I wonder how long it takes Mayfield's attorneys to do an about face on the charges that Mayfield was maliciously singled out once they see the latent to known chart?
On the flip side, Ken Moses has stated that he was influenced by this individual's 'circumstances' (ie religion). Who knows if the defense will try and how they'd use that.
Mayfield Case (from Detail 205)
-
Moses the Younger
clarification
If you are interested in what Ken Moses said, verbatim, you can email him and request a copy of his speech given at the CSDIAI. He read word for word off that speech so that he could not be mis-quoted or misunderstood, as he has been recently in this forum.
For obvious reasons, I can tell you that you misunderstood the context of Ken Moses' mention of Mayfield's "circumstances". He was not directly influenced by Mayfield's religion, as you suggest. His mention of Mayfield's "circumstances" was to make the point that the FBI was initially more confident of the identification owing to Mayfield's recent religious affiliations than they would have been if he were a Mormon living in Utah. Though we would like to think that none of us would have had this innate human bias, it is in the nature of a good investigator and scientist to gather all clues that support our initial hypotheses. It is terrible to think that someone could be placed into the category of "terrorist" because of his religion. But, owing to the aftermath of 9/11, and the American media's continual portrayal of all terrorists as fundamentalist Islamic groups, it is not far-fetched to understand why an IAFIS hit on this man would have initially looked suspicious. His circumstances should not have affected the initial identification. I completely agree. But as much as I believe human bias should never enter the realm of scientific investigation, it is inevitable. We are human. But we can also learn from our mistakes. We should all be aware of our biases in the future, and this should be yet another lesson learned from these unfortunate "circumstances".[/quote]
For obvious reasons, I can tell you that you misunderstood the context of Ken Moses' mention of Mayfield's "circumstances". He was not directly influenced by Mayfield's religion, as you suggest. His mention of Mayfield's "circumstances" was to make the point that the FBI was initially more confident of the identification owing to Mayfield's recent religious affiliations than they would have been if he were a Mormon living in Utah. Though we would like to think that none of us would have had this innate human bias, it is in the nature of a good investigator and scientist to gather all clues that support our initial hypotheses. It is terrible to think that someone could be placed into the category of "terrorist" because of his religion. But, owing to the aftermath of 9/11, and the American media's continual portrayal of all terrorists as fundamentalist Islamic groups, it is not far-fetched to understand why an IAFIS hit on this man would have initially looked suspicious. His circumstances should not have affected the initial identification. I completely agree. But as much as I believe human bias should never enter the realm of scientific investigation, it is inevitable. We are human. But we can also learn from our mistakes. We should all be aware of our biases in the future, and this should be yet another lesson learned from these unfortunate "circumstances".[/quote]