A lesson about scientific proofs vs. “causation beliefs” use in courts

This written appellate opinion sums up the challenge of “gatekeepers” (the judges) at the trial level filtering out expert witness bombast of opinion from actual scientific “causation.” The bombast in the forensic field of testimony can be seen in the hair, bitemark, psych profilers, bullet lead matchers, and not a few rogue blood pattern reconstructionists.

Here’s the clear distinction courts should conceptualize: (It’s in the last sentence).

Of course, its a Canadian court. 

Thanks to Emma Cunliffe at UBC. 

About csidds

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

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