Forensic evidence in Paraka Case. I am indeed compelled to contribute because certain individuals including the Chief Editor of National Newspaper (editorial 20th June 2014) and even our Prime Minister in his... response to the EMTV last night have undermined the body of scientific knowledge that are universally accepted and are considered factual in nature. I believe three different forensic organizations have had performed forensic analysis to determine whether the signature in contention is authentic or forged in the Paraka case. Signature is a function of force applied with certain pressure in a unit area. In other words force of a signature transmitted to a paper or surface area is the product of the pressure that is applied onto a unit area. Every individual has distinct and unique representation in the differing signatures. Signatures are manifested by ink spread onto a surface of a paper. In the forensic evaluation and analysis to determine a signature is forged or authentic. The sample signature is the bench mark. All other signatures that are signed by a single individual are evaluated and analyzed. The conclusion are made. Then the signature in question is evaluated and analyzed. The two characteristics of forensic evaluation is the thickness of the ink and the continuity of the ink. If the thickness of the ink of the diameter of the ink measured is homogenious and is not discontinued in its continuity the it will be considered authentic if the signature in question has resembles the characteristics of the other sampled signatures of that particular individual. In all the three different forensic determination they were conclusive that 98 % to be authentic in the case of Paraka case. What it is telling in the absence of a scientific error report, it simply means that in this particular analysis, there is 98 % sure that the signature was Peter ONeills. This is 98% against 2% uncertain. In all of our scientific and medical researches that are conducted universally the results are not always 100% certain. Any results that fall above 95% +/- scientific error is as good as significant accuracy in its evaluation and analysis. The three different forensic scientists were to present their professional credentials and were given the opportunity to defend the body of scientific knowledge in court, the court will listen to the scientists defence than any artisians like lawyers, journalist, any common men and women. As a scientist and a medical specialist myself , I feel compelled to provide information for the public to dissect and an informed judgement and decision. Dr. Samuel Maima. Forensic evidence in Paraka Case. I am indeed compelled to contribute because certain individuals including the Chief Editor of National Newspaper (editorial 20th June 2014) and even our Prime Minister in his... response to the EMTV last night have undermined the body of scientific knowledge that are universally accepted and are considered factual in nature. I believe three different forensic organizations have had performed forensic analysis to determine whether the signature in contention is authentic or forged in the Paraka case. Signature is a function of force applied with certain pressure in a unit area. In other words force of a signature transmitted to a paper or surface area is the product of the pressure that is applied onto a unit area. Every individual has distinct and unique representation in the differing signatures. Signatures are manifested by ink spread onto a surface of a paper. In the forensic evaluation and analysis to determine a signature is forged or authentic. The sample signature is the bench mark. All other signatures that are signed by a single individual are evaluated and analyzed. The conclusion are made. Then the signature in question is evaluated and analyzed. The two characteristics of forensic evaluation is the thickness of the ink and the continuity of the ink. If the thickness of the ink of the diameter of the ink measured is homogenious and is not discontinued in its continuity the it will be considered authentic if the signature in question has resembles the characteristics of the other sampled signatures of that particular individual. In all the three different forensic determination they were conclusive that 98 % to be authentic in the case of Paraka case. What it is telling in the absence of a scientific error report, it simply means that in this particular analysis, there is 98 % sure that the signature was Peter ONeills. This is 98% against 2% uncertain. In all of our scientific and medical researches that are conducted universally the results are not always 100% certain. Any results that fall above 95% +/- scientific error is as good as significant accuracy in its evaluation and analysis. The three different forensic scientists were to present their professional credentials and were given the opportunity to defend the body of scientific knowledge in court, the court will listen to the scientists defence than any artisians like lawyers, journalist, any common men and women. As a scientist and a medical specialist myself , I feel compelled to provide information for the public to dissect and an informed judgement and decision. Dr. Samuel Maima.
Posted on: Wed, 25 Jun 2014 06:43:42 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015