Ed. (1970). <LI id=_note-2>^ William Talbott "Bayesian Epistemology" (http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2007/entries/epistemology-bayesian/)Accessed May 13, 2007. <LI id=_note-3>^ Thomas Kelly "Evidence" (http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2007/entries/evidence/). Accessed May 13, 2007. <LI id=_note-4>^ George Kenneth Stone, "Evidence in Science"(1966) <LI id=_note-5>^ Karl R. Popper,"The Logic of Scientific Discovery" (1959). <LI id=_note-6>^ Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence, 2nd Ed. (2000), p. 71. (www.fjc.gov/public/pdf.nsf/lookup/sciman00.pdf/$file/sciman00.pdf). Accessed May 13, 2007.
2. ^ Debroah G. Mayo, Philosophy of Science, Vol. 67, Supplement. Proceedings of the 1998 Biennial Meetings of the Philosophy of Science Association. Part II: Symposia Papers. (Sep., 2000),

White Rabbit

Scientific evidence (law)


And since this is a criminal case this applies

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search
EvidencePart of the common law seriesTypes of evidenceTestimony · Documentary evidencePhysical evidence · Digital evidenceExculpatory evidence · Scientific evidenceDemonstrative evidence · Real evidenceHearsay: in U.K. law · in U.S. lawRelevanceBurden of proofLaying a foundationSubsequent remedial measureCharacter evidence · Habit evidenceSimilar fact evidenceAuthenticationChain of custodyJudicial notice · Best evidence ruleSelf-authenticating documentAncient documentWitnessesCompetence · PrivilegeDirect examination · Cross-examinationImpeachment · Recorded recollectionExpert witness · Dead man statuteHearsay (and its exceptions)Excited utterance · Dying declarationParty admission · Ancient documentDeclarations against interestPresent sense impression · Res gestaeLearned treatise · Implied assertionOther areas of the common lawContract law · Tort law · Property lawWills and Trusts · Criminal lawThis article is about the legal concept. For scientific evidence in pure science, see Scientific evidence.
Contents

[hide]

• <LI class=toclevel-1>1 History <LI class=toclevel-1>2 Educating witness
  • <LI class=toclevel-2>2.1 Role <LI class=toclevel-2>2.2 Frye test
  • 2.3 Daubert test
  <LI class=toclevel-1>3 Reporting witness <LI class=toclevel-1>4 Interpreting witness
• 5 Further reading

[edit] History


[edit] Educating witness


[edit] Role

The educating witness teaches fact-finder (jury or, in a bench trial, judge) about the underlying scientific theory and instrument implementing theory. This witness is an expert witness, called to elicit opinions that a theory is valid and the instruments involved are reliable. The witness must be accredited as an expert witness, which may require academic qualifications or specific training.

• Judicial Notice: may moot the need for this witness.
• Qualifications: Relative experience based on complexity and subtlety of the subject-matter. This witness is on high plane of abstraction about the validity and reliability.
• Validity of Theory: Most jurisdictions require the theory used by an expert witness to meet certain qualifications before being used in court. The two most common are the Daubert and Frye tests.

[edit] Frye test

The Frye test, coming from the case Frye v. United States (1923), said that admissible scientific evidence must be a result of a theory that had "general acceptance" in scientific community. This test results in uniform decisions regarding admissibility. In particular, the judges in Frye ruled that:
Just when a scientific principle or discovery crosses the line between experimental and demonstrable stages is difficult to define. Somewhere in this twilight zone the evidential force of the principle must be recognized, and while courts will go a long way in admitting expert testimony deduced from a well-recognized scientific principle or discovery, the thing from which the deduction is made must be sufficiently established to have gained general acceptance in the particular field in which it belongs. This test has been criticized as misunderstanding the scientific process and being based on the assumption that a jury is unable to evaluate scientific testimony. The goals of the test were to avoid evidence from overly questionable or controversial scientific theories to be used; it was used to exclude lie-detector results employed by the defense in the original case.

[edit] Daubert test

The Daubert test arose out of the United States Supreme Court case Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 509 U.S. 579 (1993). It requires four things to be shown:

• (1) Whether theory will help fact-finder (That is, whether the theory has or can be tested)
• (2) Whether theory has been peer reviewed (This is a component of good science and will improve likelihood the flaws will be found.)
• (3) Whether the theory has a significant rate of error
• (4) Whether the theory is "generally accepted" (not required but it helps to know scientific community approves.)

The Federal Rules of Evidence use the Daubert Test. See FRE 702.

[edit] Reporting witness

Reporting witness: Called after teaching witness leaves stand. Usually the laboratory technician who personally conducted the test. Witness will describe both the test and the results. When describing test, will venture opinions that proper test procedures were used and that equipment was in good working order.

• Whether witness is qualified to conduct test. Could qualify as expert by virtue of "skill" gained through "experience & training" (FRE 702)—usually experiential, on-the-job training.
• Whether witness received the correct object to be tested. (Chain of Custody satisfying FRE 104(b)).
• Whether instrument(s) involved were in proper working order.
• Proof test procedures were used. This split the courts, but under CL, most Jx require foundational proof that the witness used proper test procedures on the occasion in question.
• Statement of Test Result: witness says what the results were. Excellent place to put physical evidence. Remember, validating scientific evidence raises a logical relevance issue, as does the authentication (e.g. with enlarged photo).

[edit] Interpreting witness

Interpreting (Evaluating) Witness: Sometimes not needed 1) when test result is self-explanatory or pass-fail, or 2) when there is a statutory presumption obviating the need (e.g. drunk driving statutes and a test showing raised blood alcohol levels). Otherwise, this witness needed to complete the foundation. Syllogistic in nature: 1) states the interpretive standard (Rule or Major Premise), applies the standard to the test result (minor premise) and derives a conclusion.

• Qualifications: a hybrid with both academic and experiential qualifications.
• Will base finding on the Reporting witness. [Experts may base opinion on 1) what personally observed, 2) facts that are the type of data customarily considered by practitioners of the specially and 3) hypothetically assumed facts.] Ideal if present when Reporter conducted test, but may be permitted in some jurisdictions.
• Some jurisdictions won't accept opinion unless it is a "reasonable scientific opinion." Otherwise, need to consider if the witness can couch the opinion in terms of statistical probably.

For example, in the casebook case of People v. Collins, 438 P.2d 33 (Cal. 1968), an elderly lady was knocked down and robbed by a blond who escaped in yellow car with bearded black man. Defendants met that rough description but could not be conclusively identified. Prosecutor used a mathematics professor to discuss the probability that this couple could be the guilty party. Lower court overruled Defendants' objection. Court held that 1) there was no foundational establishment of the underlying probabilities and 2) the fact that the Defendants' fit a probability model was irrelevant because it doesn't prove they did it.

[edit] Further reading

• Sheila Jasanoff, Science at the Bar: Law, Science, and Technology in America (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1997).

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_evidence_%28law%29"
Categories: Evidence | Forensics



Views

• <LI class=selected id=ca-nstab-main>Article <LI id=ca-talk>Discussion <LI id=ca-edit>Edit this page
• History

Personal tools

• Sign in / create account

Navigation

• <LI id=n-Main-page>Main page <LI id=n-Contents>Contents <LI id=n-Featured-content>Featured content <LI id=n-currentevents>Current events
• Random article

interaction

• <LI id=n-About-Wikipedia>About Wikipedia <LI id=n-portal>Community portal <LI id=n-recentchanges>Recent changes <LI id=n-contact>Contact Wikipedia <LI id=n-sitesupport>Donate to Wikipedia
• Help

Search




Toolbox

• <LI id=t-whatlinkshere>What links here <LI id=t-recentchangeslinked>Related changes <LI id=t-upload>Upload file <LI id=t-specialpages>Special pages <LI id=t-print>Printable version <LI id=t-permalink>Permanent link
• Cite this article