this is a good summary of some of the inconsistencies of forensic science.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ScmJvmzDcG0

we are being taught to be objective and meticulous in analytical procedures, partly because of the Daubert Principle (which states, among other things, that admissible expert evidence procedures must be backed by peer review ) but mainly because of bias and the mentioned, playing for a team, aspect.

One of the initiatives that has come out of the report mentioned in the John Oliver show is the push for ‘court appointed experts’. this means that the forensic analysis will be done by neither the prosecution nor the defense teams, but all the results will be available to both.

Arts said:

this is a good summary of some of the inconsistencies of forensic science.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ScmJvmzDcG0

we are being taught to be objective and meticulous in analytical procedures, partly because of the Daubert Principle (which states, among other things, that admissible expert evidence procedures must be backed by peer review ) but mainly because of bias and the mentioned, playing for a team, aspect.

One of the initiatives that has come out of the report mentioned in the John Oliver show is the push for ‘court appointed experts’. this means that the forensic analysis will be done by neither the prosecution nor the defense teams, but all the results will be available to both.

It’s a stretch calling forensics science tbh ;)

poikilotherm said:

Arts said:

this is a good summary of some of the inconsistencies of forensic science.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ScmJvmzDcG0

we are being taught to be objective and meticulous in analytical procedures, partly because of the Daubert Principle (which states, among other things, that admissible expert evidence procedures must be backed by peer review ) but mainly because of bias and the mentioned, playing for a team, aspect.

One of the initiatives that has come out of the report mentioned in the John Oliver show is the push for ‘court appointed experts’. this means that the forensic analysis will be done by neither the prosecution nor the defense teams, but all the results will be available to both.

It’s a stretch calling forensics science tbh ;)

it is a parasitic practice. It’s science but the analytical tools and practices have to be peer reviewed and court approved so limited in some cases. It borrows from all the other sciences and uses the hardworking scientific community’s knowledge in its own application… so it’s not that much of a stretch..

in summary- real science with legal overtones

Arts said:

this is a good summary of some of the inconsistencies of forensic science.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ScmJvmzDcG0

we are being taught to be objective and meticulous in analytical procedures, partly because of the Daubert Principle (which states, among other things, that admissible expert evidence procedures must be backed by peer review ) but mainly because of bias and the mentioned, playing for a team, aspect.

One of the initiatives that has come out of the report mentioned in the John Oliver show is the push for ‘court appointed experts’. this means that the forensic analysis will be done by neither the prosecution nor the defense teams, but all the results will be available to both.

That sounds like a good idea, they already use outsiders for psych and psychiatric reports which is usually organised by corrective services

Arts said:

poikilotherm said:

Arts said:

this is a good summary of some of the inconsistencies of forensic science.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ScmJvmzDcG0

we are being taught to be objective and meticulous in analytical procedures, partly because of the Daubert Principle (which states, among other things, that admissible expert evidence procedures must be backed by peer review ) but mainly because of bias and the mentioned, playing for a team, aspect.

One of the initiatives that has come out of the report mentioned in the John Oliver show is the push for ‘court appointed experts’. this means that the forensic analysis will be done by neither the prosecution nor the defense teams, but all the results will be available to both.

It’s a stretch calling forensics science tbh ;)

it is a parasitic practice. It’s science but the analytical tools and practices have to be peer reviewed and court approved so limited in some cases. It borrows from all the other sciences and uses the hardworking scientific community’s knowledge in its own application… so it’s not that much of a stretch..

in summary- real science with legal overtones

wildly inaccurate and imprecise too, it’s more akin to economics.




Maybe that’s a little harsh…

Cymek said:

Arts said:

this is a good summary of some of the inconsistencies of forensic science.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ScmJvmzDcG0

we are being taught to be objective and meticulous in analytical procedures, partly because of the Daubert Principle (which states, among other things, that admissible expert evidence procedures must be backed by peer review ) but mainly because of bias and the mentioned, playing for a team, aspect.

One of the initiatives that has come out of the report mentioned in the John Oliver show is the push for ‘court appointed experts’. this means that the forensic analysis will be done by neither the prosecution nor the defense teams, but all the results will be available to both.

That sounds like a good idea, they already use outsiders for psych and psychiatric reports which is usually organised by corrective services

they are not outsiders if they are hired by one side or the other… that’s the point.

In the USA (and here to a lesser degree) the defense can hire their own ‘experts’ and present their findings in court and, wouldn’t you know, they often conflict with the police expert.

The system of court appointed experts is an initiative being considered in Australia.. it will be a team who is employed by courts, so they have a job no matter what evidence is presented. This will hopefully move a ways towards removing investigator bias and with the same information being available to both sides, the SCIENCE should speak for itself. That’s not to say that the tools are perfect.. they certainly can be flawed.. as with anything that involves humans.. but it’s a step in the right direction.

The Innocence Project is busy testing and retesting flawed evidence towards exoneration.. unfortunately some of them have to be offered posthumously .

poikilotherm said:

Arts said:

poikilotherm said:

It’s a stretch calling forensics science tbh ;)

it is a parasitic practice. It’s science but the analytical tools and practices have to be peer reviewed and court approved so limited in some cases. It borrows from all the other sciences and uses the hardworking scientific community’s knowledge in its own application… so it’s not that much of a stretch..

in summary- real science with legal overtones

wildly inaccurate and imprecise too, it’s more akin to economics.




Maybe that’s a little harsh…

it is harsh.

as a science it is following the steps of finding inconsistencies and altering procedures saying ‘it was wrong’ is not a problem in science

poikilotherm said:

wildly inaccurate and imprecise too, it’s more akin to economics.

You’ve got some serious butt-hurt about economics. Screwed over by some rogue accountant? :-p

Witty Rejoinder said:

poikilotherm said:

wildly inaccurate and imprecise too, it’s more akin to economics.

You’ve got some serious butt-hurt about economics. Screwed over by some rogue accountant? :-p

Snorted his coke perhaps

Witty Rejoinder said:

poikilotherm said:

wildly inaccurate and imprecise too, it’s more akin to economics.

You’ve got some serious butt-hurt about economics. Screwed over by some rogue accountant? :-p

he’s also not keen on forensic science… shrug

Witty Rejoinder said:

poikilotherm said:

wildly inaccurate and imprecise too, it’s more akin to economics.

You’ve got some serious butt-hurt about economics. Screwed over by some rogue accountant? :-p

What’s an accountant got to do with economics?

Not really, it’s quite a good area to be in, you can be wildly wrong and still gainfully employed, if any other profession was wrong as often as economists, they’d be unemployed.

poikilotherm said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

poikilotherm said:

wildly inaccurate and imprecise too, it’s more akin to economics.

You’ve got some serious butt-hurt about economics. Screwed over by some rogue accountant? :-p

What’s an accountant got to do with economics?

Not really, it’s quite a good area to be in, you can be wildly wrong and still gainfully employed, if any other profession was wrong as often as economists, they’d be unemployed.

A good analogy is that economics is like driving a car with the front windscreen painted black so you only have what’s in the rear view mirror to guide you. Anyway we don’t all like the same things so I’ll leave it at that.

Witty Rejoinder said:

poikilotherm said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

You’ve got some serious butt-hurt about economics. Screwed over by some rogue accountant? :-p

What’s an accountant got to do with economics?

Not really, it’s quite a good area to be in, you can be wildly wrong and still gainfully employed, if any other profession was wrong as often as economists, they’d be unemployed.

A good analogy is that economics is like driving a car with the front windscreen painted black so you only have what’s in the rear view mirror to guide you. Anyway we don’t all like the same things so I’ll leave it at that.

No one wants to be in that car.

Back to the OP, that’ll be good but one wonders how they’ll maintain chain of custody for sample to ensure no tampering when the stuff is removed form the crime scene.

Arts said:

this is a good summary of some of the inconsistencies of forensic science.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ScmJvmzDcG0

we are being taught to be objective and meticulous in analytical procedures, partly because of the Daubert Principle (which states, among other things, that admissible expert evidence procedures must be backed by peer review ) but mainly because of bias and the mentioned, playing for a team, aspect.

One of the initiatives that has come out of the report mentioned in the John Oliver show is the push for ‘court appointed experts’. this means that the forensic analysis will be done by neither the prosecution nor the defense teams, but all the results will be available to both.

Very reasonable and removing possible bias improves the quality of information.

poikilotherm said:

Back to the OP, that’ll be good but one wonders how they’ll maintain chain of custody for sample to ensure no tampering when the stuff is removed form the crime scene.

the chain of custody won’t change, you’ll still have to sign for and maintain the integrity of the evidence and be accountable. I don’t see why that will have to change.

Arts said:

this is a good summary of some of the inconsistencies of forensic science.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ScmJvmzDcG0

we are being taught to be objective and meticulous in analytical procedures, partly because of the Daubert Principle (which states, among other things, that admissible expert evidence procedures must be backed by peer review ) but mainly because of bias and the mentioned, playing for a team, aspect.

One of the initiatives that has come out of the report mentioned in the John Oliver show is the push for ‘court appointed experts’. this means that the forensic analysis will be done by neither the prosecution nor the defense teams, but all the results will be available to both.

> admissible expert evidence procedures must be backed by peer review

That’s ridiculous. Repeal that law to start with.

I always say that there is a huge difference between objectivity and accountability. Objectivity is vital. Accoutability is merely a means of wasting huge amounts of time and money.

I think that expert witnesses should be given at least the same rights as the person in the dock. Presumed innocent until proven guilty. Ie. Expert witnesses don’t need to show accountability until they’ve been proved unreliable.

mollwollfumble said:

Arts said:

this is a good summary of some of the inconsistencies of forensic science.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ScmJvmzDcG0

we are being taught to be objective and meticulous in analytical procedures, partly because of the Daubert Principle (which states, among other things, that admissible expert evidence procedures must be backed by peer review ) but mainly because of bias and the mentioned, playing for a team, aspect.

One of the initiatives that has come out of the report mentioned in the John Oliver show is the push for ‘court appointed experts’. this means that the forensic analysis will be done by neither the prosecution nor the defense teams, but all the results will be available to both.

> admissible expert evidence procedures must be backed by peer review

That’s ridiculous. Repeal that law to start with.

I always say that there is a huge difference between objectivity and accountability. Objectivity is vital. Accoutability is merely a means of wasting huge amounts of time and money.

I think that expert witnesses should be given at least the same rights as the person in the dock. Presumed innocent until proven guilty. Ie. Expert witnesses don’t need to show accountability until they’ve been proved unreliable.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daubert_standard

doesn’t actually look like a law to me. but i guess you have read up about it and know more.

mollwollfumble said:

Arts said:

this is a good summary of some of the inconsistencies of forensic science.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ScmJvmzDcG0

we are being taught to be objective and meticulous in analytical procedures, partly because of the Daubert Principle (which states, among other things, that admissible expert evidence procedures must be backed by peer review ) but mainly because of bias and the mentioned, playing for a team, aspect.

One of the initiatives that has come out of the report mentioned in the John Oliver show is the push for ‘court appointed experts’. this means that the forensic analysis will be done by neither the prosecution nor the defense teams, but all the results will be available to both.

> admissible expert evidence procedures must be backed by peer review

That’s ridiculous. Repeal that law to start with.

I always say that there is a huge difference between objectivity and accountability. Objectivity is vital. Accoutability is merely a means of wasting huge amounts of time and money.

I think that expert witnesses should be given at least the same rights as the person in the dock. Presumed innocent until proven guilty. Ie. Expert witnesses don’t need to show accountability until they’ve been proved unreliable.

unfortunately expert witnesses have been proved unreliable but by then its too late and the accused has been in prison for many years or already on death row based on the experts testimony. No, the expert witness needs to use procedures that have been approved…

Defence Lawyer-: Your name is Trevor and you are an expert in sink holes, is that correct?
Expert-: Yes, I’ve been interested in sink holes all my life and have a certificate in Sink Holeology from the online University of West Albuquerque.
Defence Lawyer-: You’ve examined the excavation where the deceased was found?
Expert-: Yes, in some detail.
Defence Lawyer-: Now Trevor I want you to answer the next question as objectively as you can relying solely on your expertise in this filed, my clients future accommodation could well hinge on your answer.
Expert-: I’ll do my best.
Defence Lawyer-: Is it possible that the deceased, along with his rideon mower could have been sucked into a sudden sink hole that subsequently covered over to a depth of six feet?
Expert-: Absolutely.
Defence Lawyer-: The defence rests My’lud.

Arts said:

this is a good summary of some of the inconsistencies of forensic science.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ScmJvmzDcG0

we are being taught to be objective and meticulous in analytical procedures, partly because of the Daubert Principle (which states, among other things, that admissible expert evidence procedures must be backed by peer review ) but mainly because of bias and the mentioned, playing for a team, aspect.

One of the initiatives that has come out of the report mentioned in the John Oliver show is the push for ‘court appointed experts’. this means that the forensic analysis will be done by neither the prosecution nor the defense teams, but all the results will be available to both.

Good video.