Stupid Attorney taling about GPS's

"Ron Lee" wrote in message
...
"Dave" wrote:

Unaugmented GPS is accurate to within 7.2 meters longitudinally.


Go say that in sci.geo.satellite-nav and see what happens.

Probably not a bad number.

GPS augmented with WAAS is accurate to within 3.6 meters longitudinally.

Uhhhh, guys?

The GPS was placed on Scott's car by the police; it wasn't a factory
install.

The argument was that the antenna wasn't properly located and the evidence
flawed.

But the judge just said the prosecution could use the GPS evidence...


"Gerald Sylvester" wrote in message
ink.net...


I never read anything about this Scott Petersen murder
trial before. I saw a headline about a "GPS." I started
to read it and I guess the guys car had a GPS in it
and the prosecution is trying to place him at the murder
scene. Well the defense attorney is saying the GPS
is inaccurate due to a malfunction and made the
moronic comment of:
-------------
Peterson's attorney, Mark Geragos, argued that the information gathered
through global positioning system technology was not accurate. GPS uses
signals from dozens of satellites to show a receiver's position to
within a few feet.

"If the FAA will not approve GPS for the landing of an aircraft, how can
a court of law approve its forensic use in a capital case?" he said.
--------------

I don't know if they are approved for auto-landing but
I'm fairly certain it can get me a few hundred feet AGL
on the exact glideslope of an airport 8000 miles away.
I'd generally consider that accurate enough. grin

My handheld GPS-V for my car has lead me to within a few
feet of the front *main* door of places in Amsterdam, Rome,
New York and San Francisco. I'd generally consider that accurate.




Gerald

How did the GPS units installed in Scott Peterson's car transmit the
location information back to the police?

Some kind of continuous real-time transmitting capability? (Is this
built into the GPS system itself?)

Or did they have to surreptitiously recover the units from time to time
and downloaded data stored in memory? (And if so, are such units
available to the general public?)

"AES/newspost" wrote in message
...
How did the GPS units installed in Scott Peterson's car transmit the
location information back to the police?

The same way new cell phones and those "house arrest" braceletts do.

Some kind of continuous real-time transmitting capability? (Is this
built into the GPS system itself?)

The GPS system doesn't care.

AES/newspost wrote:
How did the GPS units installed in Scott Peterson's car transmit the
location information back to the police?
Some kind of continuous real-time transmitting capability? (Is this
built into the GPS system itself?)
Or did they have to surreptitiously recover the units from time to time
and downloaded data stored in memory? (And if so, are such units
available to the general public?)

There are several commercial tracking operations in business providing
the service. There are different methods of obtaining the tracking data.
Some are realtime transmitters, others are via interrogation.
Some services on high value rental cars will remotely shut the engine
off when the vehicle gets within so many miles of the Mexican border to
prevent auto theft.
Others, like OnStar, can detect airbag inflation, unlock car doors, etc.

On Wed, 18 Feb 2004 14:52:39 GMT Gerald Sylvester wrote:



I never read anything about this Scott Petersen murder
trial before. I saw a headline about a "GPS." I started
to read it and I guess the guys car had a GPS in it
and the prosecution is trying to place him at the murder
scene. Well the defense attorney is saying the GPS
is inaccurate due to a malfunction and made the
moronic comment of:
-------------
Peterson's attorney, Mark Geragos, argued that the information gathered
through global positioning system technology was not accurate. GPS uses
signals from dozens of satellites to show a receiver's position to
within a few feet.

"If the FAA will not approve GPS for the landing of an aircraft, how can
a court of law approve its forensic use in a capital case?" he said.


The technique is known as "casting a shadow of doubt". It works
wonderfully well. Jurors eat it up. He's doing his job.


R. Hubbell


--------------

I don't know if they are approved for auto-landing but
I'm fairly certain it can get me a few hundred feet AGL
on the exact glideslope of an airport 8000 miles away.
I'd generally consider that accurate enough. grin

My handheld GPS-V for my car has lead me to within a few
feet of the front *main* door of places in Amsterdam, Rome,
New York and San Francisco. I'd generally consider that accurate.




Gerald

In article 20040218083913.322b40c6@fstop, "R.Hubbell"
writes:


"If the FAA will not approve GPS for the landing of an aircraft, how can
a court of law approve its forensic use in a capital case?" he said.


The technique is known as "casting a shadow of doubt". It works
wonderfully well. Jurors eat it up. He's doing his job.


I would think he would be questioning what business the police had tracking
Peterson's whereabouts AFTER the crime was commited.

It seems the prosecution is trying him with character assasination after the
fact rather than with evidence of the crime itself. He'll probably wind up
being the first person executed for having an affair.

Don

--
Wm. Donald (Don) Tabor Jr., DDS
PP-ASEL
Chesapeake, VA - CPK, PVG

On 18 Feb 2004 18:56:17 GMT ackatyu (Wdtabor) wrote:

In article 20040218083913.322b40c6@fstop, "R.Hubbell"
writes:


"If the FAA will not approve GPS for the landing of an aircraft, how can
a court of law approve its forensic use in a capital case?" he said.


The technique is known as "casting a shadow of doubt". It works
wonderfully well. Jurors eat it up. He's doing his job.


I would think he would be questioning what business the police had tracking
Peterson's whereabouts AFTER the crime was commited.

Not following the trial but....
What's wrong with that? It's common for them to watch someone. What they
do can speak volumes even if it is not admissable it might lead them to
something else.

The defense should just keep casting doubts. Those doubts will stick in the
jurors' craw.



It seems the prosecution is trying him with character assasination after the
fact rather than with evidence of the crime itself. He'll probably wind up
being the first person executed for having an affair.

The guy has been tried in the media and found guilty. A lot of what they have
sounds circumstantial. There are a few twists to the case that are unusual.

His name was on a list of suspects that the police talked to about a missing
co-ed while he was at college.

There have been other cases of pregnant women that were killed and have
not had much attention at all.



R. Hubbell


Don

--
Wm. Donald (Don) Tabor Jr., DDS
PP-ASEL
Chesapeake, VA - CPK, PVG

I would think he would be questioning what business the police had tracking
Peterson's whereabouts AFTER the crime was commited.

At the time the devices were PROBABLY placed, this was a missing persons
case, and Scott was PROBABLY the prime suspect. The police (and I'm sure
a judge agreed at some point) were trying to surveil a suspect by using
these devices.

but... thats just speculation on my point.
Dave

It seems the prosecution is trying him with character assasination after the
fact rather than with evidence of the crime itself. He'll probably wind up
being the first person executed for having an affair.

Don

The attorney does not sound very stupid to me. His remarks do show what he
thinks of the jury.