Look like the police have a few people to pick

[Bricktop]

let us see what the appeal court has to say about this...the digital forensic expert admitted on the stand that the authenticity of the information taken from the phone could not be authenticated as the phone was tampered with by unauthorized police officers before the data was extracted...the data was also extracted with a non-approved software...one that can edit the data...the forensic expert lied in his reprot over 10 times when he said he used the correct software that cannot edit data...he said he "made a mistake" in his report...over 10 times

[Rockman]

According to Chow,he saw first hand what Kartel did,WE now what members of his clan are capable of,are those the contributory factors you have the luxury of ignoring but not Chow?

[Bricktop]

According to Chow he was intimidated into giving his statement by the police...the handwriting expert used by the State in over 40 cases confirmed that the letter written to the PD was written by Chow...reading is fundamental...yuh keep spinning like a gig

[Rockman]

Why would Chow do such a thing?
My guess is he feared Kartel more than our infamous police force.

[Bricktop]

you can toss and turn at night trying to figure out why...that fact is that he wrote the letter and delivered it to the PD...facts we dealing wit here not conjecture

[Gamma]

it is a fact that he wrote the letter? is this based on the evidence, including his claim that he did not write it?

how would writing the letter benefit him?

[Bricktop]

The handwriting expert testified that he can say with 99% accuracy that Chow wrote the letter...the State declined to have their handwriting expert testify as he would have given the same testimony as the Defence's expert...this expert is the go to guy when the State needs to verify handwriting...Chow is a witness not a defendant...it is irrelevant what benefits he would or would not gain from writing the letter

[Rockman]

The 99% is just something he pulled out of thin air,four different hand writing experts could lead to four different percentages.
If the letter is a forgerr,then it is a question of how good the forger is.Was dna done on the envelope and or the letter?
I have a knack for misspelling the names.of footballers,maybe they should have my name,that I always spell right.Chow signing the letter Cho,hey that's how someone would guess spelling that name.
Heard there were actually two analysis
one, the good old human way and two,using the latest technology(a software for that purpose,known to be more accurate),both tests yeilding different conclusions.
When did reasonable doubt lose its value to you.

[Bricktop]

you heard that? look man we not dealing with hearsay...the State did not put their handwriting expert on the witness stand for a reason...the reason being is that he came to the same conclusion as the Defence handwriting expert...the handwriting expert for the Defence is the go to handwriting expert of the State...a retired police officer who has the State had no issues with when he testified last year that the suicide note found at the scene of Constable Lascene Edwards girlfriend was a forgery written by Edwards himself...hear this eediat now bout DNA on the letter...you sir are an idiot

[Rockman]

If Chow's dna was found on the envelope (the glue area licked)would that bolster the defense case?Do you really thing dna testing was not considered by Finson?
I really do not know how to respond to your last sentence,ifI say I am an idiot then I REALLY can't be an idiot.
Very careless Bricktop.

[Bricktop]

If Chow's dna was found on the envelope (the glue area licked)

[Rockman]

Maybe the envelopes in Jamaica have bands revealing sufficiently moist..or maybe you religiously use water...
Some resort to saliva,the difference is if you get it off youe tongue or finger tip.
That part of the envelope is likely the likely place to find uncontaminated dna relevant...
You are selective with reasonable doubts,and encourage and embrace technological advances wgen it pleases you.
I do not think Finson is under any obligation to disclose his findings..
Wouldn't finding dna in relevant areas bolster the argument of forgery?

[Gamma]

it s not irrelevant, it goes towards motivation ..... what is his motivation in either case (writing it and/or denying that he wrote it) especially in light of the fact that there is conflicting information. The jury needed to make that determination and they did.

also how do you know what their expert would have said? i agree not calling an expert is something to be considered but their own cross examination of the defence's expert could have been sufficient to cast doubt on his evidence. it may even have been as simple as they believed Chow (he should know whether or not he wrote) and felt that this was that 1% .... a finding that they are entitled to make.

my point simply is that in the face of conflicting evidence, you found a fact, the juror's did the same.

[Bricktop]

if the State's expert came to a different conclusion why didn't he take the stand and tell the jury? What conflicting evidence? The handwriting expert used by the State in the majority of their cases stated that Chow wrote the letter...there was no conflicting evidence...the State choose not to put their witness on the stand

[Gamma]

you are making a great leap as to why the state did not call an expert witness. but that aside,

Chow said that he did not write it, isn't that a conflict with what the expert said? the jury has to take into account Chow's credibility in considering his evidence. if they BELIEVE him that he did not write the letter that would be sufficient. because at the end of the day an expert's testimony is all about the "reasonable degree of certainty" in oother words the expert can give his evidence and the jury believes that he is reasonable certain ... up to 99% sure but if there is other compelling evidence then they take that too into consideraion