| Author | Message | ||
     Gerald Clough (Gerald_clough) Member Username: Gerald_clough Post Number: 4 Registered: 07-2008 |
I don't know the answer to this. Well, maybe I do. Where I am, a lot of cases involve expert witnesses in other fields. Since there are always one or two experts on each side, and because they reach different conclusions, logically, half of them are wrong in each case. Some of these folks appear on both side in different cases from time to time. None of them can say that the court has, on more than one occasion, found them wrong or less credible than those who differed. While these case rarely offer the kind of absolute proof of error that we might find in latent cases, the fact remains that, even without knowing which times these experts were wrong, we know they were sometimes wrong. The fact is we simply can't always know when latent examiners are right and when they're wrong. Nor can we know when they're right but should not have concluded as they did. That's why I don't necessarily condemn an examiner for an error. I think we're seeking the unfindable when we imagine we can put anything in place that precludes error reaching court. I think the remedy lies in providing adversarial consulting. I don't think any honest and thoughtful examiner can really say he has never made an error and will never make one, unless he limits himself to what is, happily, the most clear and trivial comparisons. Actual lack of competence is another matter, but I do not believe a single error implies incompetence. | ||
| Supersleuth (Supersleuth) Member Username: Supersleuth Post Number: 2 Registered: 08-2008 |
I dont believe the prosecutor would know the previous history of the expert unless specifically asked if they've ever made a mistake - and we all know the answer to that. The 'ident' that made it to court had been examined by 4 people, the 4th person the one presenting the evidence at court | ||
| Gerald Clough (Gerald_clough) Member Username: Gerald_clough Post Number: 3 Registered: 07-2008 |
I think it's a difficult question. I see the point of zero tolerance. But I also think the fantasy that no competent examiner will ever make an error is behind some of the problems we're seen in the discipline. I suppose I would ask how one made it into court. No verification? Or could it be that the verifier was led to agree, rather than lay the deadly error onus on the examiner? Ultimately, speaking of experts in general, it's the prosecutors who give notice that they can no longer sponsor one expert's conclusions. | ||
| Supersleuth (Supersleuth) Member Username: Supersleuth Post Number: 1 Registered: 08-2008 |
I have been an Expert for 12 years and those Experts that have made wrong identifications have all been promoted within a year of the ident. In one case the ident had made it to court!!! They had attended a 2 week refresher course but retained their expert status Is this right??? If they cant do the job should they still be in the job. If it wasnt for a severe lack of experts and the Bureau desperate for staff i'm sure they would have been dealt with in a harsher manner. |
