Product Description
An attorney and an expert in using probability in decision making describe a powerful new approach to presenting scientific evidence and cross examining expert witnesses in court. Using clear practical terms, they explain the principles of interpretation applicable to all forms of scientific evidence. These principles demonstrate how evidence should be imparted by expert witnesses as well as considered and combined with other evidence by jurors. Authentic case studies illustrate the operation of interpretation principles and how the problems which arose in these cases should have been avoided. Specific evidential areas covered include database matching, transfer evidence, blood and DNA evidence, fingerprints, handwriting and behavioral evidence.
From the Inside Flap
Interpreting Evidence Evaluating Forensic Science in the Courtroom Bernard Robertson • Professor G. A. Vignaux With the increasing availability of sophisticated methods of analyzing physical evidence, the weight attributed to that evidence is becoming more and more important. The decisive factor in a case can often be the methods adopted by both the defence and prosecution to evaluate physical evidence and cross–examine opposing expert witnesses. Interpreting Evidence is a ground–breaking work in this fascinating area of law. It is the first book–length version explaining modern methods of interpreting scientific evidence for lawyers and scientists alike. The methods presented by the authors use basic principles of logic and probability in a non–mathematical and clear manner. Interpreting Evidence avoids describing in great detail the ever changing techniques of forensic scientific examination — instead it explains in clear and logical terms principles of interpretation which are applicable to all forms of scientific evidence. These principles explain how witnesses should present their evidence and how the litigants should attempt to seek out the true value of the evidence. The book is illustrated throughout with studies of reported cases showing how the principles of interpretation advocated by the authors could have been used to avoid the problems which actually arose. In addition to explaining the principles of interpretation, the authors expose some common fallacies which exist in forensic science cases and consider some specific types of scientific evidence in the light of their analysis. The authors also consider the implications of their approach on reforming the law of evidence and procedure.
