Fallible Forensics?

We, the general public, have come to rely on forensic evidence in criminal trials, but has our reliance been misplaced? Do we accept faulty analysis by "experts" simply because we presume they are never wrong or never lie? "Experts" can be wrong or at least have differing opinions. Some are incompetent and should not be recognized by a court of law. And indeed, some "experts" do lie.

(Note: Free registration may be required for access to the Chicago Tribune articles.)

In its continuing series Forensics Under the Microscope, the Chicago Tribune raises many reasonable questions and some reasonable doubts about how much emphasis we should place on forensic evidence, particularly when "experts" contradict each other on its interpretation and importance.

Today's Chicago Tribune article headlined Report: Inmate wrongly executed - Arson experts say evidence in Texas case scientifically invalid by Tribune staff reporter Maurice Possley keeps the issue of fallible forensics in the public view.