linked - Investigating the Terror

and one was C-4; and I had individuals the same distance away,
I would expect totally different damage to those bodies.
OIG: Okay. And where did you learn all this from? I mean, is
there some literature out there, sir, that tells --
AGENT WILLIAMS: There's a good bit of literature.
OIG: Okay. And that literature would support your statement
about the damage to the bodies?
AGENT WILLIAMS: Yes, it would.
OIG: I see. Is there literature out there that supports your ability
to estimate a velocity of detonation of between 14,000, 15,500
feet per second based on the explosive damage? Is there
literature that indicates that a qualified expert can do that?
AGENT WILLIAMS: I don't know.
The thrust of Williams' OIG testimony is that he considered numerous
factors bearing on VOD, which he then filtered through his experience to
produce his VOD estimate. We find Williams' application of his
methodology flawed, because it is essentially an unscientific, unverifiable
process of intuition. This is apparent from some of the language Williams
used to describe his method of determining the VOD and weight of the
explosive: I can roughly get a feel that it was a very hot explosive or not
(emphasis added); [w]hat caused me to guess a velocity of detonation
(emphasis added); [t]hese things produced an impression on me
(emphasis added).
The application of the methodology is one of rough[] . . . feel[ings],
guess[es], and impression[s]. There was a complete absence of
empirical data to support any of the inferences Williams made from the
various factors he identified. For example, Williams emphasized that the
pitting and cratering within a radius of 4 feet from the seat of the