Stupid Attorney taling about GPS's

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

Yea.. I caught that in the news too... Either the attorney is stupid, or
he is intentionally lying to try and save poor Scotty's ass.. Maybe the
prosecution should subpoena an FAA representative to refute those
claims. Of COURSE they mouthpiece is comparing apples to oranges. Cars
use GPS primarily for horizontal guidance. They are quite accurate in
that regard when they get a good signal. What is it.. within 10 feet now
with SA turned off for the past few years??

Airplanes get the same great horizonal guidance, and GPS has been used
for YEARS and approved in an enroute, terminal and approach environment.
The only thing keeping GPS from being used to "land airplanes" is the
vertical guidance component. 200 Feet astray from an airway centerline
is no biggie. 200 feet low on a precision approach to minimums is likely
worth a paragraph or two in the obituary section. I guess thats why all
the big fuss about WAAS, LAAS, RAIM and other cool terms like that.

I havent seen a single car crash proven to be caused by the GPS showing
the wrong altitude. grin Likewise, just cause GPS isnt able to give
precision approach quality vertical guidance to the whole of aviation
just yet doesnt mean its not accurate enough to show what 100 square
foot block of land poor Scotty's car happened to be in... or how many
times he parked near or drove by where they found his wife and kids
body.. Poor Scott didnt even know the cops had planted covert GPS
recievers on each of his 4 vehicles when he did all this. The next crop
of cell phones will be able to help you be tracked pretty closely too.
The ability was legislated so enhanced 911 systems could locate a
caller. The same ability can be used to locate a suspect. The moral? If
you are gonna do something bad, turn off your cell phone for a while

Good call on the judge allowing the evidence.

Wow.. big rant this time.
Dave


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.
--------------

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

"Dave S" wrote in message
news
Yea.. I caught that in the news too... Either the attorney is stupid, or
he is intentionally lying to try and save poor Scotty's ass.. Maybe the
prosecution should subpoena an FAA representative to refute those
claims.

All the prosecution needs is a Professional Land Surveyor, as registered by
the State of California. At that point Scott's Attorney would be well on
his way to giving testimony illegally.


Of COURSE they mouthpiece is comparing apples to oranges. Cars
use GPS primarily for horizontal guidance. They are quite accurate in
that regard when they get a good signal. What is it.. within 10 feet now
with SA turned off for the past few years??

Airplanes get the same great horizonal guidance, and GPS has been used
for YEARS and approved in an enroute, terminal and approach environment.
The only thing keeping GPS from being used to "land airplanes" is the
vertical guidance component. 200 Feet astray from an airway centerline
is no biggie. 200 feet low on a precision approach to minimums is likely
worth a paragraph or two in the obituary section. I guess thats why all
the big fuss about WAAS, LAAS, RAIM and other cool terms like that.

I havent seen a single car crash proven to be caused by the GPS showing
the wrong altitude. grin Likewise, just cause GPS isnt able to give
precision approach quality vertical guidance to the whole of aviation
just yet doesnt mean its not accurate enough to show what 100 square
foot block of land poor Scotty's car happened to be in... or how many
times he parked near or drove by where they found his wife and kids
body.. Poor Scott didnt even know the cops had planted covert GPS
recievers on each of his 4 vehicles when he did all this. The next crop
of cell phones will be able to help you be tracked pretty closely too.
The ability was legislated so enhanced 911 systems could locate a
caller. The same ability can be used to locate a suspect. The moral? If
you are gonna do something bad, turn off your cell phone for a while

Good call on the judge allowing the evidence.

Wow.. big rant this time.
Dave


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.
--------------

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

Tarver Engineering wrote:

All the prosecution needs is a Professional Land Surveyor, as registered by
the State of California. At that point Scott's Attorney would be well on
his way to giving testimony illegally.

1. Attorneys do not "give testimony".
2. There's no law against attorneys making false statements. They aren't under
oath.

George Patterson
A diplomat is a person who can tell you to go to hell in such a way that
you look forward to the trip.

"G.R. Patterson III" wrote in message
...

2. There's no law against attorneys making false statements.

If there was, courtrooms would become awfully quiet all over the country.

"G.R. Patterson III" wrote in message
...


Tarver Engineering wrote:

All the prosecution needs is a Professional Land Surveyor, as registered
by
the State of California. At that point Scott's Attorney would be well
on
his way to giving testimony illegally.

1. Attorneys do not "give testimony".

Clinton was disbarred over his attorny giving false testimony before the
court.

2. There's no law against attorneys making false statements. They aren't
under
oath.

you are mistaken.

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...

"G.R. Patterson III" wrote in message
...


Tarver Engineering wrote:

All the prosecution needs is a Professional Land Surveyor, as
registered
by
the State of California. At that point Scott's Attorney would be well
on
his way to giving testimony illegally.

1. Attorneys do not "give testimony".

Clinton was disbarred over his attorny [sic] giving false testimony before
the
court.

You are inaccurate in several respects. Clinton's license was suspended
for a specific period of time; he was not disbarred. He negotiated a
settlement with the Arkansas bar which had served him with a grievance
complaint for giving false testimony in a _Jones v. Clinton_ deposition.

2. There's no law against attorneys making false statements. They aren't
under
oath.

you are mistaken.

An attorney who knowingly misleads a court violates the canons of
professional ethics and is subject to discipline by the court and the bar.
He does not have to be under oath. However, if an attorney gives
materially false testimony while under oath he is also guilty of perjury,
ordinarily a felony.

On Wed, 18 Feb 2004 07:33:31 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote:

At that point Scott's Attorney would be well on
his way to giving testimony illegally.

The lawyer wasn't giving testimony! He can say any damn thing he
pleases, subject to being shut up by the judge.

Sheez. You're on this newsgroup, too?

all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

"Cub Driver" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 18 Feb 2004 07:33:31 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote:

At that point Scott's Attorney would be well on
his way to giving testimony illegally.

The lawyer wasn't giving testimony! He can say any damn thing he
pleases, subject to being shut up by the judge.

No.

Dave S wrote:

Good call on the judge allowing the evidence.

What evidence? Gerald's post simply stated that an attorney made an obviously
incorrect statement. What did I miss?

George Patterson
A diplomat is a person who can tell you to go to hell in such a way that
you look forward to the trip.