By some psychologist who hires herself out as a defense 'expert witness' to try to undermine prosecution witnesses in exchange for lots of money. (Chauvin didn't hire her so she can't be much good.)
You've argued here from a position of righteous indignation over the notion that those who were first charged with investigating the loss of
MS Estonia simply tried to shoehorn the facts into their desired narrative. You flat-out assured us you were simply trying to be objective. And now you're all-over desperate to dismiss an entire field of psychology because it doesn't fit
your desired narrative.
You're the one who insisted that we must defer to the claims of eyewitnesses according to the popular (but incorrect) belief that people remember traumatic events more accurately than ordinary events. You declined to supply any evidence that this was actually the case -- merely a weak and eventually discarded claim that you once wrote a paper on the subject. I supported my objection with references to the relevant sciences that specifically tested the principle upon which you planned to base your argument. Despite your proffered and then hastily withdrawn claim to expertise, you don't seem to know who the major scholars are in the field of memory and eyewitness testimony. Nor -- once you discovered what their findings were -- do you seem to have any patience for them.
You're the one who claimed that the legal system defers to eyewitness testimony, and therefore it must consider such testimony reliable. I raised the point of the real reasons the legal system does this. In fact, the rhetorical role (although obviously not the nominal role) of an eyewitness in law is to be malleable in the hands of one party or the other. In any case, you opined that if these experts were so sure of themselves, they should test their claims in the crucible of a courtroom. And then when you find out that they have done so successfully, all you have is contempt for them. You're simply unwilling to incorporate fact that disputes your belief.
No, you're not objective. You're not even reasonably adversarial. You're trying to push a certain narrative based on the uncritical acceptance of eyewitness testimony. I dispute your belief, and I've given you the reasons why I disputed it. if you're unwilling to address those reasons with anything except mockery and recrimination, then you have effectively conceded the point.
Can we get back to the topic of M/S Estonia and why the survivors are complaining their experience of the tragedy doesn't match the imaginary timeline of the JAIC report?
As much as you want to brush important facts under the carpet, they remain relevant. Originally I asked whether you had experience in forensic engineering, and you assured me that your experience in forensic accounting was suitable. Now we see that it is not. In a forensic
engineering investigation, the eyewitness claims and the body of objective forensic evidence rarely resolve. In fact, the two bodies of evidence rarely resolve individually. Eking out a plausible time line and, ultimately, an evident theory of causation, always involves the art of weighing the likely accuracy and relevance of evidence. The evidence generally supports multiple time lines and multiple explanations, depending upon the weight placed on evidence.
No doubt the survivors are highly emotionally invested in the event, and this translates to emotional investment in having their experience validated as they recall it. And the decision not to raise the wreck or recover the remains of deceased victims does not convey much compassion in their direction. However, a valid and valuable investigation must remain painfully dispassionate to the human emotion of loss, injury, and outrage. This is not to say any one investigation gets it right just by being dispassionate. But in weighing the details of eyewitness testimony, the vividness of apparent recall and the fervor of survivorship cannot predominate. The accuracy of such testimony is not as popularly believed or claimed, and that
must affect the weighing whether it fits your desired narrative or not.
