Is Forensics truly science?

1. Washing Away of
Wrongs:
The “Cons” of Forensic Science

2. Simple Definition
Simply put, Forensic Science is the
attempt to apply Medical Science and
other types of data to a crime scene in
order to ascertain what occurred
However, CSI shows do not accurately
portray the trade

3. History of Forensics
1st written record 1248,
“Washing Away of
Wrongs”

Described difference
between evidence of
strangulation and drowning

Used Forensic Entomology
1598 Fortunatus was first
to practice Modern
Forensics
19th Century- Medical
knowledge recognized as
a legitimate way to
analyze crime scenes.

4. So What is Wrong With Forensic
Science?
No true licensing
organization dedicated to
oversee and punish
wrong doing
No research/ scientific
baselines ever
established for most
branches

Widely differing ‘standards’
vary by locale

Often expert witnesses are
NOT
 Many times findings based
on ‘feeling’ and opinion not
objective science

5. Debunked Forensic Methods
Examination of Saliva
and tongue

Used dried rice in the
mouth
Bullet-lead
 Belief that each batch
was chemically unique
Visits from “The Chalk
Fairy”

6. Bite Marks
Many people have been wrongly convicted
based on bite mark evidence
 One such man lacked two front teeth, yet a
full bite mark landed him in prison!
 The “Dentition Expert” was adamant it
matched

7. Bite Marks
The uniqueness of
human dentition
never established
Transfer of a unique
pattern to human skin
not established
Ability of skin to
maintain that pattern
not established.
63% error rate has
been cited

8. Hair Analysis
Hair Analysis is only Wrongly Accused:
conclusive enough to 
Donald E Gates
show certain Was convicted in
characteristics. 1982 based on hair
 Cannot be used to ID evidence
specific person  FBI Analysis claimed
 Has place but should hair found at scene
never be used to ID was “microscopically
person indistinguishable from
 Only DNA extracted Gates’ hair
from root could be 
Served 28 years
conclusive before found innocent!

9. Polygraph
“based on a false premise that …activation of the sympathetic
nervous system, is evidence of guilt, rather than the stress innocent
people feel from being placed as a suspect. …psychopaths, have a
basic defect of part of the brain called the amygdala, which makes
them uniquely resistant to anxiety! And of course uniquely
convincing liars. So the polygraph is weighted in favour of convicting
the innocent and freeing the psychopath. The polygraph should be
banned.”
-David Anderson, PhD
Results Cannot DETECT lying, only infer it

10. Fingerprinting
Many ‘experts’ match based
on experience and ‘feel’
The number of ‘points’
necessary vary from state to
state
 Some require only 6, and
others require more
 15 points used to be
considered a solid match
2004 Bombing lead to a wrong
arrest due to a 15 point match
to Muslim Lawyer in
Washington state-
He was innocent!

11. Arson Forensics
Faulty, out dated arson theories used to convict Willingham for the
arson deaths of his three daughters who perished in a house fire
 He was put to death
 Fire has since been ruled accidental
Flashover evidence made certain ID impossible
‘Crazed glass’ was once believed to only indicate accelerant, now
debunked
Burn pattern evidence and also charring of wood under aluminum
evidence now found unreliable
New guidelines released two months later that brought a new era of
fire science by 30 experts and better scientific data collected to
verify

12. Surely DNA is GOLD STANDARD,
Right?
Wrong.

The ‘foolproof’ forensic
standard has also been
under fire recently
How DNA evidence could be
faulty:

Contamination, accidental
or purposeful
 Faulty storage or collection
 Error in chain of command
hand off policies
But the most disturbing
problem with DNA evidence is:

13. It can be fabricated!
Samples can be fabricated by simply knowing the person’s DNA
profile

No actual tissue needed
It is so simple that even, “Any undergraduate could perform this.”
Nucleix from Tel Aviv has developed a test to distinguish real DNA
samples from fake ones

14. Then What IS the Future of
Forensic Science?
Single forensic method should
never determine the outcome
of a trial
 The more different types of
evidence, the greater the
chance of a fair trial
A TRUE governing body
should be established with real
licensing
Penalties for misrepresenting
forensic credentials
Expose each discipline to
rigorous testing
 establish baseline standards
that are consistent from one
municipality to the next

15. Conclusion
Forensics have their place and
should not be abandoned in the
prosecution of criminals
 Greater controls must be
established
Scientific method must be applied
to Forensic techniques for the
sake of Justice
 There may be other reasons for
the “evidence”
Its only ‘Justice’ if it is CORRECT!