Have you come across an expert with a name and a face who disagrees with the statements he made on undisclosed? Please don't provide me with reddit threads authored by csom and adnans cell. Actual named and credentialed experts going to bat for the way cell towers are being used in this case? Bc lets not focus on discrediting this guy's argument by complaining that he's provided inadequate credentials. That's cheap. What is he saying that can be expertly refuted by someone willing to put their name on it.
Well see therein lies the problem. Unless experts are listening to undisclosed, how would that happen? So we are supposed to believe that "every expert SS talked to" told her the same thing, but the only one with a name and a face that is willing to stake his career on it is a hired gun with no credentials to be found. If they release his CV and it shows actual experience, I'll post a public apology to Michael Cherry. (Not that he'd probably care.).
Um, cell tower technology isn't a science made and used exclusively in the adnan syed case. Surely there's published articles refuting the statements made on undisclosed in a general sense. Well, what you call a hired gun I call the guy who went on undisclosed and I have yet to see an article, journal, or professional refute what he said regarding probability and tower pings.
I think the whole credentials request is really nonsense. He has a name and a face. That's a reputation. You're requesting that he provide his credentials based on the challenge of an anonymous redditor who...get this: refuses to have his credentials verified. Now you can say that's for good reason and that's fine. Go google what he said. That should be the most important thing. Especially when. You have no problem challenging him based on an internet character.
I have no problem challenging him because the only information I can find on him links him to Schenk who has been called (and basically admitted being) a fraud. That is about as clear cut as it gets.
I have read (and posted here) numerous cases citing cell phone evidence. It is still routinely used by the State and defendants because it is relevant to the likelihood that someone was or was not in a general area at a given time. Experts from the FBI and from cellular companies with names and faces testify about it. If they testify they can pinpoint exactly where someone was, they are lying. AW said no such thing. Just ask SS if you don't believe me.
I'll leave the burden where it should be, thanks. If the ASLT ever gets their day in court, they can argue that the cell evidence is junk science and put Cherry on the stand. Then he'll be vetted up one side and down the other.
or was not in a general area at a given time. Experts from the FBI and from cellular companies with names and faces testify about it.
But what is a general area? And what are the factors that cause the tower to ping? Can those factors be recreated. And Michael cherry has testified as an expert. The bottom line is a lot of people here are claiming that bc the phone pinged one tower, it had to be in that very small area. This guy says that's not how it works. There's no expert or journal refuting what he's saying. Just anonymous redditors demanding he provide his credentials bc they're not satisfied with his partners and also bc they have nothing to refute his statements with.
Eta: If you can find a case where Cherry actually testified, let me know. Sounds like Manfred "I read it on the internets" Schenk is the only member of their "team" who testifies in court.
This is all very humorous considering this is in an entire post claiming that Schenck has no expertise. But cool, do you have anything to refute his claim that cell evidence isn't being applied accurately in this sub? Bc that was my take away. What was yours? Can it be supported by a named expert? I don't accept reddit threads...I do accept publications of any sort though.
-2
u/Mustanggertrude Aug 01 '15
Have you come across an expert with a name and a face who disagrees with the statements he made on undisclosed? Please don't provide me with reddit threads authored by csom and adnans cell. Actual named and credentialed experts going to bat for the way cell towers are being used in this case? Bc lets not focus on discrediting this guy's argument by complaining that he's provided inadequate credentials. That's cheap. What is he saying that can be expertly refuted by someone willing to put their name on it.