Forensic Science Misconduct, Deceit and Solutions

PrintandBook

Within the following excellent article are examples of how forensic experts can mislead juries by using, either intentionally or by simple error, incorrect statements “couched” as ‘science.’  I would add that there are examples where experts address the courts and juries with pure fabricated falsehoods. These people sound legit, many times self-cite their own “work” or “work” from a single source  and hide from their audiences any semblance of honest academic and research. Readers can expect, in the near future, an expose on this specific topic via use of court transcripts of a criminal case. You will read the absolute truth of what happens in courts when a forensic ‘science’ takes root in the legal system using decades of non-science assumptions and now objects to criticisms of their failures, technical obsolescence and scrutiny of their ‘work.’

In the meantime, here is the opening paragraph of an excellent piece about false forensic science written by the Minnesota Innocence Project.

False testimony, exaggerated statistics, and laboratory fraud have all led to wrongful convictions. Jurors often give forensic science more weight, because it is provided by “experts.” However, when misconduct occurs the added weight is damaging and can lead to wrongful convictions. In some cases, labs and their personnel are not impartial, because they are too closely tied to police and prosecutors. Other times, a criminologist who lacks necessary knowledge may exaggerate findings and does not have to worry about being caught because the lawyer, judge, and jury have no background in the relevant science. In many cases, critical evidence is destroyed making re-testing to uncover the misconduct is impossible.

Read the entire article here. 

 

 

About csidds

Dr. Michael Bowers is a long time forensic consultant in the US and international court systems.
This entry was posted in forensic testimony, junk forensic science and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to Forensic Science Misconduct, Deceit and Solutions

  1. mbhauptle says:

    Reblogged this on Fantasy Forensic Science costs lives. and commented:
    The phrase “false testimony” is not accurate in describing an inadvertent error in judgment. I doubt any Forensic Odontologist would ever, ever admit to purposeful lack of scientific judgement. Remember semantics differ in the legal world. But, once proved wrong, quit!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s