You may recall that I said that image enhancement should be:
an investigative tool, to find evidence. It should not be used as evidence at trial.
It turns out that the company that made the imaging software used by prosecution agrees with me.
11:05 a.m.: […] Also, defense attorney Richards tells court that the manual for AMP imaging software apparently says methods used in this case are intended for investigative purposes only, not for forensic use in court. When Judge Schroeder asks Binger if that’s true, Binger response is that information is not in evidence.
Then why, pray tell, did Binger — rhymes with fucking idiot — present it to the jury at trial if it isn’t “evidence”? Or does he mean that the manual was not presented as evidence — and why not; discovery, dammit?
Screw mistrial with prejudice. Can someone clarify whether Wisconsin law allows a directed verdict of innocent? And aren’t we well past the point of referring Binger to the bar for misconduct, making it time for a bench warrant for his arrest?
|If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in my tip jar. I could really use the money, what with ISP bills, site hosting and SSL certificate, new 2021 model hip, and general life expenses.Click here to donate via PayPal.|