Amy Hart wrote:But there wasn't a latent print examiner available who could support the science underlying the discipline?
My favorite quote was from one of the lawyers saying that judges and lawyers are scientifically illiterate, so someone "upstream" needs to be in charge. But I wonder who can make rules over the courtrooms.....perhaps a higher judge and more lawyers? And let's not forget that the NAS report that he so championed was authored by a judge and was full of lawyers.
kevin wrote: I think the problem with fingerprints in (defense) lawyer's minds is that it potentially ties a suspect to a scene or item. Lawyers have so many 'outs' (cross contamination being one) with DNA, trace, and qualtitative analysis that are not possible with fingerprints. You just don't have those 'outs' with fingerprints ergo these studies on confirmation bias, reproducibility, is it a true science?, did you compare everyone in the world to this print?, etc. I think Gerald posted once saying if defense really thought the print didn't belong to their client they would simply call one of the couple hundred private examiners and present that in court. But the payoff for that kind of move isn't there so it hardly ever happens. It is more productive to attack the science.
RM1023 wrote:My favorite quote was from one of the lawyers saying that judges and lawyers are scientifically illiterate, so someone "upstream" needs to be in charge.
Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider], Bing [Bot], ogt5188 and 3 guests