Cherry Bomb
After listening to the last Undisclosed and having the statements of Michael Cherry be so much different from my own experiences in cellular communication, I was curious as to where his prior experience had been to see if the location/companies may explain this gap. Now CM and SS had cited him on multiple occasions and his company claims to have offered expert testimony in many trials along with the constant links to the NY Times articles, etc. where they are quoted as saying that cell data is ‘junk science’.
So, I hopped over to his website to find his CV or that of other technologists over at Cherry Biometrics. Now, my web surfing ability is not what it once was but I was unable find his CV or that of his partner and CTO of Cherry Biometrics, Manfred Schenk, linked at the site. This was a bit surprising for me so I started to just use Google to find the data. I could locate tidbits about prior jobs - Michael Cherry started DSP (which seems to be defunct since the 1990’s) along with prior roles as a consultant at Bell Labs and NASA. This sounds impressive to me but I could not find any timeframes for these assignments, information on job function as it relates to cellular communication, or educational background. Other than a couple of links to quotes about ‘junk science’ and some panel presentations, I was not able to find much of anything about him.
The same goes for his partner and CTO, Manfred Schenk. However, I was able to find some quotes from the trials in which he participated as an expert witness.
"Assistant Attorney General Lisa Marchese, who is prosecuting the case, challenged the credentials of Manfred Schenk, 73, of Los Angeles, who last worked directly for a cellphone firm in the early 1970s. Schenk said that the science shows that cellphones can connect with towers as far as 21 miles away and would not necessarily seek out the nearest tower."
Now, this seems a bit concerning if true – his last experience in cellular was in the early 1970’s? Could the Assistant AG be correct in this assertion?
So, I kept digging and found this:
(http://or.fd.org/Case%20Documents/Roberts%20opinion_order.pdf):
Petitioner offers the expert reports of Jeff Fischbach and Manfred Schenk to refute the prosecution's theory that (1) the connection of petitioner's cell phone call to the Kotobuki Way tower demonstrates she was near Kelley Point Park; and (2) the wire transfer information reflects that she was heading in an easterly direction away from Kelley Point Park and toward I–205.
Manfred Schenk, Chief Technology Officer of Cherry Biometrics, Inc., opines that the tower to which a cell phone call connects also may be affected by the cell phone provider's proprietary software (which takes into account factors wholly unrelated to whether a tower has the strongest measurable signal).
In a footnote at the end of the above, the court states the following:
Mr. Schenk's reports do not contain a recitation of his qualifications as an expert. See United States v. Eady, 2013 WL 4680527 *1 n. 3 (D.S.C. Aug. 30, 2013) (questioning his qualifications as an expert).
So, the court questioned his qualifications in this case as well? Is this a usual thing for the court to do? I would expect that from the opposing councel – not so much from the court itself. Now, CM quotes this case directly on his site so maybe he can provide some information on how common this is for the court to do.
So, kept digging and found this:
Defendant had a well-founded suspicion that the court would have excluded his former “expert” from testifying at trial, given that Mr. Schenk's opinions, based primarily on things he has read on the internet, matched the definition of ipse dixit. See Hr'g Tr., July 11, 2013, ECF No. 154 at 125:9–11
“Q: And this opinion of yours is based on things you've read on the Internet?
A: Yes.
Q: No actual work in the field?
A: Yes, okay, fine.
Q: Not since the 70s?
A: Okay, fine, yeah.”
Allowing Mr. Schenk to offer expert testimony in the complicated field of historical cell site analysis based primarily on internet research would be akin to allowing an engineer to testify he can turn lead into gold simply because he read the story of King Midas on the internet. See Gen. Elec. Co. v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 136, 146, 118 S.Ct. 512, 139 L.Ed.2d 508 (1997) (court is not required to admit an opinion based on the “ipse dixit of the expert” that creates “too great an analytical gap between the data and the opinion proffered”).
Now, I am not a lawyer – so again – I don’t know how common it is for an expert witness to have his expertise arise completely from things they read on the internet with no work in the actual field since the early 1970’s.
I am not claiming this guys is not an expert (there are many smart people educated entirely through their own research) but that seems to be what the court is stating given the “ipse dixit of the expert” ruling. How common is this?
I don’t believe that SS and especially CM would link to information from Cherry Biometrics without thoroughly vetting Michael Cherry and Manfred Schenk. So, I am going to assume that they have access to the CV’s of both individuals and they could provide them on their blogs or reddit or however would be allowed by Michael and Manfred. I have strong faith in the legal system that both the State and Defense will only act ethically in regards to expert witnesses so there has to be compelling information on both Michael and Manfred or they never would have been allowed to testify – unless my faith in the ethics of defense counsel is completely misplaced.
So, Undisclosed, can you please provide the information? I know most of the doubt regarding cell data is from the quotes often cited in the NYT attributed to Michael and Manfred. So, can you please provide the background of them both so people can properly weigh their credibility on the issue? They both made themselves public figures so I don’t think this would count as doxxing – if I am wrong, administrators please remove this post.
Posted Aug 1, 2015, 4:10 PM UTC