CLPEX Chat Board

So, I was reading my kids a bedtime story last night - a Berenstein Bears book, and I came across this page attached. I thought maybe I could use it next time I testify to uniqueness as another supporting text to Babler & others stating nature does not repeat itself.....
Does thousands of kids reading it count as peer review?

Looks like a book I need to buy. Please post the name of the book and publisher info so I can get some for my grandchildren (and me). John Vanderkolk

John Vanderkolk wrote:Looks like a book I need to buy. Please post the name of the book and publisher info so I can get some for my grandchildren (and me). John Vanderkolk

Hey John - the book name is 'Berenstein Bears and The Prize Pumpkin'. I'm sorry, I don't have the publisher info on me at the moment - it was a book that the school loans to the kids to help them learn to read. I could probably get it if you require it.....

An attorney may not challenge you on theoretical uniqueness, the challenge will be about your ability to reliably discern that uniqueness given the condition of the exemplar -- two very different things. The discussion may be about telling whether something is distorted, but the same, or whether there's a discrepancy that means you can't call it a match, and how you arrived at that conclusion.

Thankfully, we have plenty of research that shows that trained experts CAN make those finer distinctions and associations (correct identification decisions) very accurately:
-Evett and Williams (1996); Dror, et al. (2006), Langenburg (2009); Langenburg, et al. (2009); Ulery, et al. (2011); Busey, et al. (2011); Ulery, et al. (2012); Langenburg, et al. (2012); Tangen, et al. (2012); Neumann, et al. (forthcoming, presented at AAFS).

g.

Coming soon:

"The Berenstain Bears and the one discrepancy rule"

Kids !?, I need that for some of our patrolmen.