Page 1 of 1
The Best Response to 'Statistical Statements in Forensic Testimony'
Posted: Fri Mar 17, 2017 8:32 am
by Boyd Baumgartner
Ted Hunt and his comments on 'Statistical Statements in Forensic Testimony' pretty much just blew me away (attached). If anyone should be offering training to Examiners on the strengths and weaknesses of statistical testimony, it's this guy. I feel like photoshopping an Obama 'Hope' poster of this guy and hanging it in my cube at work...
T_Hunt_Statistical_Statements-Version_3.pdf
Re: The Best Response to 'Statistical Statements in Forensic Testimony'
Posted: Fri Mar 17, 2017 11:21 am
by Dr. Borracho
I presume this is a third draft of a response by one Ted Hunt to the document issued by the National Commission on Forensic Science.
I have never heard of Ted Hunt and in googling the name, the results were overpowered by two other Ted Hunts. One is a hockey player and the other is a golfer. I hardly think either of them authored this paper. To satisfy my curiosity, I would like to know a little more about the Ted Hunt who wrote this article and the source of his interest and knowledge in the topic.
Re: The Best Response to 'Statistical Statements in Forensic Testimony'
Posted: Fri Mar 17, 2017 11:46 am
by ekuppin
I'm assuming it's this guy:
https://www.linkedin.com/in/ted-r-hunt-88397019
http://www.ascld-lab.org/wp-content/upl ... d-Hunt.pdf
He's a prosecutor for Jackson County in Kansas City and is on the National Commission on Forensic Science
Re: The Best Response to 'Statistical Statements in Forensic Testimony'
Posted: Fri Mar 17, 2017 11:53 am
by Dr. Borracho
A dissenting member of the National Commission on Forensic Science.
Thank you!
Re: The Best Response to 'Statistical Statements in Forensic Testimony'
Posted: Fri Mar 17, 2017 12:52 pm
by Boyd Baumgartner
From what I was able to tell, ekuppin is correct.
Looks like he's spoken at the
International Symposium on Human Identification before, which is here this year. I'm going to try and go to that. Also, I took his reference to version 3 as how many revisions the NSFC document had been through, not how many revisions his comments had undergone.