Question

“Why do you think the forensic expert profession and training techniques/methods are under so much scrutiny?”

Answer 1

Scientific evidence and expert witness testimony form an integral part of worldwide criminal trials. Yet while we live in an increasingly sophisticated scientific age of expert knowledge, a growing reliance on forensic evidence is a double-edged sword There is no question that forensic science methods have almost incredible capacities for the identification, investigation and prosecution of crime. But any effective drug, if given in large dosages or to the wrong patients, can have strong side effects. Forensic scientific evidence has gained an aura of prestige for itself which is bordering on infallibility. Which leaves unreliable expert evidence as a potential source of injustice.

Scientific evidence is circumstantial, to begin with. It can be a strong proof of the identity of the offender, his presence at the crime scene, or association with incriminating objects such as the murder weapon or stolen property. But at best it has very little, and usually no interest in demonstrating certain aspects of criminal liability such as intent, reasons for explanation, justification, or the absence of consent from the victim. It usually leaves ample room for interpretation, in other words.

There will always be a chance of mistake, due to human fallibility, that must be acknowledged regardless of our efforts to identify justice miscarriages. Yet one aspect of the facts of contemporary forensic science is truly novel. Beginning with the invention of fingerprinting around a century ago, forensic science worked on the premise that offenders or physical objects can be marked uniquely–an entirely "matching" fingerprint, tool mark, hair sample, carpet fiber, bite mark may suggest the actual offender