So will any court actually endorse the scientific method for the admission of scientific evidence into court? The President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology has concluded that forensic bite-mark evidence is not scientifically valid. BUT additionally the report also criticizes other “pattern matching” forensic fields with varying degrees of severity, including shoe-print matching, firearms analysis, tool-mark analysis and even fingerprint matching (which likely has more evidentiary value than most other pattern-matching disciplines but is often overstated and needs more research to determine accuracy and margin for error). Pattern-matching fields of forensics basically involve a self-proclaimed expert looking at a piece of evidence and declaring by his or her own judgment whether it excludes, is consistent with or “matches” a suspect. It’s highly subjective.
3 Comments
7/13/2017 05:45:35 am
What a smashing article! Thanks for writing it and for sharing it with us.English is not my native language, that said the article content was so lucid and easy to understand I enjoyed reading every paragraph.
Reply
Great article! Thanks for sharing such a good information.The most simple yet complete and explaining the purity and main point behind the topic.Do keep sharing these kind of posts,they are really helpful in making our mind to good thinking and apply our thought.
Reply
Leave a Reply. |
Archives
March 2022
Categories |
Discussion of current legal issues
Henry Nellum case selected by USA Network as a compelling homicide trial to keep an eye on in 2018