UK Justice Forum 🇬🇧
Disappeared and Abducted Children and Young Adults => Madeleine McCann (3) disappeared from her parent's holiday apartment at Ocean Club, Praia da Luz, Portugal on 3 May 2007. No trace of her has ever been found. => Topic started by: OxfordBloo on May 05, 2015, 08:05:36 AM
-
Scientific Method and Forensic Procedure have many similarities and are essentially the application of the same process based on assumption of ignorance.
Both avoid assumption, belief, guesswork, politics and other weak methods of assessing a situation.
Scientific Method has disclosed more real and substantial defensible knowledge than any other method.
Forensic method involving assumptions of ignorance and innocence are seen as the best way to avoid false legal decisions in criminal cases.
This places the entire burden of proof on the proposer of a contention.
The fact that those basic building bricks of our legal and knowledge systems are ignored her in favour of bias, belief, gut feeling, and exercise of pore rather than rationality and fairness explains why so much ignorance still exists here.
38
-
Scientific Method and Forensic Procedure have many similarities and are essentially the application of the same process based on assumption of ignorance.
Both avoid assumption, belief, guesswork, politics and other weak methods of assessing a situation.
Scientific Method has disclosed more real and substantial defensible knowledge than any other method.
Forensic method involving assumptions of ignorance and innocence are seen as the best way to avoid false legal decisions in criminal cases.
This places the entire burden of proof on the proposer of a contention.
The fact that those basic building bricks of our legal and knowledge systems are ignored her in favour of bias, belief, gut feeling, and exercise of pore rather than rationality and fairness explains why so much ignorance still exists here.
That makes sense to me, but forensic science is constantly evolving and so-called "expert" evidence (based on inexact science) has at times led to the conviction of innocent people.
http://news.sky.com/story/1468102/fbi-admits-forensic-experts-gave-flawed-evidence
-
Where does 'expert opinion' fit into the scheme of things? Both prosecution and defence counsel often produce their 'experts' to give their interpretation of what the science means.
-
Where does 'expert opinion' fit into the scheme of things? Both prosecution and defence counsel often produce their 'experts' to give their interpretation of what the science means.
That's why courts "do law" not science.
-
That's why courts "do law" not science.
Agreed, but trials also take into account evidence and expert opinion. If the evidence or expert opinion is flawed, then there's a potential problem.
-
Agreed, but trials also take into account evidence and expert opinion. If the evidence or expert opinion is flawed, then there's a potential problem.
I agree. Forensic science is only as good as the interpretation put on it.
-
Agreed, but trials also take into account evidence and expert opinion. If the evidence or expert opinion is flawed, then there's a potential problem.
Our appeal system has been littered with such problems. Flawed forensic science believed by a jury.
There is a misconception that science is precise. There are two instances of common practice that I can think of where if you don't make the right guess you will wind up with the wrong answer.The right guess being based on knowledge and experience. Any one with no knowledge of the subject could be taught to do the mechanical bit in about 30 minutes.
-
Assuming that the scientific method avoids assumption, belief, guesswork, politics and other weak methods of assessing a situation is a fallacy. The initial choice what to study is affected by the scientist's aims, values, funding and beliefs, and they permeate the whole process thereafter.
-
Assuming that the scientific method avoids assumption, belief, guesswork, politics and other weak methods of assessing a situation is a fallacy. The initial choice what to study is affected by the scientist's aims, values, funding and beliefs, and they permeate the whole process thereafter.
Dr Marietta Higgs and reflex anal dilation spring to mind.
May God preserve us from the zealots.
-
That's why courts "do law" not science.
courts listen to the science...to dismiss science because it is not perfect is an ignorant view. In many cases science is very precise..dna in rape and murder cases. It depends where dna is found as to how relevant it is.
-
Science can be very precise. Its the interpretation put upon it that can be flawed.
Juries are generally made up of people with little knowledge of science who rely heavily on the opinions of persuasive experts
-
Dr Marietta Higgs and reflex anal dilation spring to mind.
May God preserve us from the zealots.
Yes, I remember that. It was a horror story of false beliefs by a so called Expert.
-
Science can be very precise. Its the interpretation put upon it that can be flawed.
Juries are generally made up of people with little knowledge of science who rely heavily on the opinions of persuasive experts
where would crime detection be without science..fingerprints...dna
-
where would crime detection be without science..fingerprints...dna
That's not the issue. Both can be interpreted incorrectly by humans, so while they be extremely useful in solving crimes, human enthusiasm to get a result can, on occasion, place too much reliance on them.
-
courts listen to the science...to dismiss science because it is not perfect is an ignorant view. In many cases science is very precise..dna in rape and murder cases. It depends where dna is found as to how relevant it is.
I agree with that. Sometimes DNA or other evidence is clear-cut and not in dispute. But what happens when it is?
-
Dr Marietta Higgs and reflex anal dilation spring to mind.
May God preserve us from the zealots.
I don't find her to be a zealot, but someone who is also human.
To be fair, she did present the findings to a peer panel and amended the report in consequence.
The zealots (IMO) are those who present partial reports as being the final analysis in order to pursue a particular agenda.
Correction: my mistake: I'd confused two female doctors in two different cases.
-
I don't find her to be a zealot, but someone who is also human.
To be fair, she did present the findings to a peer panel and amended the report in consequence.
The zealots (IMO) are those who present partial reports as being the final analysis in order to pursue a particular agenda.
In the Cleveland case 94 out of 121 "diagnoses" were considered incorrect and the judge criticised Dr Higgs for the small sample used in her research.
-
Dr Marietta Higgs and reflex anal dilation spring to mind.
May God preserve us from the zealots.
Apologies. I'd got Dr Higgs confused with Dr Hode in a different case.
-
Apologies. I'd got Dr Higgs confused with Dr Hode in a different case.
No problem ?{)(**
-
No problem ?{)(**
I've checked a few articles so far... and I see what you were referring to.
How sad.
-
I've checked a few articles so far... and I see what you were referring to.
How sad.
Even sadder the NHS seemingly took no action except to shunt her up a siding.
-
I agree. Forensic science is only as good as the interpretation put on it.
There are quite a few people on forums...who think they are experts...who are misunderstanding both the dog and DNA evidence.
-
Scientific Method and Forensic Procedure have many similarities and are essentially the application of the same process based on assumption of ignorance.
Both avoid assumption, belief, guesswork, politics and other weak methods of assessing a situation.
Scientific Method has disclosed more real and substantial defensible knowledge than any other method.
Forensic method involving assumptions of ignorance and innocence are seen as the best way to avoid false legal decisions in criminal cases.
This places the entire burden of proof on the proposer of a contention.
The fact that those basic building bricks of our legal and knowledge systems are ignored her in favour of bias, belief, gut feeling, and exercise of pore rather than rationality and fairness explains why so much ignorance still exists here.
And if there was killer forensics, the case would have been closed years ago. So why the dig about ignorance here?
-
And if there was killer forensics, the case would have been closed years ago. So why the dig about ignorance here?
the lack of forensics should not encourage posters to use gut feeling and misinterpret the forensics...taht's what the dig about ignorance is about. I would say 100% of amaral's supporters misunderstand the dog's alerts.
-
the lack of forensics should not encourage posters to use gut feeling and misinterpret the forensics...taht's what the dig about ignorance is about. I would say 100% of amaral's supporters misunderstand the dog's alerts.
I don't have a problem with the fact that some people support Amaral. They could be family, friends, people who were born or grew up in the same geographical area, former colleagues... whatever, and who influenced a few other people by acquaintanceship.
I guess that that's a natural reaction for some to close ranks.
However, it doesn't mean that I have to agree with what clearly appears to me as cringe-worthy evidence that he didn't actually understand either the dogs or the DNA... nor allowed for the fact that police statements were taken in a rush, seemingly without translations prior to signature.
-
the lack of forensics should not encourage posters to use gut feeling and misinterpret the forensics...taht's what the dig about ignorance is about. I would say 100% of amaral's supporters misunderstand the dog's alerts.
We don't misunderstand them. The police are using that lead to find proof of death. If they can prove it then things will quickly change. It will no longer be a missing child case but a murder investigation.
-
In the Cleveland case 94 out of 121 "diagnoses" were considered incorrect and the judge criticised Dr Higgs for the small sample used in her research.
you should understand that most doctors are extremely good...there will always be some who make mistakes but you should not judge the whole profession by these
-
We don't misunderstand them. The police are using that lead to find proof of death. If they can prove it then things will quickly change. It will no longer be a missing child case but a murder investigation.
Who is "we"? And what do whoever "we" may be understand or misunderstand?
-
you should understand that most doctors are extremely good...there will always be some who make mistakes but you should not judge the whole profession by these
Of course professionals can make mistakes, just as many professionals can be correct in their assessments. Personally, I doubt that I would undergo a lobotomy without a specialist peer review.
My impression is that Alice was trying to be serious, although I could be mistaken. Hard to know sometimes.
-
Who is "we"? And what do whoever "we" may be understand or misunderstand?
We here know the dogs evidence needs to be corroborated to be proved.
-
the lack of forensics should not encourage posters to use gut feeling and misinterpret the forensics...taht's what the dig about ignorance is about. I would say 100% of amaral's supporters misunderstand the dog's alerts.
Yet another opinion that cannot be tested.
-
We here know the dogs evidence needs to be corroborated to be proved.
Ok. And the dogs' alerts (whatever the semanticopolitically correct term may currently be) haven't been corroborated by forensic evidence so far, have they? Or did I miss an episode?
-
Ok. And the dogs' alerts (whatever the semanticopolitically correct term may currently be) haven't been corroborated by forensic evidence so far, have they? Or did I miss an episode?
I suppose we have to consider the generally accepted ultra high sensitivity of the woofers hooter when contemplating this matter.
As I see it if the dog alerts it is for one of three reasons:
He/she has sniffed something so big it can be found by humans.
He/she has sniffed something so small it can't be found by humans [given the hooter is that sensitive]
He/she has made a mistake for whatever reason.
For the first option there are a further two possibilities. What is found has evidential value or it does not have such value.
The second two options may be considered the same in any practical operational terms as it is not possible to differentiate between the results.
I would, however, suggest that the alert which reveals nothing is "banked" in the appropriate debit or credit column to be used or not as the case develops. It would create suspicion nothing more nothing less and may cause compounding or dissociation as the investigation progresses.
-
I suppose we have to consider the generally accepted ultra high sensitivity of the woofers hooter when contemplating this matter.
As I see it if the dog alerts it is for one of three reasons:
He/she has sniffed something so big it can be found by humans.
He/she has sniffed something so small it can't be found by humans [given the hooter is that sensitive]
He/she has made a mistake for whatever reason.
For the first option there are a further two possibilities. What is found has evidential value or it does not have such value.
The second two options may be considered the same in any practical operational terms as it is not possible to differentiate between the results.
I would, however, suggest that the alert which reveals nothing is "banked" in the appropriate debit or credit column to be used or not as the case develops. It would create suspicion nothing more nothing less and may cause compounding or dissociation as the investigation progresses.
I have no problem with what you said.
I wouldn't have a problem either if x years down the line it turns out that Eddie did alert correctly to whatever was within his training parameters.
What I would have had a problem with is if the case had gone to court and a judge and jury had been wooed into a guilty conviction on the basis of a dog's unexplained woofs.
You may well disagree, but I still can't understand how a judge and jury convicted the Ciprianos on what I perceive to be the flimsiest of "evidence", yet it happened.
-
I have no problem with what you said.
I wouldn't have a problem either if x years down the line it turns out that Eddie did alert correctly to whatever was within his training parameters.
What I would have had a problem with is if the case had gone to court and a judge and jury had been wooed into a guilty conviction on the basis of a dog's unexplained woofs.
You may well disagree, but I still can't understand how a judge and jury convicted the Ciprianos on what I perceive to be the flimsiest of "evidence", yet it happened.
High lighted bit: me too!
I have never studied the Cipriano case. There are enough homebrews to keep me interested.
I can recommend Gareth Pierce's "Dispatches from The Dark Side" if you have a general interest in justice outside this case.
She isn't everyone's cup of tea, particularly a succession of Home Secretaries, but her essays are worth reading.
-
Scientific Method and Forensic Procedure have many similarities and are essentially the application of the same process based on assumption of ignorance.
Both avoid assumption, belief, guesswork, politics and other weak methods of assessing a situation.
Scientific Method has disclosed more real and substantial defensible knowledge than any other method.
Forensic method involving assumptions of ignorance and innocence are seen as the best way to avoid false legal decisions in criminal cases.
This places the entire burden of proof on the proposer of a contention.
The fact that those basic building bricks of our legal and knowledge systems are ignored her in favour of bias, belief, gut feeling, and exercise of pore rather than rationality and fairness explains why so much ignorance still exists here.
How influential is the scientific method of psychological profiling in the presentation of evidence?
-
I have no problem with what you said.
I wouldn't have a problem either if x years down the line it turns out that Eddie did alert correctly to whatever was within his training parameters.
What I would have had a problem with is if the case had gone to court and a judge and jury had been wooed into a guilty conviction on the basis of a dog's unexplained woofs.
You may well disagree, but I still can't understand how a judge and jury convicted the Ciprianos on what I perceive to be the flimsiest of "evidence", yet it happened.
Who wouldn`t agree with you there................and surely such uncorroborated woofs would never get that far!
-
How influential is the scientific method of psychological profiling in the presentation of evidence?
I don't know how influencial it is, but it's probably a misnomer to call it 'scientific';
"In some ways, [profiling] is really still as much an art as a science," says psychologist Harvey Schlossberg, PhD, former director of psychological services for the New York Police Department. But in recent years, many psychologists--together with criminologists and law enforcement officials--have begun using psychology's statistical and research methods to bring more science into the art.
http://www.apa.org/monitor/julaug04/criminal.aspx
-
Who wouldn`t agree with you there................and surely such uncorroborated woofs would never get that far!
Only a few years previously a speck of unidentified blood on a mop handle was apparently sure-fire evidence of a bloodbath in the case of a different missing child (Joana). Coupled with a few more specks here and there of unidentified animal and human blood, taken by forensics in an unsealed small house in which numerous occupants had continued to live weeks after the child disappeared (last seen walking towards home). The only speck of identifiable blood was totally irrelevant and belonged to a little boy. And yet the living-room was supposed to have been the scene of the Portugese equivalent of the chain-saw massacre. There was a never elucidated question of semen supposedly found somewhere.
There was no direct witness evidence. And then the court was in shock-horror at a video of the brother who had done a reconstruction of the massacre using a doll provided for the purpose. That was it. There's no way of knowing whether he'd been coerced, nor if so to what extent. There was no rational explanation as to the lack of forensics.
This was a major murder trial with a constant drip of negative half-myth leaks about the accused, 40+ witnesses to fit in... and it was done and dusted in 3 days.
Based on the lack of logic in that case, I see no reason why a court wouldn't have been equally shock-horrified into a guilty conviction by simply viewing the video of Eddie barking by the car.
-
According to an accredited journal, it is possible to recognise someone from even a fuzzy picture of the ear with 99.6% accuracy. It also suggests that the outer ear could be a better identification mark in human beings than fingerprints. When you are born, your ears are fully formed. The lobe, over time, descends a little.
-
Do you think these two photos, considering ear shape, look similar?
-
According to an accredited journal, it is possible to recognise someone from even a fuzzy picture of the ear with 99.6% accuracy. It also suggests that the outer ear could be a better identification mark in human beings than fingerprints. When you are born, your ears are fully formed. The lobe, over time, descends a little.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2004/jan/23/ukcrime1
-
According to an accredited journal, it is possible to recognise someone from even a fuzzy picture of the ear with 99.6% accuracy. It also suggests that the outer ear could be a better identification mark in human beings than fingerprints. When you are born, your ears are fully formed. The lobe, over time, descends a little.
Hopefully the author was not Cornelis Van Der Lugt. ( see link in previous post - 41)
-
Do you think these two photos, considering ear shape, look similar?
Can anyone see the photos?
-
Can anyone see the photos?
No. Whatever the file is, it fails to open for me.
-
No. Whatever the file is, it fails to open for me.
I've sent Anthro a PM about this.