PCAST Rebuke
Posted: Thu Jan 14, 2021 6:44 am
I am long removed from the forensic field these days, but read the report with interest. I agree with the decisions presented concerning the PCAST and metrology in forensics. I was particularly pleased with the following references in the report:
“Kumho Tire Court stressed that the assessment of reliability may appropriately focus on the personal knowledge, skill, or experience of the expert witness. “Kumho Tire, 526 U.S. at 150”: “United States Department of Justice Statement on the PCAST Report: Forensic Science in Criminal Courts: Ensuring Scientific Validity of Feature-Comparison Methods, January 13, 2021
This had been earlier labeled KSA’s (knowledge, skills and abilities) in an examiner’s preferred qualities.
“Moreover, the classification of a “source identification,” “source exclusion,” “inconclusive,” or other conclusion is ultimately an examiner’s decision.“ Ibid:
Along this line, I have long appreciated the following statement by Harold Tuthill as follows: “…comparison is the intuitive appraisal of the complex shapes and contours of the characteristics…” Harold Tuthill, “Individualization: Principles and Procedures in Criminalistics” (1994), with stress on “intuitive”!!
Examiners these days are treading in a virtual minefield with some of the said ‘mines’ having been placed by professional colleagues through their various studies, opinions and publication. DOJ sums it up in their closing remarks: “Verification by a second examiner, technical review, case controls, and other quality assurance measures used by accredited laboratories are critical components of risk management and mitigation.”
As I rarely post these days, I want to add to Texas Pat, if you read this and I am pretty sure you will, I like your ‘signature’ with one slight modification: stuck now in the 21st Century with no way (desire) to go back."