New Trial needed for Darlie Mar 11, 2009 7:49:14 GMT -5
Post by iamjumbo on Mar 11, 2009 7:49:14 GMT -5
2 Q. Okay. What do you mean by small?
3 What would that be consistent with?
4 A. A juvenile, it could be. It fits the
5 criteria to be a younger person's prints.
6 Q. Okay. What are those criteria?
7 A. Small ridges.
8 Q. Let me just ask you: The two prints
9 here, 85-I and J, would they be consistent with having
10 been left by a five or six year old child?
11 A. It's possible, yes, sir.
My question-if the prints were unidentifiable the only question he could answer was that he deemed them to be SMALL. He had NO business saying they could be associated with the prints of a juvenile or the prints of a 5-6 year old child. Why? Because he has already admitted he did not know and this is his biased opinion (he is a police officer and does not testify for the defense). You see he said a lot of COULD BE's here- NOTHING definitive. Therefore after saying he could only say the prints were small as FACT (which I will and do accept), the rest of the testimony is biased and an attempt to sway the jurrors verdict but is NOT fact, but his opinion.
Now, I know Cron was only answering the questions of the prosecutor, but these were rehearsed questions with the intent to sway the jurrors, and Cron could have said at that time said to the prosecutor he could not be sure they are the prints of a juvenile and it was not a question he could answer with any level of certainty. He did not do this. It is one thing to do honest things, and another when you use words to mislead people. It is POSSIBLE (by his own testimony- saying that he wasn't sure) that Cron's statements here could have mislead the jurrors. The jurrors could have taken this statement as fact.
are you really this stupid? you've gotten the benefit of the doubt because you have proven time and again that you don't know what you're talking about, but this stupidity falls under the category of imbecillity.
REALITY fool!! he was testifying as an expert witness. expert witness testimony is OPINION, based on facts. there is absolutely not ONE word in this testimony that any RATIONAL person would claim to be misleading.
he flatly stated that the size of the fingerprint was CONSISTENT with that of a juvenile. show me where he EVER said that it WAS that of a juvenile. this testimony would not be misleading to any first grader. i'm sure that the jury DID take his statement as fact, which it was.
seriously lad, you need to get a grip. thus far, you have demonstrated, especially if you really do have the degree you claim to have, that all of the education in the world will not prevent stupidity when you are obsessed with being stupid.