i am totally shocked by what i was just watching on CNN. (i know that i'm supposed to be doing homework and researching employers ... i know!) right there on national television, they were bringing in a handwriting expert to discuss the similarities between john mark karr's (aka the crazy guy who says he killed jonbenet) message in a high school yearbook and the ransom note left by jonbenet's killer.
what are the implications of this?!
ok, so say that this handwriting expert is qualified - fine. but we don't know that, and no one gets to challenge his/her credentials. think of all the potential jurors who are watching this. i assume a handwriting analysis would be part of a trial, if it comes to that. and who are those jurors going to believe, the person they saw on CNN, or the expert at trial? even if the jurors are committed to not letting anything besides the trial inform their decision, the damage may already be done, if these experts' opinions conflict.
i just think it's an outrage that news organizations are basically examining evidence in a case that may well go to trial, potentially contaminating an entire jury pool. shame on you, cnn.