From Popular Mechanics comes this fascinating article that questions whether forensics has enough science...
CSI Myths: The Shaky Science Behind Forensics
If you ask me, more science can't hurt any field, including that of forensics.
For those who are interested in forensics, ForensicLinks is a great online reference tool.
I think the justice system is really more about the attorneys than the evidence - "If the glove don't fit - acquit" - it seems like if it's not DNA then it's all spin.
ReplyDeleteinteresting post - thanks!
Don't get me started on the justice system. It goes like this: a complaint is made and the search for evidence to support the complaint begins. There is no search for truth, only support of claim. Big huge difference.
ReplyDeleteI agree... you can't have too much science.
crazy4coens: You have a point. OJ is free because some hired guns (legal & forensic) insinuated doubt into much of the mountain of evidence and a bunch of highly gullible jurors were swayed into believing the lie.
ReplyDeleteAnanda Girl: I hear you. It annoys me to no end too.
ReplyDeleteA good defense attorney often overturns a lot of forensic "evidence." DNA is pretty solid, but other methods used in forensics have room for multiple interpretations.
ReplyDeleteAs one who watches all the CSI programs on television, I found this post of great interest.
Always On Watch: Glad you liked it. I was a fan of forensics before it became popular and while it was considered 'morbid' entertainment.
ReplyDelete