🚀 go-pugleaf

In <DGMAuv.J3v@lcpd2.SanDiegoCA.ATTGIS.COM>, rodgers@triton.SanDiegoCA.ATTGIS.COM (Rodger Silvers) writes:
>In article <45ovn1$3o3@ixnews4.ix.netcom.com> djshane@ix.netcom.com (Dennis J. Shane ) writes:
>That's the problem lots of people seem to have in convicting someone of
>murder--they get hung up a obsure possibilities and conspriracy theories
>like in this case. The overwhelming evidence tied him directly to the 
>scene of the crime and the murder. What more do you want a video? The
>point here is REASONABLE doubt, and given that his blood match with
>a probability of 99.99999%, I cannot see any even with the alleged
>incompatencies, consipiracy theories, and every other excuse the
>defense could conjur up.  
>

Now personally I would give it an 85% chance he is the one, but it isn't 100 
and ties should go to the defendant.

Problem about that 99.99999% !!! 
Over 100 years ago the US was using a technique developed by the best 
forensic pathologists in the world, the French.  Very accurate - based on 
fact that bones stop growing as adults and that there are variences in bone
length and ratios in population. The id of a person was reduced to a number
of length ratios, just like the 7 matches needed to id for fingerprint
or the ~15 dna sequences tested.
All was fine until the warden at US prison at Levenworth Ks received a 
prisoner who matched someone in custody supposedly - obviously jailbreak.
Problem came when the new prisoner was placed with the man STILL in 
custody. Their ids matched perfectly but they were not related.

From that time we shifted to fingerprints, which work fine up to a population
around 100 million when there is a probability of multiple people with same
fingerprint. That is why a full palm print and 10 fingers needed.  Tough on the
individual convicted from a 7 point match on 1 finger.  Just like the fact
that dna tests have shown that 1/3 of the rapists in prison who are tested 
are innocent even though victims continue to claim he was the one.

Old western fans are advised to get a tape of the James Garner "Maverick"
episode involving the impossible odds 25 card  5 pat hand jury scene. What
you see is not necessarily what is true, and impossibly long odds have a 
tendency to be faked. (Maybe not intentionally but the experts throw out
large numbers to impress everyone with their importance -- how many
once in 100 years floods have you seen in the last decade?? and the 1 
chance in how many million of the Challenger accident even though USAF
was running routine 2% failures.)