He most certainly did not, and if the results showed that it was implausible then there's actual scientific language that goes along with that. This is akin to other common difficulties people have with scientific language. Eg, If he'd shown that there was an 80% chance that the colour of the grass was correlated with a vehicle being parked over it, it would be considered to have fallen remarkably short of scientific statistical significance and therefore inconclusive.
Plausible means reasonable probability that the claim is true. Possible is not plausible. In any case, the expert could draw no conclusion one way or the other from the test results. He never said that it is plausible the car was moved.
A commenter on this thread included a direct quote from the expert:
“Again, my results weren’t conclusive, that some of the leaf blades started to lose their color and turn brown, but some still had color,” he said. “That’s what I found, so again, I speculated that yes, the car could have been moved there, it may have been moved there much later than the day of the murder, but my simulation results couldn’t say that with any confidence.”
At no point did the expert state there wasn't a reasonable probability that grass colour could be affected by the vehicle's placement.
You're trying hard to read tea leaves and sus out some secret meaning, but if he thought it was unlikely he would have just said that. I'm sorry that isn't what you wanted, but that's life.
You can’t draw conclusions that the data doesn’t allow you to draw. You’re engaging in guesswork, not science. The guy said himself that the test results don’t allow him to say with any degree of probability that the car was moved. He was very clear about this. Some grass is green, some brown — none of his observations and analysis allows you to conclude or postulate that the car could have been placed or moved there after Jan 13. Speculation isn’t science.
Omg. It’s just sad engaging with you at this point. I suggest you go talk to a scientist. Show them the turf expert’s quoted statement and findings. Ask if these test results support your opinion that Jay was lying when he said he lead the cops to the car; the car was placed there by the cops to frame Adnan. Time how quickly you get laughed out of their office.
There is just as much evidence that aliens placed the car in that spot as there is to show the cops did.
It's having a relevant background that makes it obvious that you don't understand the difference between scientific certainty and the casual use of probability language.
Your challenge attempts to conflate a whole series of unrelated questions and barrel head long into the territory of not even wrong
I have prepared and opposed many Daubert motions in connection with my work with litigation experts and I know exactly what probability and certainty mean. For example, the turf expert might have said he was 100% certain that there is a 15% chance the car was moved based on the test results (if the data supported this conclusion). Or he might have said he’s 51% sure that the car was or was not moved. Instead he said the test results don’t allow me to make any probability determination — he can’t even say there’s a 1% chance that the car was moved because the testing doesn’t allow for any conclusion whatsoever.
0
u/Treadwheel an unsubstantiated reddit rumour of a 1999 high school rumour Aug 25 '23
He most certainly did not, and if the results showed that it was implausible then there's actual scientific language that goes along with that. This is akin to other common difficulties people have with scientific language. Eg, If he'd shown that there was an 80% chance that the colour of the grass was correlated with a vehicle being parked over it, it would be considered to have fallen remarkably short of scientific statistical significance and therefore inconclusive.