« on: August 14, 2008, 08:26:47 PM »
ten times, and in controlled circumstances, a single drop of the defendants blood was allowed to fall onto the fabric. And in all ten cases the stained area was much less than the expected 9.5cm. In fact the stained area was always between 4.5 adn 4.8 cm. I conclude that a single drop of the defendants blood stains much less than 9.5cm of the fabric.
Which one of the following, if true, most undermines the value of the evidence for the expert witness's conclusion?
C: In an eleventh test drop of the defendants blood, the area stained was also less than 9.5cm-this time staining 9.3cm
B: Expert witnesses have sometimes been known to fudge their data to accord with the prosecution's case.
Since B is wrong I believe that it is do to its use of "sometimes", which would not necesarily indicate this witness. However, C doesn't really appear to undermine the conclusion either. All it states is that the blood stained more, which is great, but still doesn't change the fact that the conclusion is about staining much less than 9.5. Although 9.3 is certianly more than 4.8cm it could still be considered "much less" with the definition of "much less" being undefined.
My apologies if my logic isn't clear, anyways, anyone got any ideas?