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.
6 comments:
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.
interesting 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.
I 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.
Ananda Girl: I hear you. It annoys me to no end too.
A 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.
As 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.
Post a Comment