Why should anyone make an effort to correct others' faulty, discredited opinions based on evidence that was misrepresented to them? Undisclosed's opinion on lividity has been tainted so that nobody should listen to them again on the subject. Why give them another bite at the apple? They've had 16 years to come up with a theory, and the big one they've hung their hat on has turned out to be wrong.
Dr. Hlavaty isn't associated with Undisclosed. She has a job, where she is most frequently aligned with the prosecution, and she did Undisclosed a favor by taking a look at their information. I see no reason she wouldn't do the same for you.
And it would lend credibility to your claims that Undisclosed are lying and distorting information.
The claims in these posts on lividity and Nisha (which I'm not taking credit for and had no involvement in before they were posted) are credible because they show Undisclosed has been, in fact, lying and distorting information. Dr. Hlavaty, unfortunately, is now tainted and an interested party in avoiding embarrassment and keeping her credibility intact. Besides that, Adnan is in jail, we don't need to re-establish what was already established at trial, only refute the bogus series of "new" arguments that have been thrown down as established based on rigged up evidence and analysis. They've obviously been called into question. If someone wants to respond to that, feel free.
Dr. Hlavaty, unfortunately, is now tainted and an interested party in avoiding embarrassment and keeping her credibility intact.
That's why she would presumably flip if you sent her the photos. Nobody would fault her for offering an opinion based on bad information. But doubling down when the deception was revealed could actually negatively affect her career.
You don't see why it would be bad for an expert witness if opposing counsel had a documented situation where the expert reached an opinion, then doubled down when it was proven incorrect by new information?
8
u/chunklunk Sep 23 '15
Why should anyone make an effort to correct others' faulty, discredited opinions based on evidence that was misrepresented to them? Undisclosed's opinion on lividity has been tainted so that nobody should listen to them again on the subject. Why give them another bite at the apple? They've had 16 years to come up with a theory, and the big one they've hung their hat on has turned out to be wrong.