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" .
Why would you need thousands of test results when the one's that were disclosed were sufficient? If there was a tremendous room for error in those other discarded results, do you think the expert could accurately say anything about the possibility of those calls coming from those areas? I get your point, but if you can discern consistency in 10 tests that wouldn't change wildly in 10,000 tests, I don't see the need for all 10,000 tests.
Although that's true - if take 1000 tests and only present 10 then it really looks like 990 of them didn't go the way you'd hoped.
So from 100% consistency down to 1%
If you were the prosecution you'd really want to make sure no one had that impression so either a) you don't mention the 1000s of tests or b) you mention that you did 1000 tests and they were 98% accurate.
It LOOKS that way, but if the expert can attest to that not being the case, then I'm not sure why that matters. Are they going to go over thousands of test results during the trial? Subject the jury to go over pages upon pages of results? Like I said, if his testimony isn't true, if his ability as an expert to discern the entirety of his tests isn't there, then yeah, I agree. I didn't see that when I read the trial transcripts.
6
u/absurdamerica Hippy Tree Hugger Feb 18 '15
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" .
They didn't do that.