There is good reason to believe that it was completely false. Absent the confession the whole picture looks different.

I think this is arguably inadmissible evidence, but I find it increasingly difficult to imagine that, had the confession not existed, Dr. Hayne would nevertheless have testified that two people held the gun.

But that is precisely my point here. If he wouldn’t have testified to this possibility in the absence of the confession, then the physical evidence didn’t support this possibility and he shouldn’t have used that phrase like he did in this part of the testimony,

A. It would be consistent with the physical findings that I observed and the information provided to me by opposite side counsel.

Now the problem for Balko is what exactly does “physical evidence” reference? The autopsy or something else. Here is where I think Hayne could, in this case, have wiggle room (either legitimately, or not). Same for the word ‘consistent’. Its meaning is ambigious and one can read it one way and another person the other.

However, when he further indicates that hypothesis of one person holding the weapon is less likely it moves more in Balko’s favor. Not 100%, but I can definitely see both sides here.

I am publishing my full post on this in about an hour and a half and I hope you give it a full read.

Oh, I probably will, but most likely tomorrow. Even though we are both in/around Los Angeles, I’ve been staying up way too late for the past few nights.

I salute you for acknowledging that this was a poor way for Balko to open his piece.

I have a hard time believing that all the other scary crap he details has a similarly innocent explanation, which is why I have called for a state investigation of Hayne.

But this story? I dunno.

You say:

It does appear to me that Hayne is saying, at least in part, that the physical evidence fits the two person theory better than the one person theory and that this would be so even absent Edmonds’ confession.

I don’t see the basis for the bolded part of your statement.

I think this is arguably inadmissible evidence, but I find it increasingly difficult to imagine that, had the confession not existed, Dr. Hayne would nevertheless have testified that two people held the gun. I think his testimony related back to the details of the confession at every point. I don’t see any evidence otherwise.

I am publishing my full post on this in about an hour and a half and I hope you give it a full read.

In any event, despite our past differences, I can see you have integrity.

I think that given all this information Balko should not have used that story to open his article in Reason or the WSJ. There appears to be sufficient muddiness in this that it both interpretations could be correct.

Here is how I see this. If evidence is consistent with A and B, then the evidence provides little to no information as to whether A or B is more likely. When additional information is presented and then one goes back and says, “Oh yeah, that fits with the initial evidence that A was more likely than B,” then I don’t think one is thinking about the evidence correctly.

Basically when I read this section of the testimony,

Q. Dr. Hayne, You testified earlier that the defendant’s statement that you saw was consistent with how the gunshot wound occurred?

A. It would be consistent with the physical findings that I observed and the information provided to me by opposite side counsel.

Q. And do you understand that the evidence is that two people fired that shot?

A. That was essentially the summary of the information given to me and seen on the video.

Q. And let’s suppose if one person had fired that shot, would your opinion be the same?

*885 A. I could not exclude that; however, I would favor that a second party be involved in that positioning of the weapon.

To me this says the following:

The probability that two people fired the gun, ginve the autopsy findings is higher than the probability that one person fired the gun given the autopsy findings. I find that a bit troublesome. It does appear to me that Hayne is saying, at least in part, that the physical evidence fits the two person theory better than the one person theory and that this would be so even absent Edmonds’ confession.

As for things like the legal aspects, whether Edmonds is guilty or not, and so forth I don’t really care. To me this looks like an exercise in probabilistic reasoning, and I’m not convinced that Hayne’s reasoning is all that sound, whether it is a hypothetical or not.

I’m thinking either you have to acknowledge that Balko got this wrong — meaning he possibly got the lead story in his WSJ and Reason piece wrong — or you have to start twisting yourself into a pretzel logically.

I don’t want to put words in your mouth, so I await your answer.

I’m asking.

Now that you have read the part Balko snipped out, does it appear to you that, as Balko claimed, Hayne had “left Edmond’s confession” when he gave the testimony cited by Balko?

The video presumably refers to Edmonds video-taped confession.

Oh, and I haven’t concluded that Balko is right on this. In fact, I haven’t concluded you are right. Perhaps next time you should ask before putting words in my mouth. I was asking for SPQR’s view on that part of the testimony. I value his opinion.

It’s fascinating where he snips the quote. Had he quoted the next question and answer, it would have totally undermined his argument.

Not sure I agree with that Patterico (I read your longer quote in one of the other posts just a few minutes ago). I agree that given the confession then concluding two people probably took part in the aiming of the weapon is fairly reasonable.

However, part of Hayne’s beliefs to this effect are based on his autopsy findings. That part I find a bit hard to believe. Further, if Hayne is not a ballistics expert, and if his autopsy findings don’t tell us how many people were holding the gun, then he shouldn’t have answered the question the way he did.

Think of it this way, if the probability that two people held the gun given Hayne’s autopsy information is the same as the probability that one person held the gun given Hanye’s autopsy inforamation, then upon hearing the confession Hayne goes back and says that the autopsy results confirm to some degree the confession, then Hayne is changing his autopsy findings based on the confession. Seems a bit dodgy to me initially this wasn’t the case.

It is apparent you both have been relying on Balko for your quotes. Try consulting the original — or at least the fuller context that I already provided up top in comment 2.