why law professor Paul Campos of the University of Colorado in Boulderis an idiot part 5

Go down

why law professor Paul Campos of the University of Colorado in Boulderis an idiot part 5

Post by redpill on Thu Apr 21, 2016 11:46 am

Suspect Like a Star @ heaven this is Paul Campos

he's a law professor @ Univ Colorado at Boulder

this is what he says in his letter in response to Mary Lacy's exoneration of the R's

paul campos wrote:
Everyone knows that relative immunity from criminal conviction is something money can buy. Apparently another thing it can buy is an apology for even being suspected of a crime you probably already would have been convicted of committing if you happened to be poor. That at least is one explanation for the letter Lacy sent John Ramsey last week, absolving the Ramsey family of any involvement in the killing of his daughter, and apologizing for contributing "to the public perception that (anyone in the family) might have been involved."


Apparently the only evidence supporting this extraordinary theory is some unidentified male DNA on the dead child's clothes, which doesn't match any of the family members.

Yet for reasons known only to herself (she has refused all requests for interviews) Lacy has concluded that, in her words, there "is no innocent explanation" for the presence of this DNA on the child's clothing, and that therefore the DNA belongs to the child's murderer.

It's difficult to describe the astounding leaps of logic required to come to that conclusion.

Mary Lacy's letter clearly states
Mary Lacy wrote:
In October of 2007, we decided to pursue the possibility of submitting additional items from the JonBenet Ramsey homicide to be examined using this methodology. We checked with a number of Colorado sources regarding which private laboratory to use for this work. Based upon multiple recommendations, including that of the Boulder Police Department, we contacted the Bode Technology Group located near Washington, D.C., and initiated discussions with the professionals at that laboratory. First Assistant District Attorney Peter Maguire and Investigator Andy Horita spent a full day with staff members at the Bode facility in early December of 2007.

The Bode Technology laboratory applied the “touch DNA” scraping method to both sides of the waist area of the long johns that JonBenet Ramsey was wearing over her underwear when her body was discovered. These sites were chosen because evidence supports the likelihood that the perpetrator removed and/or replaced the long johns, perhaps by handling them on the sides near the waist.

On March 24, 2008, Bode informed us that they had recovered and identified genetic material from both sides of the waist area of the long johns. The unknown male profile previously identified from the inside crotch area of the underwear matched the DNA recovered from the long johns at Bode.

We consulted with a DNA expert from a different laboratory, who recommended additional investigation into the remote possibility that the DNA might have come from sources at the autopsy when this clothing was removed. Additional samples were obtained and then analyzed by the Colorado Bureau of Investigation to assist us in this effort. We received those results on June 27th of this year and are, as a result, confidant that this DNA did not come from innocent sources at the autopsy. As mentioned above, extensive DNA testing had previously excluded people connected to the family and to the investigation as possible innocent sources.

Paul Campos is supposedly a law professor. The University of Colorado has entrusted law students to be taught by this "law professor".

apparenlty Paul Campos does not know the relevant law in this case.

Mary Lacy states

We consulted with a DNA expert from a different laboratory,

a DNA expert.

Paul Campos, as a law professor apparently does not understand the case LAW that applies to an expert witness

The Daubert standard provides a rule of evidence regarding the admissibility of expert witnesses' testimony during United States federal legal proceedings. Pursuant to this standard, a party may raise a Daubert motion, which is a special case of motion in limine raised before or during trial to exclude the presentation of unqualified evidence to the jury. The Daubert trilogy refers to the three United States Supreme Court cases that articulated the Daubert standard:

Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, which held in 1993 that Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence did not incorporate the Frye "general acceptance" test as a basis for assessing the admissibility of scientific expert testimony, but that the rule incorporated a flexible reliability standard instead;
General Electric Co. v. Joiner,[1] which held that a district court judge may exclude expert testimony when there are gaps between the evidence relied on by an expert and his conclusion, and that an abuse-of-discretion standard of review is the proper standard for appellate courts to use in reviewing a trial court's decision of whether it should admit expert testimony;
Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael,[2] which held in 1999 that the judge's gatekeeping function identified in Daubert applies to all expert testimony, including that which is non-scientific.

Important appellate-level opinions that clarify the standard include Judge Kozinski's opinion in Daubert on remand (Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 43 F.3d 1311 (9th Cir. 1995)), and Judge Becker's opinion in In re Paoli R.R. Yard PCB Litig., 35 F.3d 717 (3d Cir. 1994).


In Daubert, seven members of the Court agreed on the following guidelines for admitting scientific expert testimony:

Judge is gatekeeper: Under Rule 702, the task of "gatekeeping", or assuring that scientific expert testimony truly proceeds from "scientific knowledge", rests on the trial judge.
Relevance and reliability: This requires the trial judge to ensure that the expert's testimony is "relevant to the task at hand" and that it rests "on a reliable foundation". Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 584-587. Concerns about expert testimony cannot be simply referred to the jury as a question of weight. Furthermore, the admissibility of expert testimony is governed by Rule 104(a), not Rule 104(b); thus, the Judge must find it more likely than not that the expert's methods are reliable and reliably applied to the facts at hand.
Scientific knowledge = scientific method/methodology: A conclusion will qualify as scientific knowledge if the proponent can demonstrate that it is the product of sound "scientific methodology" derived from the scientific method.[3]
Factors relevant: The Court defined "scientific methodology" as the process of formulating hypotheses and then conducting experiments to prove or falsify the hypothesis, and provided a nondispositive, nonexclusive, "flexible" set of "general observations" (i.e. not a "test") [4] that it considered relevant for establishing the "validity" of scientific testimony:

Empirical testing: whether the theory or technique is falsifiable, refutable, and/or testable.
Whether it has been subjected to peer review and publication.
The known or potential error rate.
The existence and maintenance of standards and controls concerning its operation.
The degree to which the theory and technique is generally accepted by a relevant scientific community.

In 2000, Rule 702 was amended in an attempt to codify and structure elements embodied in the "Daubert trilogy." The rule then read as follows:

Rule 702. Testimony by Experts

If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise, if (1) the testimony is based upon sufficient facts or data, (2) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods, and (3) the witness has applied the principles and methods reliably to the facts of the case.
(As amended Apr. 17, 2000, eff. Dec. 1, 2000.)

In 2011, Rule 702 was again amended to make the language clearer. The rule now reads:


A witness who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education may testify in the form of an opinion or otherwise if:

(a) The expert’s scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue;

(b) The testimony is based on sufficient facts or data;

(c) The testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods; and

(d) The expert has reliably applied the principles and methods to the facts of the case.

(As amended Apr. 17, 2000, eff. Dec. 1, 2000; Apr. 26, 2011, eff. Dec. 1, 2011)

While some federal courts still rely on pre-2000 opinions in determining the scope of Daubert, as a technical legal matter any earlier judicial rulings that conflict with the language of amended Rule 702 are no longer good precedent.

Although the Daubert standard is now the law in federal court and over half of the states, the Frye standard remains the law in some jurisdictions including California, Illinois, Maryland, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Washington.[5]

Florida recently passed a bill to adopt the Daubert standard as the law governing expert witness testimony, which took effect on July 1, 2013.[6]

Although trial judges have always had the authority to exclude inappropriate testimony, prior to Daubert, trial courts often preferred to let juries hear evidence proffered by both sides.[7] Once certain evidence has been excluded by a Daubert motion because it fails to meet the relevancy and reliability standard, it will likely be challenged when introduced again in another trial. Even though a Daubert motion is not binding to other courts of law, if something was found untrustworthy by one court, other judges may choose to follow that precedent. Of course, a decision by the Court of Appeals that a piece of evidence is inadmissible under Daubert would be binding on district courts within that court's jurisdiction.
the law in question is the Daubert Standard

Multiple DNA experts who concur easily qualifies under the Daubert Standard of admissibility of expert witness testimony. Under Daubert, a DNA expert may testify as to the significance of the forensic value of DNA evidence. Under Daubert, Mary Lacy is requires to rely on expert witness testimony in formulating her conclusions.

Mary Lacy's letter clearly reference DNA experts conclusions in her letter. Paul Campos apparently does not know of the Daubert Standard, but it is clear that DNA experts qualify under Daubert.

Daubert is pretty basic case law in scientific expert witness testimony, and that Mary Lacy's conclusions are allowed under Daubert.

Paul Campos could have explained to the public that since Mary Lacy is relying on an scientific expert witness, that under Daubert, her conclusions are fully justifiable. Instead, he disregards Daubert and insinuates that Mary Lacy gave the R's a pass bc they are wealthy. That if they were poor the results would somehow not apply.

Paul Campos does not invoke Daubert standard in his reasoning.

if you live in Colorado and you are thinking of hiring a lawyer for contract law, criminal law, real estate, divorce, or anything really, remember this is the face of Paul Campos

remember this face and remember the name Paul Campos

if he has a hard time with reading comprehension Mary Lacy's letter he may have difficulty with anything that requires reading, which is what lawyers do. remember that face before you hire him as a lawyer and ask if he cannot understand Mary lacy's letter how can he help you in your legal problems?

What a Face

If you only knew the POWER of the Daubert side

Posts : 2462
Join date : 2012-12-08

Back to top Go down

Back to top

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum