I've had to testify in front of a grand jury before. I definitely know that being questioned in front of people is not not as easy as typing into a discussion thread at my leisure. But again, this is not a task of recall, i.e. "what were you doing the night the victim was murdered?" or "Do you remember your mother's birthday?". This is a question of fundamentals. Again, the expert is not being asked to recall the result of `3 / 16`, he's being asked if
he can do it on a calculator. This goes on for several minutes.
Here's what would be a perfectly understandable answer: "I don't recall how I got 68 when now that I calculate it, the answer appears to be 63.75" Because sure, it could be there was a typo in the initial work of the expert, and it has only now been revealed. But this is not what the expert admits to failing to. He's asked point blank if he can use a calculator: "Will you please convert 3 / 16ths to a decimal value...Can you?" And he says, "I will not do it without my reference material".
Again, completely understandable if he says "I will not do it without a calculator". That is not the issue of contention here.
I'm a bit surprised to see people jump to his defense. Calculations like these are the foundation of the science and "science" that is used to convict/fuck people over. And even though this seems to be a minor case, a difference of feet in any kind of reconstruction (scientific or witness testimony) can mean the difference between conviction and acquittal. This is just one case that has been spotted by a writer/artist to dramatize for humorous effect. There are countless more, involving less obvious mathematical errors, that may impact the justice system. That we can't even agree that this witness is either too incompetent to trust the evidence that he's provided to his side, or too disingenuous to admit his mistake...and we wonder why shit happens?