tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6316617410436977874.post7868509571306327268..comments2024-03-25T02:53:26.373-04:00Comments on Women in Crime Ink: Junk Science DefinedUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6316617410436977874.post-73312197220733458472011-09-07T02:11:36.580-04:002011-09-07T02:11:36.580-04:00Thank you both for your cogent comments. I think i...Thank you both for your cogent comments. I think it is important that intelligent people accept their "jury duty" to oversee the process and add input where wrong-headed thinking prevails.Andrea Campbellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14645234553457326971noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6316617410436977874.post-15456529319249503352011-09-06T15:08:42.923-04:002011-09-06T15:08:42.923-04:00"In general, Baron suggests: we should be car...<i>"In general, Baron suggests: we should be careful to only accept evidence after it has been subjected to the scientific method;"</i><br /><br />Good luck on that one. The entire Scott Peterson trial was based on wild speculation by people testifying well outside their expertise. I counted over 164 completely unwarranted <a href="https://sites.google.com/site/another9912/theassumptions" rel="nofollow">assumptions</a> before I got tired of counting them. The real question is why didn't his defense challenge this nonsense vigorously? Why did they let <a href="http://thevoiceofsanity.blogspot.com/2011/07/three-separate-witnesses-to-innocence.html" rel="nofollow">valid evidence of his innocence</a> pass them by without comment? Defense attorneys either have to learn enough science (or find people who do) to stop this flood of nonsense coming into court.A Voice of Sanityhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11285284153694191831noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6316617410436977874.post-47352753162650483832011-09-06T10:17:13.463-04:002011-09-06T10:17:13.463-04:00This problem is pervasive all over in today's ...This problem is pervasive all over in today's society, I think. The respect for and knowledge about science in the broad population is rapidly declining thus opening the way for pseudo- and junk-science. And jury's are selected from the broad population...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com