Forensics discussions

[Evan_or_L]

I'm not very good at this aspect but I will try my best. If you have any questions about the sciences of forensics. Ballistics, blood typing, hair analysis, skeleton typology, logic in crime scenes, etc. Just ask and we will see.  

[Evan_or_L]

So, fingerprinting is an intersting way to start. Apparently you can find them on clear surfaces , objects, and glass. Is it really that valuable? And what about the partial print? Does that have any relavence?  

[DarkChevalierAngel]

Hmm...I think it's valuable. Fingerprints can help narrow down the list of suspects, and therefore, cut back on the amount of money they spend, tracking everyone, and interviewing them.  

[Evan_or_L]

I like that. Alright, here's one that I'm still debating in my head. Reliance on eyewitnesses. Are courts too reliant on the people who watch the crimes? I have evidence that people aren't reliable, however, they are markers of time.., so there fore, I'm stuck.  

[DarkChevalierAngel]

*Sharp intake of breath* This is a hard one.....I say that this one's a judgement call. You decide how much you want to rely on these people. You must also keep in mind that humans lie to protect other humans so....  

[Evan_or_L]

Yeah, it's rather a difficult situation:
-Memory is halfed in an hour
-humans lie
-there are perception errors
-when a weapon is involved, all the focus is on the gun.
-There are biases towards the court, towards/against the victims, and for or against the suspect (Whether or not guilty)  

[DarkChevalierAngel]

EXACTLY. So that would be a case where you have to become a judge of soul. Not character. Soul. You have to try and look at the person's heart tand soul through their eyes and decide wether or not you want to trust them and use them in a court of law. It's very hard, trust me!  

[Evan_or_L]

Yes, ma'am. That's true. As for insanity, I'm not sure how far it takes to plead insanity, unless they do a lesser crime like man slaughter instead of first degree murder, because they drive with voices that distract them and they believe aliens are chasing them. (Yes that example is random.)  

[DarkChevalierAngel]

Yes it was. But I do agree with you. Nowadays, people can plead insanity for almost anything, and the court will say, "Okay, chain her up and send her to the asylum!! Next case!!"  

[Evan_or_L]

I'm not so sure that it works that well, but it does work for some people.  

[DarkChevalierAngel]

Thats life, I suppose....  

[Fallen Without Sin]

In my opinion (also because I've been watching too many Castle episodes), it all depends on how many witnesses you have and how many sources that supports them. Just from watching Castle, I can tell that you never want a group of witnesses that know each other. In one of the episodes, a group of kids repeatedly lied over and over again, but of course they eventually told the truth. Having multiple witnesses is good because you can at least get a partial truth from each one of them, and from that it makes it a little easier to piece together the information.  

[Evan_or_L]

The problem with that is that even if it's partial truths, what if the partial lies are also common. It would be hard to dtermine the fallacy.  

[Fallen Without Sin]

True, which is why it is very important to find every single evidence that you can gather  

[Evan_or_L]

Yes. All I am saying is that old trials that relied EXCLUSIVELY on eye witnesses, were all of them botched. (Salem witch trials, any race trial in 1900's below, and any form of paranoia based accusations.) Although the king Solomon seems to be the only one who could forsake pride and use good logic to figure out who kidnapped.