The Real CSI
This video raised many legitimate concerns about forensic science and the use of forensic science. Credentialing, regulations that are not in place, mistakes made by “experts”, and lawmakers using their opinions as expert testimony are all real problems with the forensic science field. The practice of fingerprint comparison is not regulated fairly and clearly as it was seen the case with Brandon Mayfield. He was wrongly accused of terrorism in Madrid Spain because his fingerprints were identified as a match to a partial fingerprint on evidence from the scene. It was concluded by “Experts” in their field that this evidence was 99% correct. However, what they did not testify to was that the match was based on their “opinion” that the fingerprint was a match, not that the scientific data was accurate. It was later determined that Brandon Mayfield was innocent only because new evidence was uncovered in Madrid that lead to the arrest to another man. Scientists and Law Enforcement have led the public to believe that fingerprint analysis is completely accurate and non- mistakable, but as Correspondent Lowell Bergman stated to Judge Donald Shelton of Michigan in the video “For generations, the FBI and their fingerprint examiners have maintained that fingerprint identification is “infallible,” routinely testifying that they are “100 percent certain” and there’s “zero percent” chance they could be wrong.” The Judge went on to say “Fingerprint examiners have been taught that there’s only one person in the world who could have left this fingerprint. There’s no scientific basis for that.” If there is no basis for this data why is the legal system using this for “expert testimony” to solve crimes? Fingerprinting is not the only forensic science that is in question. The video goes on to explain how DNA evidence and smell analysis was used in criminal cases and found to be flawed. It seems to me that there is a break in the system. Science is science...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document