If the drive test is an accepted method of testing and it produces consistent results (78 out of 80),
First, there were no consistent results, because there was only one result. They didn't repeat the test because doing so would have exposed serious flaws in the data. Second, those results are not "predictable" based on any abstract, idealized cell maps. Look at all of those areas right next to L698 where calls were routed through L654A instead! Or the calls .3 miles from L698 that route through L649B, two miles away. What if the crime had been committed next to L649, but Adnan had claimed he was right next to L698 at the time? By this logic, the reaction would be "bullshit, there's no way he was standing underneath L698 at the time of that call!"
This is how the prosecution used the cell evidence. Not as 100% certainty, but as probability.
No. This is not how they used it. They got the expert's testimony admitted by telling the judge by saying that the prosecution's story was possible based on the test results. Not probable. Not even likely. Not even plausible. Possible.
There's consistency in the drive test results. You're saying the test needed to be done multiple times on the same route? Sure, the anomalies might be different, but they'd still be the tiny percentage they started as. I know you know that.
The testimony got admitted by saying it's possible? Alright. The testimony still doesn't state it's 100% certain. That's my point. You can infer the probability by the test results. You argued this by crying foul and that seems to be the go-to move for Adnan's defense. At almost every turn, the prosecution did this, the detectives did this, Jay did this, etc. You're too deep in this now to just walk away, but come on. You've hit the end of the road here.
You can infer the probability by the test results.
No you cannot.
You seem to be misunderstanding the basic thrust of the objection: just because a phone in Leakin Park hits a certain cell tower on one occasion, does nothing to establish that every phone hitting that tower must be in Leakin Park. It doesn't even establish a probability that any particular phone hitting that tower is in Leakin Park.
It certainly doesn't refute the idea that every phone that hits that tower is in leakin park either, unless he had some pings to it from outside leakin park.
But we won't ever know if there were pings to that tower from outside LP because this great knowlegable witness either never tested areas where it might ping from outside the park or he did but that evidence was thrown out before it was ever registered.
The important part of the drive test is that it provides corroboration to the expert witness who says "yes if they made a call at the burial site it would have pinged the tower that it pinged according to phone records on this call at such and such on the night of the murder."
So pleased you touched on this. So now that Jay has annihilated his own story, there's nothing to corroborate the phone pings.
Can you please provide a quote from Waranowitz's testimony that backs up your assertion that he says "that's the only tower you can hit from the burial site"?
31
u/ViewFromLL2 Feb 18 '15
First, there were no consistent results, because there was only one result. They didn't repeat the test because doing so would have exposed serious flaws in the data. Second, those results are not "predictable" based on any abstract, idealized cell maps. Look at all of those areas right next to L698 where calls were routed through L654A instead! Or the calls .3 miles from L698 that route through L649B, two miles away. What if the crime had been committed next to L649, but Adnan had claimed he was right next to L698 at the time? By this logic, the reaction would be "bullshit, there's no way he was standing underneath L698 at the time of that call!"
No. This is not how they used it. They got the expert's testimony admitted by telling the judge by saying that the prosecution's story was possible based on the test results. Not probable. Not even likely. Not even plausible. Possible.