fishorsechess
07-28-2004, 04:05 PM
I just heard yesterday in the Scott Peterson murder trial
in N. Calif that the prosecution brought on a fishing expert
to testify that the fishing equipment Scott used was not
appropriate for sturgeon fishing (it was more for light fresh
water fishing). What fascinated me was this wasn't your
usual expert witness courts use.
Like doesn't the IRS have handicapping experts on their
staff of tax agents to understand what unscrupulous
bettors do?
In the recent case of pick six scandal.
Don't know this for sure, but they probably had some pro handicappers testify that the combinations that were
chosen by the guys who fixed that pick six were not of
the norm.(Who would single the first 3 or 4 races them
being longshots and buy the rest of the ticket?).
in N. Calif that the prosecution brought on a fishing expert
to testify that the fishing equipment Scott used was not
appropriate for sturgeon fishing (it was more for light fresh
water fishing). What fascinated me was this wasn't your
usual expert witness courts use.
Like doesn't the IRS have handicapping experts on their
staff of tax agents to understand what unscrupulous
bettors do?
In the recent case of pick six scandal.
Don't know this for sure, but they probably had some pro handicappers testify that the combinations that were
chosen by the guys who fixed that pick six were not of
the norm.(Who would single the first 3 or 4 races them
being longshots and buy the rest of the ticket?).