West of Memphis

[kyleb]

Yeah, there's really no point in posting a video of people talking about things which they present no evidence to substantiate.

 

[reedus23]

Yeah, there's really no point in posting a video of people talking about things which they present no evidence to substantiate.

Ok, I am truly confused. Are you saying there were no expert opinions proffered which suggested the injuries are compatible with postmortem animal predation?

 

[Miranda!]

Yeah, there's really no point in posting a video of people talking about things which they present no evidence to substantiate.

Ah! So you have watched that video?

Defence team and experts discuss things and it has no point or merit in your eyes without evidence to substantiate it? But people, most not even using real names, stating their opinions in a categorical manner, as is happening here on an internet forum, has merit?

I expect you also alighted on the rebuttal by Piretti on the snapping turtle theory in the Rule 37 appeals - where he suddenly became, in Judge Burnett's eyes, an expert on snapping turtles and their eating habits. I am surprised that you have not proffered that as evidence to make your point.

 

[missy_g]

Yeah, there's really no point in posting a video of people talking about things which they present no evidence to substantiate.

No, I'm not going to post it because no matter what it is, you'll say there is no evidence (which you actually did state without knowing which video I was going to post) and that they are lying, making up stuff...etc.

Quite honestly I think someone could have taken a picture of ANYONE but the WM3 committing the murders and you would say that the WM3 were still guilty just to play devil's advocate.

So really what gives?

Like I have stated before, I like to hear ALL opinions. It's just sad that you'll only hear your own and no one elses.

 

[kyleb]

Are you saying there were no expert opinions proffered which suggested the injuries are compatible with postmortem animal predation?

Of course there are expert opinions of animal predation proffered, just like there were expert opinions suggesting some of the wounds were human bight marks previously, but in both cases there's a dearth of actual evidence to substantiate those opinions.

No, I'm not going to post it because no matter what it is, you'll say there is no evidence

Nonsense. If you've found a video where actual evidence is presented to substantiate the animal predation claims, then for the love of God, please post it. However, having researched the topic considerably, I suspect I've already seen the video you allude too, and even quoted from it on this forum on multiple previous occasions.

I like to hear ALL opinions. It's just sad that you'll only hear your own and no one elses.

I hear a lot of people's opinions aside from own, but I'm far more interested in the facts on which conclusions are based than the conclusions themselves, and I'm saddened by how many people take issue with me for that.

 

[reedus23]

Of course there are expert opinions of animal predation proffered, just like there were expert opinions suggesting some of the wounds were human bight marks previously, but in both cases there's a dearth of actual evidence to substantiate those opinions.

Thanks for clarifying. I was just getting confused when you said there was no evidence. So there is evidence in the form of expert opinions, you simply don't believe, at this point, that those opinions are supported by the facts as you see them.

 

[kyleb]

I'm saying that people in fancy robes claiming the emperor's new clothes look splendid on him doesn't constitute evidence that the emperor has anything on at all. People with notable qualifications are often good at presenting relevant evidence in their specialized field which might otherwise go overlooked, but that doesn't rightly make any conclusion evidence in itself regardless of credentials of the person offering their opinion.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

I'm saying that people in fancy robes claiming the emperor's new clothes look splendid on him doesn't constitute evidence that the emperor has anything on at all. People with notable qualifications are often good at presenting relevant evidence in their specialized field which might otherwise go overlooked, but that doesn't rightly make any conclusion evidence in itself regardless of credentials of the person offering their opinion.

Im sorry again, But this just does not make any sense. Not to me anyway.

There is evidence that someone else was there. There is an immense lack of evidence that puts them at the scene or with the boys.

 

[Miranda!]

I am glad I was not alone being unable to unscramble that post!

One minor little detail that you, kyleb, maybe missed, it was only in the public domain for a short period. Extensive work has been done by an odontologist matching the alleged bite mark (upper teeth) with the upper partials of one of the suspects. It was painstaking work as only photographs were made available but they included the usual ruler in the shots for the scales to be matched. Interestingly, the ME on the case did consider the 'wound' as possible bite mark, but disgarded it.

 

[kyleb]

Im sorry again, But this just does not make any sense. Not to me anyway.

Well to put it simply, I was noting the importance of distinguishing between evidence and opinion when looking for the truth, much like you recommend in your signature.

There is evidence that someone else was there. There is an immense lack of evidence that puts them at the scene or with the boys.

Rather, there's a vast difference between what you consider evidence and the standards of evidence by which our justice system operates.

One minor little detail that you, kyleb, maybe missed it was only in the public domain for a short period.

I suspect you're alluding to Paid's thread over at the Blackboard which was discussed on this forum after CR alluded to it and Gescho later linked to it in [ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?p=9862584#post9862584"]this post[/ame]. However, last I saw of it Paid only had one photograph of the dentures which didn't include any ruler in it aside from when he pasted a copy of one from the autopsy photo onto it, and he claimed he determined the scale from a Marlboro box which was a part of the picture but which he never provided an uncropped image of for his work to be checked. But regardless of scale there's the issue the angles of indecent Paid suggests being wildly inconsistent with what can be accomplished within the confines of a human mouth, as I demonstrated later in that thread.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

This case is replete with "experts" who express their "opinions" on many aspects of the case. The problem becomes one of credibility. IOW, which "expert" should one believe? First, we have the ME (really the assistant ME) expressing his opinion. This particular "expert" has failed at least twice to pass the certification test for his area of expertise. However, several other "experts" (who have passed the exam) express a different opinion. The trial judge has accepted all these opinions as "expert opinions." So, which one in the truth? It seems to me that the opinions of those who have "passed the test" should carry more weight than the opinion of the one who didn't. Maybe it's because I'm a retired teacher, but I happen to believe that passing a test demonstrates a little more "expertise" than failing to pass a test.

The aforementioned trial judge has also contributed, IMO, to the confusion in this case. First, he accepted as an "expert" a man with a PhD who admitted to having never taken a class in the area of his expertise! I'm sorry, but I believe someone with a PhD should have at least a few college classes in the area for which he is receiving this PhD!

Then, there's the problem of this trial judge getting his ego bruised when another "expert" wants to question the judge's decision in a matter pertaining to the "expert's" area of expertise! The judge believes that he has a more credible opinion than the "expert!" So, the judge only allows the "expert" to testify about certain aspects of the case, but not fully about the area of his expertise. How can we ever hope to find the truth?

 

[gheckso]

But regardless of scale there's the issue the angles of indecent Paid suggests being wildly inconsistent with what can be accomplished within the confines of a human mouth, as I demonstrated later in that thread.

The angles were discussed in depth and further demonstrations showed that one didn't have to remove and reattach the jaw in another location as your demonstration suggested. Thanks for reminding me of it, it was humorous.

 

[kyleb]

The problem becomes one of credibility.

The credibility of conclusions is only rightly assessed with respect to to the evidence on which they're based, not the credentials of those making them. The problem with doing the latter is that one can easly wind up mislead, as many were back when most astronomers agreed the Earth was at the center of our planetary system for example.

The angles were discussed in depth and further demonstrations showed that one didn't have to remove and reattach the jaw in another location as your demonstration suggested.

Where exactly can one find this demonstration which you allude to?

 

[Compassionate Reader]

The credibility of conclusions is only rightly assessed with respect to to the evidence on which they're based, not the credentials of those making them. The problem with doing the latter is that one can easly wind up mislead, as many were back when most astronomers agreed the Earth was at the center of our planetary system for example.

Experts are employed by attorneys to help the jury understand the evidence. Each side employs experts so that the jury will understand the evidence the way they want them to understand it. Therefore, the credibility of the expert is of primary importance, IMO. Some evidence simply cannot be adequately interpreted by a layman. So, experts are produced. As to ancient astronomers being mistaken about the Earth's location wrt our solar system, IMO, that's akin to someone who refuses to look at additional evidence in a crime, thinking that only those things produced in court are truthful "artifacts" so to speak.

 

[kyleb]

People believing the Earth was at the center of our planetary system isn't really an accent matter, it was a popular consensus just a few hundred years ago. It wasn't really new evidence which disproved it either, as the phases of Venus are viable enough with the naked eye for those who cared to look, what Galileo's telescope revealed and other advancements just eventually drove the point home. And the problem was that people took the opinions of those they considered credible on faith rather than assessing those conclusions with respect to to the evidence on which they were based, as has been the problem in this case with both the claims of human bite marks and animal predation.

 

[reedus23]

I am glad I was not alone being unable to unscramble that post!

One minor little detail that you, kyleb, maybe missed, it was only in the public domain for a short period. Extensive work has been done by an odontologist matching the alleged bite mark (upper teeth) with the upper partials of one of the suspects. It was painstaking work as only photographs were made available but they included the usual ruler in the shots for the scales to be matched. Interestingly, the ME on the case did consider the 'wound' as possible bite mark, but disgarded it.

It was his way of simply saying he doesn't care how well respected certain experts are, how much experience they have, how much more information they have had to review than the average citizen, he's not going to buy into their opinions.

 

[reedus23]

The credibility of conclusions is only rightly assessed with respect to to the evidence on which they're based, not the credentials of those making them. The problem with doing the latter is that one can easly wind up mislead, as many were back when most astronomers agreed the Earth was at the center of our planetary system for example.


Where exactly can one find this demonstration which you allude to?

Respectfully disagree that credentials don't play a role though I do agree that they are not the end all, be all in determining how much weight to give an expert's opinion. Knowing the facts doesn't do much good if you're also incompetent. (and I'm speaking about experts, not you kyle).

 

[reedus23]

Where exactly can one find this demonstration which you allude to?

I think it's probably just best to let anything having to do with those tests/demonstrations to play itself out on it's own.

 

[reedus23]

People believing the Earth was at the center of our planetary system isn't really an accent matter, it was a popular consensus just a few hundred years ago(popular consensus like the WM3 committed the crimes decades ago). It wasn't really new evidence which disproved it either(just as it's not "new" evidence that will solve this crime, just old evidence that people have to be willing to look at), as the phases of Venus are viable enough with the naked eye for those who cared to look, what Galileo's telescope revealed and other advancements just eventually drove the point home(such as DNA testing). And the problem was that people took the opinions of those they considered credible(such as burnett, fogleman and the WMPD) on faith rather than assessing those conclusions with respect to to the evidence on which they were based(such as pushing satanic panic instead of looking at the actual evidence which underlie those claims), as has been the problem in this case with both the claims of human bite marks and animal predation.

Red added by me

 

[kyleb]

It was his way of simply saying he doesn't care how well respected certain experts are, how much experience they have, how much more information they have had to review than the average citizen, he's not going to buy into their opinions.

I'm always happy to adopt the conclusions of those who substantiate them. I'm just not one espouse opinions on faith, regardless of the standing of those pronouncing them. Besides, there's plenty of others here who selectively disregard the expert proclamations of animal predation being responsible for all the wounds, those who embrace claims of Hobbs beating the boys to death and his dentures being consistent with wounds on Stevie Branch's forehead for example.

I think it's probably just best to let anything having to do with those tests/demonstrations to play itself out on it's own.

Gheckso claimed [ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?p=9866187#post9866187"]the issue I demonstrated[/ame] regarding the notion that the wounds are constant with a human bite mark has already been demonstrated incorrect, so what are you suggesting should "play itself out" other than such a demonstration being presented here to prove as much?