Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Forensic Science on Trial - Coggle Diagram
Forensic Science on Trial
Objective - provide disinterested objective science based evidence involving identity, source, connection, description and composition
Disinterested - Important Expression (expert isnt interested in the outcome, only interested in the quality of the analysis
Objective - Science Based
COMPARATIVE - fingerprints, shoemarks, toolmarks, firearm ID, subjective but systemised methods
EMPIRICAL - chemical, biological, molecular, optical (mostly objective
Interpretative Analysis - firescenes, BPA, accident reconstruction, shooting etc (highly subjective)
Observation - eyewitness (subjective)
Forensic Science Applications
Provide forensic intelligence to assist investigations
Provide evidence in a court of law
SCIENCE BASED ???
"Individualisation implies uniqueness"..... Thorton and Peterson 2008
Saks & Faigman (2008) "a group of non sciences, little to no basis in actual science, not tested and assumptions and exaggerated claims" eg shoemarks, bitemarks and fingerprints etc
"Criminalistics is the science of individualisation" Osterburg 1969
Scientific Model Principles
Develop a clear hypothesis
Test hypothesis
Provide detail of testing methods used (including) any statistics, error rates, degree of subjectivity
Repeatability of test by investigators and others to reproduce and test results
Types of Court Evidence
Character evidence
Hearsay evidence (not allowed in criminal court)
Eyewitness and lay identification evidence
Circumstantial evidence
Expert opinion evidence (forensic science, technical, medical
Identification evidence
Confession Evidence
Visual Evidence (CCTv and Photographs)
Law v Science Cultures (Williams)
Science - seeks truth, is descriptive, emphasises progress and emphasis on getting the facts right
Law - does justice, is prescriptive, emphasises on process, emphasis on settling disputes fairly and efficiently
Problems with Expert Witnesses - adversarial format creates conditions where experts are pitted against each other in search for the truth, bought and paid for by the side who has acquired their expertise
Defense will search for experts that will favour them, ask enough experts to get the answer you want
Code of Conduct Experts Section 177 - Expert v Expert and Expectation of getting results that assist the payer.
Forensic Science Reliability
Admissibility v Reliability (different concepts)
The scientific validity of methods (ie) repeatability
Kirks Concept - Metaphysical concept and conflicts with science
Expression of Findings (confidence v statistical
Forensic Science Review NAS and PCAST
Expression Used
Cannot exclude (issue with this term) inconclusive is better term
Provides evidence of contact
Entirely consistent with
Consistent with
Suggests contact
Could have come from
Points towards or indicates
Match
There is an association between
Errors
False/misleading testimony by forensic scientists 27%
Dishonest informants - 19%
Prosecutorial misconduct - 28%
Incompetent defense representations 19%
Police misconduct - 44%
False testimony by lay witnesses 17%
Forensic Science Testing Error - 63%
False confessions 17%
Eyewitness Reports - 71%
Forensic Reviews
Strengthening forensic science in the United States (a pathway forward) - National Research Council)
Report to the President (Forensic science in the criminal courts: ensuring scientific validity of feature comparison methods. (presidents council of advisors on science and tech (Obama started this PCAST)