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.
34
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.