Footprint identification test

[Emet]

It is refreshing to see that the unbiased opinion is predominantly that there isn't enough information to form an opinion.

I see that a helpful tagger has marked this thread with the tag "Amanda Knox". Yes, this is evidence in that multivolume epic doing cartwheels over a love/murder quadrangle which you can read more about here and here (assuming you are into that kind of mental abuse). I'll need to remove that tag until the poll closes so it doesn't bias the result.

Don't some people read threads before voting?

 

[Giraffe107]

It "looks like" the print on the right. It wouldn't make sense to be that it was the victim's foot, were they standing in a bucket as they bled to death? Although I can't see the rest of the mat either, which would give a clearer "blood trail". I agree with Weak Kitten though, we can only be sure that someone stepped in blood at some point.

 

[lionking]

If only court decisions were based on internet polls.......

 

[stilicho]

If only court decisions were based on internet polls.......

That's the option I was looking for.

 

[amb]

It's quite obvious. The thread starter is guilty as sin!!!

 

[pilot padron]

I can't find how to edit polls, but I'll report the OP and ask if any of the other mods know how.

I guess I just don't see the point of a poll. You will get a consensus on which suspect's footprint looks superficially most similar from a layperson's perspective, but I'm sure experts rely on other things that we, as non-experts haven't a clue about. So I don't know why you would be interested in the outcome of the poll. Science isn't a popularity contest.

Since several posters here have noted the obvious questionable value of and motivation for this poll and this thread, may I agree with the excellent 'skeptic' (Professor Y) above, and add some background to help in understanding:

Agree this poll is kinda like those "polls" USA politicians often send out by the millions asking recipient 'answers' to current political 'hot button' items.
The politicians use the poll *ruse* primarily to solicit votes and/or donations, and the 'poll' itself has absolutely no utilitarian value and is a total waste of time completing.

Background is important to understand motivations for this thread.
This poll was started by one of the 'prime movers' from another JREF thread "Discussion of the Amanda Knox case", that has simply self destructed recently because of continued circular content and/or complete lack of any recognizable 'skepticism'.

May I submit that this thread was started out of little more than boredom resulting from previous primary venue's self destruction, and should be completed and viewed also only to alleviate similar boredom.

 

[Dan O.]

Thank you Pilot for bumping this thread and keeping the poll visible to the internationally diverse population that posts here at JREF. I would have asked for such help but of course, you can understand why I wouldn't want to bring the participants of that thread here.

 

[Cuddles]

It is refreshing to see that the unbiased opinion is predominantly that there isn't enough information to form an opinion.

Not really. It would be far better if the most common answer was that we simply don't have the relevant expertise or training to know if there is enough detail or not. For all I, and presumably most people here, know there's actually plenty of detail, we just don't know how to use it. I voted for Planet X, since there didn't seem to be an appropriate choice.

 

[Dan O.]

I suppose you are right cuddles. While we may be familiar with the prints made by paws (or sticks), only the experts that have access to feet would be able to say what kind of marks they would leave. We should be proud that we even recognize these as footprints (which the one in the center may not even be).


On a more serious note, when such evidence goes to court, the expert for the prosecution will make one claim and a similarly qualified expert for the defense will make a counter claim. The judge or jury sitting in the middle with the preset biases generated by both experts and as much expertise as any of us will look at that print and make the ultimate conclusion.

 

[pilot padron]

I suppose you are right cuddles. While we may be familiar with the prints made by paws (or sticks), only the experts that have access to feet would be able to say what kind of marks they would leave. We should be proud that we even recognize these as footprints (which the one in the center may not even be).


On a more serious note, when such evidence goes to court, the expert for the prosecution will make one claim and a similarly qualified expert for the defense will make a counter claim. The judge or jury sitting in the middle with the preset biases generated by both experts and as much expertise as any of us will look at that print and make the ultimate conclusion.

Errrrr....

Yes, qualified experts are generally accorded more credibility than amateur Google enhanced internet pollsters.

As regarding the "preset biases" portion of your argument, I yield to your much greater familiarity with that topic than mine.

 

[Sideroxylon]

Not really. It would be far better if the most common answer was that we simply don't have the relevant expertise or training to know if there is enough detail or not. For all I, and presumably most people here, know there's actually plenty of detail, we just don't know how to use it. I voted for Planet X, since there didn't seem to be an appropriate choice.

I agree, my answer needs to be qualified. While there may be insufficient detail for myself to determine the answer I do not wish to exclude the possibility that there may be enough for an expert.

 

[drkitten]

On a more serious note, when such evidence goes to court, the expert for the prosecution will make one claim and a similarly qualified expert for the defense will make a counter claim.

Well, yes. That's phase 1.

Phase 2, of course, is when the qualified experts explain why they came to the judgment they did, and why they considered the features they did (and dismissed the ones they didn't). The days are long past when an "expert" could just deliver a pronouncement from the witness stand as from the Papal chair, if indeed those days ever existed.

For instance, the tips of the toes are "obviously" different between the left foot and the center one. In my earlier post, I chose to disregard this difference, because I "know" that the pad of a big toe is very flexible and will distort (and spread) as the weight distribution of the foot changes. Someone who didn't think about this particular factor might have given too much weight to the shape of the toe pad. They now have a chance to correct this particular mistake.

And, of course, phase 3 is when the experts get cross-examined to justify their decision ("Doctor, you said that you disregarded the shape of the big toe on the grounds that it distorts easily. Are you aware that calluses do not distort nearly as easily? Did you look for the marks of callusing in the footprints?")

The judge or jury sitting in the middle with the preset biases generated by both experts and as much expertise as any of us

No, the judge/jury will have more -- much more -- expertise than any of us, because they'll have the benefit of the expert explanation about what to look for.

It's the difference between looking at a building and reading an architectural guidebook about that same building. While what you see is exactly the same, what you understand and notice are quite different.

 

[tsig]

I suppose you are right cuddles. While we may be familiar with the prints made by paws (or sticks), only the experts that have access to feet would be able to say what kind of marks they would leave. We should be proud that we even recognize these as footprints (which the one in the center may not even be).


On a more serious note, when such evidence goes to court, the expert for the prosecution will make one claim and a similarly qualified expert for the defense will make a counter claim. The judge or jury sitting in the middle with the preset biases generated by both experts and as much expertise as any of us will look at that print and make the ultimate conclusion.

Ok then let's hear the claim and counterclaim.

 

[stilicho]

No, the judge/jury will have more -- much more -- expertise than any of us, because they'll have the benefit of the expert explanation about what to look for.

This is a crucial point about scientific evidence presented in a court of law. Non-scientists in a jury have the benefit of hearing each expert and seeing the context in which any evidence is supplied.

If juries only selected scientific evidence on the basis of preset biases then wouldn't science itself be a failure? After all, scientists are not born but rather trained. They may have preset biases but the science is there to help overcome those to see how the physical world really works.

 

[drkitten]

This is a crucial point about scientific evidence presented in a court of law. Non-scientists in a jury have the benefit of hearing each expert and seeing the context in which any evidence is supplied.

If juries only selected scientific evidence on the basis of preset biases then wouldn't science itself be a failure?

Not really. The blame is more on the lawyer in this case. This does happen from time to time (witness some of the more blatant vaccine cases that get trotted out from time to time).

The expert has the duty to make the findings based on the best science available at the time, but the presentation is really up to the lawyer. The lawyer has to find a way to make the expert's presentation both clear and convincing to the jury -- and that's quite a job for many experts.

Remember that few experts are allowed simply to testify. Like any witness, they are only permitted to ask questions posed to them by the lawyer. The lawyer has to be able to ask them questions that the jury understands, and has to ask questions which will produce clear-cut, understandable answers.

And one mark of a good lawyer would be his ability to phrase questions in such a way as to undercut the opposing side. If he's arguing for the foot on the left, then he should be prepared with questions about why the features shared with the left foot are more important than the ones shared with the right foot.

And he should be able to cross-examine the other expert in such a way as to make it clear that the opposing expert is focusing on the wrong set of features.

If he can't do that,.... well, he shouldn't be in this particular courtroom arguing this particular case.

Look at what happened in Kitzmiller v. Dover. The case was not won by the plantiff experts, but lost by the defense experts. Michael Behe was forced to admit that there were no peer-reviewed articles on the subject of intelligent design, that there were literally thousands of articles on the evolution of the blood clotting cascade, and that his definition of "scientific theory" would include astrology. Steve Fuller insisted that what was needed was "affirmative action" for losing sides of scientific debates.

By the time the lawyers were finished with the defense experts, it was obvious to the judge that there was no scientific merit to intelligent design at all.

 

[stilicho]

Not really. The blame is more on the lawyer in this case. This does happen from time to time (witness some of the more blatant vaccine cases that get trotted out from time to time).

The expert has the duty to make the findings based on the best science available at the time, but the presentation is really up to the lawyer. The lawyer has to find a way to make the expert's presentation both clear and convincing to the jury -- and that's quite a job for many experts.

I think that's the case all the time with explaining science to non-scientists, though. The AGW "debate" instantly comes to mind. I figure that most of the "debate" lingers because the AGW "side" hasn't presented the case well enough. If they used the same PR campaign used by recyclers (eg: consume as much as you want without any repercussions at all) then they'd have the whole thing locked up right away.

Back to Dan O's poll, though. I'd thought that the defence could easily have their client perform the same print test on a similarly textured fabric using some solution similar to the substance left there and demonstrate either that it wasn't their client's or that it was too vague to distinguish. I've certainly heard of stranger stunts in the courtroom.

 

[jiggeryqua]

Errrrr....

Yes, qualified experts are generally accorded more credibility than amateur Google enhanced internet pollsters.

Interesting that what would appear to be your most important 'qualification' for an expert is that they are paid for it. Or is that you just misunderstand the meaning of amateur?

 

[drkitten]

Interesting that what would appear to be your most important 'qualification' for an expert is that they are paid for it. Or is that you just misunderstand the meaning of amateur?

Or that he's simply using words loosely. If you think you can find a qualified expert in footprints who doesn't accept money for his testimony, go for it. Unfortunately, all of the qualified experts in this field that I know of are professionals in the strict sense as well as in the looser sense.

 

[drkitten]

I think that's the case all the time with explaining science to non-scientists, though. The AGW "debate" instantly comes to mind. I figure that most of the "debate" lingers because the AGW "side" hasn't presented the case well enough. If they used the same PR campaign used by recyclers (eg: consume as much as you want without any repercussions at all) then they'd have the whole thing locked up right away.

Not really. in the broader context, the real issue is simply that a lie can go around the world before the truth can pull its boots on, as the old phrase has it. If you've got a point to make and no scruples whatsoever, it's much easier simply to tell a ferociously scary lie -- that will guarantee you much wider press coverage than anything your opponents might say in response, and guarantee you instant emotional buy-in from anyone who doesn't bother to read next week's issue.

You can't do that in court; lawyers get disbarred for that, and expert witnesses get fines and sometimes jail time. Not to mention the fact that a single perjury conviction will prevent you from ever again qualifying as an expert witness in a court case, because opposing counsel could simply destroy your credibility with a single question.

Back to Dan O's poll, though. I'd thought that the defence could easily have their client perform the same print test on a similarly textured fabric using some solution similar to the substance left there and demonstrate either that it wasn't their client's or that it was too vague to distinguish.

They certainly could try, although the judge would need to permit it and the prosecution would almost certainly object to it as an irrelevant and time-wasting stunt.

The other problem is that it could easily backfire, when the opposing expert was able to show all the points of agreement between the two footprints. The problem is that while the jury might see a confused mess, the opposing expert almost certainly wouldn't.....

 

[jiggeryqua]

Or that he's simply using words loosely. If you think you can find a qualified expert in footprints who doesn't accept money for his testimony, go for it. Unfortunately, all of the qualified experts in this field that I know of are professionals in the strict sense as well as in the looser sense.

He may be using words loosely, I suppose. It's a bizarre decision in a discussion that necessarily utilises and depends upon words, but it may be true. It is, of course, entirely possible that one can be expert in anything while remaining an amateur.

I'm intrigued that you know so many professionals (in the strict sense) in the field of footprints - assuming you're using the majority of your words in a strict sense...and assuming that you're entirely truthful, as everyone on the internet with an argumentative claim is. (I use 'is' in a rather loose sense...)

What is the looser sense of 'professional' you had in mind, by the way?