Posted on 07/22/2002 3:02:31 PM PDT by FresnoDA
Try this one. At the end of a lease, you must do something, or be without wheels. Just turn it in, and go without. Turn it in, and start a new lease. One option is to extend the lease.
The point I make is anybody bringing up the vehicle thing, doesn't know which of these options might be involved. Therefore, it is just more idle speculation, but deals with partial information, at best.
First, I concede you are smarter about math and statistics and probability, than I am. Second, let me agree that the complexity is why it isn't in courtrooms.
My point is this: People do it, very generally, when they arrive at their own conclusions.
For some folks, it is very much like a probability calculation, eg. based on an assesment of facts, chances, etc.
For others, they skip most of the facts and probabilities, and go with emotion, intuition. Each type of juror gets a vote, so the prosecution and defense are wise to play the case to each type of juror.
Semi-arid (least dry), arid (dry), and hyper-arid (driest)
I believe the Dehesa area would be considered desert.
You missed the answer. I gave it. Maybe you haven't caught up. This thread was running so fast I am surprised anyone can keep up.
I can understand your point of view based on them.
If you look at that evidence, and that alone, you can come to that conclusion.
There also has not been any proof we know of that kids other than Danielle L and some other girlfriend were ever in the MH.
I know I and others seem just as hard-headed to you as you seem to me(us).
You are right, we are right. Nobody wins.
The reason it is hard to accept your conclusion is that we are including all the other info and evidence. I believe you are excluding all other info. Is this right, or am I off base?
Were there just ONE major factor different in this case, all of the posters on this thread might possibly agree with you.
I am excluding all of the other speculation and requests to prove negatives. If there is other positive evidence I would like to hear it.
The opinion of the forensic entomologists that the body was placed there approx. Feb. 12th -16th.
Two experts testified to this.
The first one was chosen/trusted and paid by the prosecution and still stated this. Yet you choose to ignore this testimony, because it doesn't fit with what you believe. CORRECT?
You want to wait for a THIRD expert, because you believe he (without having examined anything yet) will give the ANSWER YOU WANT TO HEAR.
Your statements have made it very obvious this is what you are waiting for.
BTW. You stated that Accounting and Statistics and Probability were exact sciences and BUG EXPERTS were JUNK SCIENCE.
Yet you are willing to trust the one bug expert. Isn't that a contradiction?
The bug experts are using Probability and Statistics to determine their conclusions. So, Probability and Statistics are junk science, RIGHT?
ALSO, I can prove to you that Probability and Statistics do not prove anything valid about your conclusions about the hair, the prints, the DNA in the MH.
Two separate issues. I am merely attempting to deduce what the prosecutor is up to with a third bug guy. Without getting redundant you can read my several post to follow what I believe will happen.
As to what I want to hear ? Ok, I want to hear a scientifcally sound reason why the original bug guys are wrong and the new bug guy is right. If Goff just attempts to pick apart the other guys work with losts of maybes and could be's I would think the whole excersise is a waste of time.
I must say though that most people who have challenged what my expectations are about what is likely to happen in court seem to me that they would not be able to accept any information that contradicts the original bug guys even if its sound and logical.
You misread what I wrote.
Maybe for some who argued with you it is true.
You also seem to not want to accept other's conclusions that if 2 experts say POSITIVE, and 1 says NEGATIVE, that the positives win. I.E. Majority Rules. You seem to be trying to get others to accept that the exception to an agreement wins. Maybe that is why they don't want to accept it.
I still would like to remark on your willingness to at least defend your remarks using logic and being honest about what are opinion. It is very hard to keep from being upset when it seems like one against many.
I read your posts, all of them. I read EVERYONES POSTS EVERY DAY on these threads. I understand what you think will or may happen if GOFF testifies. AS JJ said, we will have to see.
Also, though many have tried, I don't think we can predict what the jury will DO, any more than you can predict that the HAIR,PRINT,DNA spots in the MH are POSITIVE proof of anything except that Danielle was in the MH at SOMETIME.
Ok, I want to hear a scientifcally sound reason why the original bug guys are wrong and the new bug guy is right.
If GOFF testifies, I think everyone on this thread EXPECTS THE SAME INFO.
You misread what I wrote.
I probably did, so let's forget about that comment. It is not important to the case. Please accept my apology.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.