However, of the 17 examiners Dr Dror and Dr Hampikian approachedwho, unlike theoriginal two,
然而,在Dror博士和Hampikian接触的17个鉴定师中他们不像开始两位鉴定师那样,
knew nothing about the context of the crime,
对犯罪内容一无所知,
only one thought that the same suspect could not be excluded.
有一位认为一样的嫌疑不能被排除。
Twelve others excluded him, and four abstained.
另外十二位把他排除了,而四位弃权。
Though they cannot prove it, Dr Dror and Dr Hampikian suspect the difference in contextualinformation given to the examiners was the cause of the different results.
尽管他们无法证明,Dror博士和Hampikian博士怀疑鉴定师得到的上下文信息的区别是引起这些不同结果的原因。
The original pair may have subliminally interpreted ambiguous information in a way helpfulto the prosecution, even though they did not consciously realise what they were doing.
开始的两个人也许已经在下意识里以某种有益于控方的方式破译了模棱两可的信息,即使他们没有清楚地意识到当时他们在做什么。
And DNA data are ambiguous more often than is generally realised.
【2015考研英语阅读司法科学】相关文章:
最新
2016-10-18
2016-10-11
2016-10-11
2016-10-08
2016-09-30
2016-09-30