Amelia Lewis

junk science to name someone as the perpetrator of a crime in a media report.

You know, this GATE analysis, it hasn't yet met the standard in the United States.

We would call that the Dalbert standard.

It's the standard for the admissibility of scientific evidence.

But this stuff has a very high...

I guess failure rate upwards of 30% in real world settings.

And so you've got variables such as lighting, you got temporary conditions like someone might be injured for the moment, but then they walk a different way later.

There's subjective pieces of it that can change from one person to the next making this comparison.

And we don't know what kind of source code goes into this software that was used.

And so it's the kind of thing that if you're law enforcement and you want to use this as maybe a tool that might make a suggestion as who you might want to look at, and then you'd have to confirm it and verify it through some other type of corroborative evidence.

But to use this exclusively to name a suspect seems extremely reckless, in my opinion, something I would not do.

And if I were a lawyer representing a media agency,

I would definitely say do not do it because the risk of defamation is extremely high.

Well, yeah, look, I'm wondering where the lawyers are in this because Blaze obviously has counsel, right?

All media organizations have counsel that this is their job is to make sure that their clients don't get in trouble.

And, you know, I think that any lawyer would have to say, you need to take this down, issue a retraction, do something.

As Dave mentioned, there's a duty to mitigate damages.

And so I wonder if it's the thing where the client is saying, we're going to leave it up over the objections of our counsel, or maybe the counsel has not said, take it down.

I just don't understand why it's still up.

Maybe they have something we don't know.