How reliable is an Expert Witness?

[nismaratwork]

Your point is completely out of context, hence false.

I said:


Also, there are plenty of people like Hynek and other experts who never claimed to have seen a UFO. Consider for example that many if not most so-called UFO debunkers are themselves crackpots. They know very little about the subject and go after only the obvious.

Well said, and why you don't have UFO expert witnesses in court... well, and other reasons . YOU could make one by combining experts with a particular RADAR system, aero-space engineer, psychologist, intelligence officials... and so forth. In court, your expertise is necessarily limited to a particular field or even a single system with that field. The veracity of their claims, pro or con, would then be challenged, and a jury would consider the validity of the evidence and the interpretations offered. It is a pity that crackpots on both sides of such issues so rarely bother with that kind of standard.

 

[pallidin]

Thanks, nis.
Not sure I want to be called for another jury selection after my experience.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Well said, and why you don't have UFO expert witnesses in court... well, and other reasons . YOU could make one by combining experts with a particular RADAR system, aero-space engineer, psychologist, intelligence officials... and so forth. In court, your expertise is necessarily limited to a particular field or even a single system with that field. The veracity of their claims, pro or con, would then be challenged, and a jury would consider the validity of the evidence and the interpretations offered. It is a pity that crackpots on both sides of such issues so rarely bother with that kind of standard.

... the difference between a UFO expert, and an ET expert. One may have nothing to do with the other, assuming that the latter even exists.

I am all but positive that the designation "UFO" has its origins as a military term. I will try to dig up a reference. I know Ruppelt [USAF, Project Bluebook] states this in his book. He started using the expression "flying saucer" to distinguish between generic UFOs, and the reports of saucer-like objects.

 

[mugaliens]

Yes, I think your right. I stand by my "not necessarily" comment to the judge for the reasons you stated. Thanks.

Pallidin, I'm with you, and my opinion on this matter has to do with personal experience, wherein, for $5,000 I hired one such "expert witness" to examine the facts of a case. Although he came both "highly recommended" by my attorney, and as it turns out "highly respected" by the courts in which he'd been giving his testimony for decades, the conclusions he came up with were about 20% on target, about 40% on the dartboard, and about 40% totally out to lunch.

And by "totally out to lunch" I don't mean off the dartboard - I mean totally whacko, having absolutely nothing to do with reality, much less the case at hand. My first thought was that he mixed up notes from cases, but I couldn't get anywhere with him or my attorney, so, like a stupe, I hired a second opinion for "just $2,000."

As it turns out, for "just $2,000," the second merely reviewed the notes of the first and concurred with the first.

So, $7,000 poorer, I finally realized something: It's a "profession." They're not in the game to find out what's really going on and report it squarely. They're in it for the money. Their focus, their duty, is to report their findings in a matter believable to the judge, so that in future matters the judge will continue to find them reputable as an expert witness.

Their reputation before the courts is the source of their continued livlihood, not their ability to ascertain precisely what happened and did not happen.

Sheesh! (insert forehead slap, here).

Still, somewhat unbelieving, I ran it through two lawyer friends of mine, one a prosecutor who'd served in many different capacities throughout the US legal system and both confirmed it. One even said, "and how do you think that (the expert witness position) differs from what I do?"

Ok, now I've got it. Few of the people in the justice system are really out for justice, until/if/when their financial futures are secure (such as the Supreme Court) and then, only if they sever all emotional ties with their own previously-held notions or conceptions of what's right and wrong, and resolve themselves to the sole administration of justice commensurate with the laws of our land.

It is for this very reason all US Supreme Court Justices are appointed for life, will continue to be paid after they retire, and must be approved by committee - to ensure their personal beliefs will NOT affect their judgements.

It's not that those who work in the justice system are bad - most are actually trying hard to do the right thing. It's just that the way things are set up in our system of justice, the natural tendency is to relax one's integrity in favor of winning cases, which means favor with the judge, and that means sacrificing a few aspects of one's client's better interests because when the client walks, the lawyer (or the expert witness) must still go before the judge who makes the decisions next week, and very few judges are willing to give credence to someone whom, for whatever reason (even if its their own prejudices) they don't trust. And despite the cute little blind woman carrying the scales, judges carry a lot of prejudice into their jobs. Perhaps not as much as the rest of us, but they're as apt to throw something out "because I think you're a liar" as much as because of any evidence, even when evidence to the contrary should compel them to consider the evidence! But they refuse, because they've made their judgement, and "That's that - if you don't agree, take it to the next level."

Now that you have a little more insight into what's really going on in our justice system behind the scenes, folks, let's carry on with this ensightful conversation. Please keep in mind that while most do try to do the right thing, we're all subject to various preconceptions which keep us from attaining perfection.

Still, though many fish swim here, these remain shark-infested waters.

 

[mugaliens]

So - to rally this around to the topic at hand:

1. Do Expert Witnesses really and truly try to represent the facts as they see them, without compromise?

I would submit to you that this is how they sell themselves to their clients who hire them (the courts don't hire them - one side or the other does).

2. Do Expert Witnesses fudge the facts in order to remain within the good graces of the court, or at least report only those conclusions with which the judge is more likely to agree?

I would submit to you that in my experience, that's precisely what they do, as their ongoing reputation in the courts directly affects their future to continue to perform successfully in the courts (no one hires expert witnesses whose testimony is repeatedly discounted by a judge or judges).

3. Is the system corrupted?

I would submit to you that while the people within the system are themselves (mostly) not corrupt, the system itself is indeed falling short of the measure of justice. However, I would also remind you that the system established itself, like all human endeavors, upon a need, i.e. "you need my services and here's why, now here's what I can do for you, here's what I've done for you, and here's you bill - please pay."

More comments, please.

 

[nismaratwork]

So - to rally this around to the topic at hand:

1. Do Expert Witnesses really and truly try to represent the facts as they see them, without compromise?

I would submit to you that this is how they sell themselves to their clients who hire them (the courts don't hire them - one side or the other does).

2. Do Expert Witnesses fudge the facts in order to remain within the good graces of the court, or at least report only those conclusions with which the judge is more likely to agree?

I would submit to you that in my experience, that's precisely what they do, as their ongoing reputation in the courts directly affects their future to continue to perform successfully in the courts (no one hires expert witnesses whose testimony is repeatedly discounted by a judge or judges).

3. Is the system corrupted?

I would submit to you that while the people within the system are themselves (mostly) not corrupt, the system itself is indeed falling short of the measure of justice. However, I would also remind you that the system established itself, like all human endeavors, upon a need, i.e. "you need my services and here's why, now here's what I can do for you, here's what I've done for you, and here's you bill - please pay."

More comments, please.

1.) Sometimes, it depends on who they are, and the money involved.

2.) They are inevitably coached by lawyers, for the benefit of the judge and/or jury. After all, if one here had to testify about an engineering or physics issue, we would be incomprehensible to the jury without massaging the terminology and drawing approximations. It is a short leap from that to fudging for the client.

3.) Yes, for the reasons that you stated. It is often said, and truly I think, that it isn't a great system, it's just better than most available.

Palladin: I can understand your position, and while jury duty can be disheartening, it can also be a worthwhile civic duty. I hope that this experience doesn't ruin you for the future... you, and other PF regulars are the types of people who SHOULD be on juries!

 

[nismaratwork]

... the difference between a UFO expert, and an ET expert. One may have nothing to do with the other, assuming that the latter even exists.

I am all but positive that the designation "UFO" has its origins as a military term. I will try to dig up a reference. I know Ruppelt [USAF, Project Bluebook] states this in his book. He started using the expression "flying saucer" to distinguish between generic UFOs, and the reports of saucer-like objects.

I think you're right... I believe it was originally a RADAR designation meant to be exactly what it sounded like: an object in flight which was not identified. The original "flying saucer" scares where just that... flying saucers and called such by newspapers. I'll see if I can find a reference too, but as it stands I agree with you.

 

[loseyourname]

Your point is completely out of context, hence false.

Fair if that's true, but I followed the OP's link and it said this:

We have over 400 government, military, and intelligence community witnesses testifying to their direct, personal, first hand experience with UFOs, ETs, ET technology, and the cover-up that keeps this information secret.

Those sound to me like eyewitnesses, not expert witnesses. Their status as experts would simply make them more credible as eyewitnesses, but they would still be called to the stand as eyewitnesses.

Mind you I'm not saying this to debunk their claims or anything. In general, eyewitness testimony is a more persuasive form of evidence than expert testimony is. Eyewitness testimony by a subject-matter expert is even more persuasive.

 

[stevenb]

... Their status as experts would simply make them more credible as eyewitnesses, ...

To me, this status makes them less credible. Their status as "experts" goes up if they can lend credulity and legitimacy to the field. ... But, maybe that's just the cynic in me talking.

 

[nismaratwork]

Fair if that's true, but I followed the OP's link and it said this:



Those sound to me like eyewitnesses, not expert witnesses. Their status as experts would simply make them more credible as eyewitnesses, but they would still be called to the stand as eyewitnesses.

Mind you I'm not saying this to debunk their claims or anything. In general, eyewitness testimony is a more persuasive form of evidence than expert testimony is. Eyewitness testimony by a subject-matter expert is even more persuasive.

They can be both, or neither. If you have a RADAR operator on an AEGIS system who detects a UFO (in the literal sense), and testifies without speculation that it behaved in a certain manner then they are a witness to the event or anomaly, but also an expert in reading the RADAR system. Now, a pilot who sees lights outside their canopy is merely an eyewitness.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Those sound to me like eyewitnesses, not expert witnesses. Their status as experts would simply make them more credible as eyewitnesses, but they would still be called to the stand as eyewitnesses.

Mind you I'm not saying this to debunk their claims or anything. In general, eyewitness testimony is a more persuasive form of evidence than expert testimony is. Eyewitness testimony by a subject-matter expert is even more persuasive.

Ah, well, I think you would have to take each case on its own merits. If, for example, the witness was a trained RADAR operator acting in his official capacity, he may qualify as an expert within his domain. OTOH, if he saw a UFO fly over his house, his testimony wouldn't count any more than anyone else's. To me, the distinction is that many of these witnesses were experts within their domain when the observation occurred. This also assumes that the reports are official and not just verbal anecdotes.

In the case of the Iran '76 event
http://www.nsa.gov/public_info/_files/ufo/routing_slip_ufo_iran.pdf

all witnesses were acting in an official capacity, with their stories supported by official documentation. It was their job to identify the UFO. Conversely, if a military jail guard says that he saw ET in a cell, his story is just another story.

An interesting aside wrt Iran: If it was a highly classified weapon of some sort, why was the report declassified in 1982? Declassification only happens when the event has been deemed to have no defense significance.

 

[russ_watters]

Now, a pilot who sees lights outside their canopy is merely an eyewitness.

Agreed and that applies to a large number of supposedly credible sightings - so many it is basically the archetype of an entire class of UFOs and witnesses. Case in point, the Mexican air force sighting a few years ago.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Agreed and that applies to a large number of supposedly credible sightings - so many it is basically the archetype of an entire class of UFOs and witnesses. Case in point, the Mexican air force sighting a few years ago.

Ironcially: A pilot reports a strange light, so the report is dismissed as nonsense because a strange light isn't suggestive of ET. So what? That doesn't make the report uninteresting. And the pilot never said it was ET, the skeptics did; or they treat it as an ET report, which is or course, nonsense, so they dismiss it. This is the sort of circular logic that drives me nuts!

What about when the light chases the plane? Ah, that would suggest it was ET, and ET isn't here, so the report is uninteresting.

 

[nismaratwork]

Ironcially: A pilot reports a strange light, so the report is dismissed as nonsense because a strange light isn't suggestive of ET. So what? That doesn't make the report uninteresting. And the pilot never said it was ET, the skeptics did; or they treat it as an ET report, which is or course, nonsense, so they dismiss it. This is the sort of circular logic that drives me nuts!

What about when the light chases the plane? Ah, that would suggest it was ET, and ET isn't here, so the report is uninteresting.

I didn't get the sense that Russ was trying to dismiss the notion that such sightings can be interesting, just not as evidence of ETs. It is only annoying when people confuse the notion of the expert witness with a simple appeal to authority, a mistake made by more people on all sides of such debates, than not.

 

[pallidin]

Another aspect to the above conversation might be the notion of a "trained observer"
Some pilots, especially military, are trained to recognize certain visual and radar characteristics of various known aircraft.
Should their report of an incident indicate that the observation falls outside commonality, I would think that this qualifies their witness testimony to be somewhat elevated in consideration.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I didn't get the sense that Russ was trying to dismiss the notion that such sightings can be interesting, just not as evidence of ETs. It is only annoying when people confuse the notion of the expert witness with a simple appeal to authority, a mistake made by more people on all sides of such debates, than not.

I was speaking in generic terms. It wasn't meant for Russ, it was an addendum to his statement.

The moment something gets labeled "UFO", most serious people stop paying attention. That, imo, is terribly unfortunate. But even worse, otherwise highly credible people turn crackpot in a moment because the subject has been completely distorted by the media and true believers.

For example: Every time Neil deGrasse Tyson says "I need more than lights in the sky", I want to slap him silly. Obviously he has no idea what he is talking about.

edit: This really annoys me because I otherwise admire and enjoy Dr. Tyson's work in public education.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Agreed and that applies to a large number of supposedly credible sightings - so many it is basically the archetype of an entire class of UFOs and witnesses. Case in point, the Mexican air force sighting a few years ago.

Of course you ignore the other case in point located right above your post.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Again, in terms of military encounters, one job of the USAF [and non-US air forces, of course] is to identify UFOs. That makes them experts.

 

[nismaratwork]

I was speaking in generic terms. It wasn't meant for Russ, it was an addendum to his statement.

The moment something gets labeled "UFO", most serious people stop paying attention. That, imo, is terribly unfortunate. But even worse, otherwise highly credible people turn crackpot in a moment because the subject has been completely distorted by the media and true believers.

For example: Every time Neil deGrasse Tyson says "I need more than lights in the sky", I want to slap him silly. Obviously he has no idea what he is talking about.

edit: This really annoys me because I otherwise admire and enjoy Dr. Tyson's work in public education.

Agreed, but let's be frank: Dr. Tyson and others have adapted to the onslaught of cranks by raising cognitive barriers. It's unfortunate, but he has to get through the day, and most people don't deal well with conflicting ideas held simultaneously, even if for the purposes of genuine skeptical examination.

 

[nismaratwork]

Again, in terms of military encounters, one job of the USAF [and non-US air forces, of course] is to identify UFOs. That makes them experts.

There are photo and radar analysts who could be parts of an expert... as you say, not the personnel, but the Force as a whole. The problem is that if the UFO is saaaaay, a spy-plane from a foreign country, we may not want to admit it. If the UFO is the B-2 Spirit (and some were) then it's classified like crazy! This means that while the expertise exists in the various air forces of the world, the motivation to share a given truth is questionable. Something unknown may be preferable to leave as a mystery, rather than offering definitive proof that it isn't an ET craft, for the reasons mentioned above. It's a tough situation.

 

[russ_watters]

Ironcially: A pilot reports a strange light, so the report is dismissed as nonsense because a strange light isn't suggestive of ET. So what? That doesn't make the report uninteresting. And the pilot never said it was ET, the skeptics did; or they treat it as an ET report, which is or course, nonsense, so they dismiss it. This is the sort of circular logic that drives me nuts!

What about when the light chases the plane? Ah, that would suggest it was ET, and ET isn't here, so the report is uninteresting.

I saw none of that logic in the incident in question. My recolection of the incident was that the incident was immediately characterized by an official in the Mexican Air Force as conclusive proof of ET*. This is why I see it as disingenuous to continuously harp on the fact that "UFO" and "ETUFO" are two different things. Everyone knows this, but since only "ETUFO" piques most people's interest, those are the cases that make the news. In this case (and in most, in my estimation), the report wasn't dismissed, but rather it was picked-up and reported by the media precisely because of the ET implications.

*Here's a news story with quotes from the pilots that the objects seemed to know they were being followed, that they (the pilots) were afraid and that "we are not alone": http://legacy.signonsandiego.com/news/mexico/20040511-1438-mexico-military-ufos.html

Here's a compliation of a couple that say, essentially, the Mexican DOD gave the video to a Mexican UFOologist who then made the claim that this was alien spacecraft : http://legacy.signonsandiego.com/news/mexico/20040511-1438-mexico-military-ufos.html

So it is incorrect for you to say the incident was first characterized as ET by skeptics.

 

[stevenb]

The moment something gets labeled "UFO", most serious people stop paying attention. That, imo, is terribly unfortunate.

I think this is a very interesting comment. You know, if we take this out of the context of a UFO discussion, which tends to bias people heavily one way of the other, this is very relevant to scientists. Wouldn't you say that many Nobel Laureates, and even many more "prize-less" innovators, were people that paid attention to something that was unidentified?

 

[russ_watters]

Of course you ignore the other case in point located right above your post.

I don't think your post was there while I was typing mine. In either case, the Iranian UFO sighting is not an example of the same issue. The most compelling part about the Iranian incident is the radar contact, not the visual sighting.

Again, in terms of military encounters, one job of the USAF [and non-US air forces, of course] is to identify UFOs. That makes them experts.

That makes (or made) some of them experts. Analysis of raw data is likely a dying skill in the military these days due to the fact that computers are taking over that role.

The point of the example was an illustration that though pilots are often assumed to be "expert witnesses" at least in a colloquial sense, they are mostly just eyewitnesses and while the factual quality of their reports is often good (they are better than average for eyewitnesses), the quality of the conclusions they draw is highly variable.

The problem with the Mexican UFO incident is the very common lack of ability to judge distance for a point source of light without external reference. Pilots all know about this problem, but pilots are human and our brains play tricks on us. So while we giggle when laypeople mistake Venus for a UFO ( http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2010/03/15/erie-ufo-sounds-familiar-to-me/ ), we should still not be surprised when pilots make similar mistakes.

 

[CEL]

The standards for scientific evidence are much higher than those for legal evidence. And you are right; for anything that cannot be reproduced on demand, it is very difficult to obtain good evidence for that phenomenon, even if it's genuine. Not to say that ET is here, but all such claims [not producible on demand] are almost impossible to verify or even investigate.

For one the best examples of how ridiculous this gets, consider the sliding rock phenomenon. For about a century, we have known that rocks on a dry lake bed move, but nobody is sure why they move, and no one has ever caught them moving. So even if we know precisely where a phenomenon might be observed, not knowning when to look can be sufficient to make verification very difficult.
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=60676

For a good theory, explaining the phenomenon, see:
http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4021

 

[mugaliens]

3.) Yes, for the reasons that you stated. It is often said, and truly I think, that it isn't a great system, it's just better than most available.

I do agree its a decent system. I'm inclined to lean more towards state-sponsored experts who are not hired by either side in a case, but who are trained to be objective and discerning.

Naturally, this approach wouldn't work for cases where it's the state against an individual!

 

[Ivan Seeking]

For a good theory, explaining the phenomenon, see:
http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4021

Yes, there are a number of theories. In fact I started a thread about this five years ago.
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=60676

The point is that no one has EVER seen them moving, but we've known about them for a century. Transient and seemingly random phenomena can be all but impossible catch in the act.

 

[nismaratwork]

Yes, there are a number of theories. In fact I started a thread about this five years ago.
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=60676

The point is that no one has EVER seen them moving, but we've known about them for a century. Transient and seemingly random phenomena can be all but impossible catch in the act.

So true; ball lightning is another great example of a well accepted phenomenon/na which is difficult to replicate or capture.