Replies to post #281843 on Amarin Corp Plc (AMRN)

[alm2]

Bouf in a criminal case such an experts evidence would most definitely be admitted ....
The issue will be - is it factually incorrect or is it factually correct-?? not any issue of interpretation- we are getting lost here in the suggestion of statistical interpretation
It has nothing to do with such -you can not interpret an incorrect fact as correct -all the interpretation in the world will never make a fact true if it is false -you most certainly can make a mistake to think a fact is correct when it clearly is not - as per Du—

the world is round - many for many centuries considered it was flat - their interpretation of what they observed did not render their mistake correct - they were simply wrong
(We can actually consider that the world is not actually a pure sphere- but round does for the purposes of illustration !


If there are errors of fact - (That is something Du arrived at in her decision making process which is totally factually incorrect ) ( it would be helpful if the whole wide world accepts that Du made errors of fact )-then the point in issue will be won
Singer will assert there was serious error of fact
Alm

[ilovetech]

Bouf, it's interesting that you brought up "fingerprints" and I'll spare us with any OJ references lol., sure, I can see why the District Court would rely on the arguments over evidence that was before it. We also understand, as a matter of possiblity, that experts are not infallable, and as humans, they may have failed to reconcile the fingerprint evidence beyond any reasonable doubt.

The Federal Court is tasked to act as a check against rulings born of possible defects of interpretation. It's an absurd interpretation of the law, imo, if the law mandates ignorance of statistical evidence emperically arguable in the "public domain", in derence to an unchecked reliance on "supposed" expert testimony.

JMHO
ILT