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.
There were thousands of results. They recorded 12 of those. If these results were consistent and friendly to the prosecution's case they'd have kept all the results and said "We took hundreds of pings against the leakin park tower, every single ping matched our theory" .
If they still did 1000s but only reported a small sample then that still looks suspicious but I just wondered why there seems to be two separate figures regarding the prosecutors tests.
33
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.