Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
Ken Smith wrote:
Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
Dane wrote:
Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
Dane wrote:
I see words on a screen, but no explanation.
It's not my fault that you have comprehension problems.
Oh, I remember now. It's because without a launch point and impact point
there can be no trajectory analysis.
Bravo! You're improving.
I don't know where Ted failed physics,
Ted didn't fail physics, rather, Ted EXCELLED in physics.
Really? Given your ridiculous critique of Dr. Hayes' report, it is
established beyond cavil that you have basically forgotten everything
you ever knew about the subject.
See http://www.physicsclassroom.com/Class/momentum/U4L2a.html, and
learn the error of your ways.
but he seems to have missed the point entirely. Lauren's injuries
*REQUIRED* a certain amount of force, and as such, or so the theory goes,
we can eliminate a slip-and-fall as the cause of her demise.
Sez Dr. Hayes. And Dr. Hayes is full of hooey, as this assertion is NOT
definitive: biomechanics is NOT an exact science.
We don't know with precision how much force would have been required
to break both bones; this may be an angle of attack. However, as long
as the potential error isn't material, it wouldn't matter.
Ted advises us that the cliff has an overhang,
One which CHANGES, given the geologic makeup of the cliff, and the nature of
the EXTREME land movement of the area.
As I have explained ad nauseum, the only time of year where the land
would move is during the rainy season. In early November, the land is
about as stable as it ever gets in SoCal, since none of the conditions
(saturated soils) which normally precipitate landslides exist.
which actually hurts Cam's case more than helps it, on that account.
Says Ken, engaging in wishful thinking.
I've explained why: If Lauren had to fall X meters before hitting the
rocks to gather enough momentum to suffer the injuries described, and it
would have been physically impossible for her to do so had she slipped
and fallen, it is proof of murder. If that constitutes wishful thinking
in Ted Kaldis' Thoroughly-Fucked Dictionary, there is nothing *I* can do
about it. Those of us who speak standard English would not be inclined
to reach that conclusion.
It is a simple process of elimination.
One in which Ken has eliminated common sense.
Common sense tells me that your "Incredible Running Leap" and "Magic
Disappearing Landslide" theories are hooey. Assuming that Dr. Hayes is
qualified to run a few basic calculations, and that we would know to an
acceptable degree of tolerance how much stress a four-year-old's bones
can take, his theory is essentially unassailable.
Let's say for sake of argument that, at any relevant point on IP, the
overhang is no further than ten meters down the cliff face,
Let's not -- because it's FURTHER than that.
I'm just throwing out numbers to illustrate the point.
[Ken's misbegotten theory elided]
It's obvious that even you think you're losing the debate; if you had
a credible rebuttal for this theory, you'd be presenting it, insofar as
you have advanced some pretty *amazing* theories (e.g., the
"Incredible Running Leap" and the "Magic Disappearing Landslide") in
your desperate attempt to defend your Christian brother-in-law from the
charge that he threw his ILLEGITIMATE four-year-old daughter off a
cliff. Here's what you dishonestly elided:
__________________________________________________________
` Let's say for sake of argument that, at any relevant point on IP, the
overhang is no further than ten meters down the cliff face, and that if
Lauren would have slipped and fell, the cliff would have absorbed a lot
of her velocity (you can try this at home on a gentler grassy slope, if
you insist). If it takes X velocity for her to sustain the injuries she
did, and she would never have attained it at *any* point had she simply
tumbled, we can conclude that she couldn't have tumbled. You don't need
to know where she hit the cliff, as long as you can deduce that she had
to have hit at X velocity to sustain her injuries; you can work backward
from there to ascertain how she must have gone off the cliff.
_________________________________________________________
The *theory* is both unassailable and intuitively obvious. If you
are to win, you have to win by showing that the facts are not what the
State says they are.
If Ted's supposed expert says this theory is "hooey," he isn't much of an
expert.
He's MUCH more of an expert than Dr. Hayes (whose expertise apparently lies
elsewhere).
Then, present his CV. You have no reason to hide it, now that it is
a matter of public record. Or at least identify him/her -- so that CG
can do the legwork. If my expert was Henry Lee or Michael Baden, I
wouldn't be hiding that light under a bushel....
Of course, I haven't done the math, [Ted dishonestly snips here] not having a first clue as to what amount of force is required to break
both a wrist and upper jawbone (if my recollection is faulty, I can rest
assured that Ted will correct me), but I am confident that Dr. Hayes has
done so, and am persuaded that his conclusion is based on sound theory.
[...]
I know. It's apparent. So STFU.
I see. I have to be an expert in physics and biomechanics to comment
on the soundness of the prosecution's theory, but you don't have to be
an expert in civil rights law to prattle on endlessly and erroneously
about my case? Hypocrite!
As you have often said, "If you can't take the heat, get out of the
kitchen...."
.
