John Carmack on expert witnesses and 'non literal' copying

Re:John Carmack on expert witnesses and 'non literal' copying by zardo on Thursday February 02, 2017 @01:40PM (#13553161)

I wouldn't trust the testimony of a paid expert witness. They always have strong convictions in favor of the side paying the bill, even if the evidence available clearly can't support such absolute conclusions.

Even if they aren't just liars, the lawyers can just keep trying different 'experts' untill they get one who tells the story they want to hear. It's just cover for making an argument from authority.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:John Carmack on expert witnesses and 'non literal' copying by arca_vorago on Thursday February 02, 2017 @02:11PM (#13553502)

I did an advanced forensics course a few years back that was geared towards preparing me for court cases for the company I was working for. I quickly realized how easily "expert" witnesses could and most likely were being abused in the system just as you say. Expert shop till you get what you want.

That's not even mentioning the epic level of incompetence I saw among others. I'm talking about "forensic experts" who didn't know any filesystem other than NTFS, and even then if the tool didn't do it for them they didn't see it... At least I know if I ever end up defending myself I have plenty of inside knowledge on how to undermine the prosecutors arguments.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:John Carmack on expert witnesses and 'non literal' copying by Buttons840 on Thursday February 02, 2017 @01:55PM (#13553341)

"As an expert, I can definitely tell you that the people paying me are correct."

[ Parent | on HN ]