| |  | |
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.
RSS Feed
