When science is not important, forensic evidence is just hocus-pocus ( i.e. mumbo-jumbo; “complicated activity or language usually intended to obscure and confuse” ) in the courtroom.
All I can say from the cases in The Latest from the World of Bite mark Evidence is that…..
- some (not all) prosecutors only use DNA evidence when it suits the prosecution,
- most (but not all) gatekeepers are too over-worked to read Science, or the forensic publications of the National Academies of Science, and
- law /judges’ schools need exposure to good and bad science in their coursework.
Here is what law prof Brendan Garrett’s Forensics Forum has to say about this:
