-
Asked by flora to Jamie, Jodie, Kat, Mark, Niamh on 15 Mar 2011 in Categories: Scientist.
-
Katherine Davies answered on 14 Mar 2011:
Hi
The methods I am developing are new – I have invented them. So, during the testing I am carring out, they are disproving themselves at times, so I have to go back over my data and make adjustments.
Im hoping that one day, they will be good enough for others to use around the world to help estimate time-since-death more accurately using insects, ultimately providing more evidence in criminal cases.
Kat
-
-
Jodie Dunnett answered on 14 Mar 2011:
No not yet. I haven’t actually published any of my data so it hasn’t been peer-reviewed as yet. Hopefully though I have done enough research to make sure that this won’t happen!
-
Jamie Pringle answered on 14 Mar 2011:
Good question Flora!
Nothing always works in all situations. A recent forensic case I worked on, I was asked to survey part of a field, in order to look for a buried murder victim. I then found 7 interesting areas that I asked the forensic search teams to investigate further. However – the chief suspect was watching and tried to move the body that same night – in the next field! So the body was not in my survey area, but the Police were still happy to get a result!
-
Niamh Nic Daeid answered on 15 Mar 2011:
Hi Flora – yes sometimes, that’s the nature of research work. You start off with a theory as to why something might occur, do some experiments or tests and then the data you get might disprove your original theory.. so you come up with a new theory to move forward with.
-
Mark Hill answered on 15 Mar 2011:
Hello Flora,
When I have finished my investigation I write up a detailed report, that is hopefully unbiaesd and balanced. I am there for the whole court, the defendant, Crown, judge and jury. I have to deliver the evidence in an unbiased and easily understood manner. By the time that I go to court my report has been critically peer reviewed and any maths, beyond the straightforward skidding and pedestrian-throw calcs, have been independently verified. I am very careful about my wording.
I will use phrases such as ‘In consideration of the physical evidence, of the vehicle damage, scene evidence and witness testimony, it is consistent with the (red car, travelling eastbound, crossing the centre-line and impacting with…).’ That is not to say that the evidence is not also consistent with another version of events, but that it is the one that, in my opinion, best fits the evidence. This is a ‘get out’ phrase, so that I don’t fall foul of being accused of getting it wrong. A good ‘expert’ witness should be careful and considerate with their phraseology. To answer your question, not so far, but I won’t say never. We are all human. The best thing to do if you are wrong, and know that you are, is to admit it as early as you can. To cover it up in denial is setting you up for a big fall, for which, in court, you may go to prison.Thanks for a good question. Mark.
Comments