Jump to content
Maniac Muslim Forums

Recommended Posts

Heard this quote in a lecture today and it really stuck with me. So intriguing in it's simplicity. It truly is the creed of forensic science.

 

It really sums up the gist of it all and makes you realise that no matter how good you think you are, you'll never get away with it. And this applies not just here but in the hereafter too. The world, your body, the things you see and touch will all bear witness either for you or against you on one day, in the future.

 

"Wherever he steps, whatever he touches, whatever he leaves, even unconsciously, will serve as silent evidence against him. Not only his fingerprints or his footprints, but his hair, the fibres from his clothes, the glass he breaks, the tool mark he leaves, the paint he scratches, the blood or semen that he deposits or collects - all these and more bear mute witness against him. This is evidence that does not forget. It is not confused by the excitement of the moment. It is not absent because human witnesses are. It is factual evidence. Physical evidence cannot be wrong; it cannot perjure itself; it cannot be wholly absent. Only its interpretation can err. Only human failure to find it, study and understand it, can diminish its value."

 

Dr Paul Kirk (1953)

 

Sounds like a little too much faith in science which is not perfect. But this guy goes a little further by dismissing any and all errors as interpretational error. No wonder a lot of innocent people are in jail because DNA testing is flawed and has been shown to be flawed by still used in court.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Sounds like a little too much faith in science which is not perfect. But this guy goes a little further by dismissing any and all errors as interpretational error. No wonder a lot of innocent people are in jail because DNA testing is flawed and has been shown to be flawed by still used in court.

DNA testing in it's current form is flawed but there are other techniques coming out and being used which work.

 

As for his dismissive nature of evidential error; he is entirely correct. Evidence does not lie. Only the interpretation can vary (sometimes) but that is why the adversarial court system is used

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DNA testing in it's current form is flawed but there are other techniques coming out and being used which work.

 

As for his dismissive nature of evidential error; he is entirely correct. Evidence does not lie. Only the interpretation can vary (sometimes) but that is why the adversarial court system is used

define evidence

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

define evidence

 

A material object, document or testimony that provides irrefutable and factual information. That's the very basic legal definition.

It goes further than that though. Evidence can only be accepted in court if the production/exhibit is known to have followed a chain of custody that was not compromised at any point, and the statement/opinion provided to the court is that of an approved expert witness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

A material object, document or testimony that provides irrefutable and factual information. That's the very basic legal definition.

It goes further than that though. Evidence can only be accepted in court if the production/exhibit is known to have followed a chain of custody that was not compromised at any point, and the statement/opinion provided to the court is that of an approved expert witness.

So does a trace of blood in it self constitude evidence, or does the scientific analysis becomes a part of the evidence?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So does a trace of blood in it self constitude evidence, or does the scientific analysis becomes a part of the evidence?

The blood itself may or may not be of evidential value. That is why analyses are carried out on the blood to determine whether or not it actually is blood, whether the blood is human or not and whose blood it actually is.

 

Along with that comes determining directionality etc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The blood itself may or may not be of evidential value. That is why analyses are carried out on the blood to determine whether or not it actually is blood, whether the blood is human or not and whose blood it actually is.

 

Along with that comes determining directionality etc

 

Blood in itself can never be an evidence. You always need a analysis and/or interpretation component. No physical thing in itself can ever be an evidence. You always need some analysis done on it and interpret the results. And every single scientific analysis carries uncertainty in its results.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Blood in itself can never be an evidence. You always need a analysis and/or interpretation component. No physical thing in itself can ever be an evidence. You always need some analysis done on it and interpret the results. And every single scientific analysis carries uncertainty in its results.

Actually no. When you find a stain that you think is blood, you carry out a presumptive test. If the test is positive, you move on to confirmatory. If that is also positive then you can say without a shadow of a doubt that the sample is definitely blood. You can also prove that the blood is human. That means that you have serological evidence and nobody can deny or bring to light any doubt in that statement because it is proven fact.

 

Thus the blood stain is evidence of bloodshed and cannot be doubted or denied. After this, you can move onto context etc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The World's Largest Virus Was Just Resurrected From 34,000-Year-Old Permafrost

 

Deep within the Siberian permafrost, nearly 100 feet underneath the frozen ground, it sat dormant, for centuries and centuries. Above ground, the glaciers receded, ancient humans arrived, and eventually, civilization developed.

 

Now, it's been thawed and revived, thanks to a team of French scientists. It's a virus, and its zombie-like resurrection goes to show that the microbes can persist for far longer than scientists have previously imagined.

 

"We guessed that virions could remain infectious at least that long," Claverie says. "The surprise came more from the fact that it was a giant virus and of a type totally different from the previous [modern] ones."

 

Until 2003, it was thought that all viruses were tiny - completely invisible under a standard light microscope and a fraction of the size of most bacterial cells. Since, several giant viruses have been discovered, including pandoraviruses, discovered by Claverie and Abergel in a water sample collected off the coast of Chile, which held the size record with a length of about one micrometer, or one-thousandth of a millimeter.

 

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/worlds-largest-virus-was-just-resurrected-34000-year-old-permafrost-180949932/?no-ist

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×