There've been some scandals in the news of late about bad evidence causing folks to be wrongfully convicted of crimes. Texas. North Carolina. Even stuff from the FBI lab. Thankfully, DNA evidence is becoming a dominate factor and has rescued many a poor soul who has been wrongfully convicted on eyewitness testibaloney and other less reliable forms of proof.
I was always worried about handwriting analysis. I'm not talking about the sleazy scam of reading character traits by looking at a sample of your writing. Oh yes, the pressure here and the loops there show that you are a handsome, intelligent, soon-to-be-rich male with a latent love of didgeridoo tunes and a subliminal compulsion to wear Victoria's Secret lingerie.
Nope, we're talking about the scientific comparison of two exemplars to determine if the same person wrote both. What bothers me is I prefer my scientific evidence to be over-whelmingly certain. Like, "the chances of someone else having this DNA are one in two-hundred-billion." Or, "there is no other human with this same fingerprint."
Handwriting experts testify with a lotta "appears", and "looks like", indecisive stuff like that. First one I ever used made me suspicious.
We were prosecuting a forgery case that went to trial. An expert from the FBI lab was our forensic witnesses. I met him before trial and asked about his testimony. He shrugged, sorta noncommittal, and asked, "What kind of case do you have against him."
I told him what we had and that it was strong. He brightened, "Well then, I think we can put this joker away." And on the stand, he did just that causing me to wonder just how he would've testified if I'd said we had a weak case.
Probably just me, but I want that one in two-hundred-billion certainty. At least I would if I was innocent and on trial and there wasn't any DNA or fingerprints to save my bacon. Especially in Texas and North Carolina.
I was always worried about handwriting analysis. I'm not talking about the sleazy scam of reading character traits by looking at a sample of your writing. Oh yes, the pressure here and the loops there show that you are a handsome, intelligent, soon-to-be-rich male with a latent love of didgeridoo tunes and a subliminal compulsion to wear Victoria's Secret lingerie.
Nope, we're talking about the scientific comparison of two exemplars to determine if the same person wrote both. What bothers me is I prefer my scientific evidence to be over-whelmingly certain. Like, "the chances of someone else having this DNA are one in two-hundred-billion." Or, "there is no other human with this same fingerprint."
Handwriting experts testify with a lotta "appears", and "looks like", indecisive stuff like that. First one I ever used made me suspicious.
We were prosecuting a forgery case that went to trial. An expert from the FBI lab was our forensic witnesses. I met him before trial and asked about his testimony. He shrugged, sorta noncommittal, and asked, "What kind of case do you have against him."
I told him what we had and that it was strong. He brightened, "Well then, I think we can put this joker away." And on the stand, he did just that causing me to wonder just how he would've testified if I'd said we had a weak case.
Probably just me, but I want that one in two-hundred-billion certainty. At least I would if I was innocent and on trial and there wasn't any DNA or fingerprints to save my bacon. Especially in Texas and North Carolina.
No comments:
Post a Comment