Blood found at a crime scene can provide key information about the events that took place there. However, the analysis and interpretation of the appearance and distribution of blood is a complex area; inevitably, mistakes will occur.
Here is a case from Canada, where the prosecution expert misinterpreted part of the blood spatter evidence in a murder investigation. Although the man convicted of second degree murder was not exactly innocent, his murder conviction was overturned on appeal.
You can read about the case below. The account is on page 28 of the pdf and contains photos of the body and the relevant blood spatter.
Disagreements between forensics experts can be a fruitful area for crime writers, although, of course, both sides of the argument need to be credible. In this case, the prosecution expert, Mr Julien, does not appear to have done his best work. Why not? Was he under a major time constraint? Was he lacking in experience? At the trial, it appears that the defence did not put up their own expert to challenge the prosecution's findings. Maybe they appointed an expert who actually agreed with the prosecution expert and who, in consequence, was also at fault for misinterpreting the evidence. What do you think?
The defence expert, Professor MacDonell, had to perform his forensic examinations at court. As I know from experience, this is not ideal, but as he appears to have been given advance warning that he wasn't going to have access to a forensics laboratory, he came suitably equipped with a stereomicroscope and a camera. No doubt he carried out his work in the presence of a bored junior prosecution lawyer or police officer, who would be tasked with ensuring that nothing untoward happened to the evidence!
The outcome of Professor MacDonell's examinations was that justice was served correctly - a plea of guilty to manslaughter.
Do you plan to use forensics fallibility in your writing? Are you a fan of duelling experts? I'd be really interested to know.
No comments:
Post a Comment