http://www.forensicsguy.com/benchnotes/anchorage-alaska-forensic-examiner-charged-with-perjury/ and Opinion by a Real Forensic Scientist Sun, 31 Jul 2011 01:26:48 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 http://www.forensicsguy.com/benchnotes/anchorage-alaska-forensic-examiner-charged-with-perjury/comment-page-1/#comment-246 Justin J. McShane, Esquire Fri, 06 Nov 2009 20:43:49 +0000 http://www.forensicsguy.com/benchnotes/?p=764#comment-246 Well, this one is a no brainer. I mean 4000 hours. Presuming most training session usually max out at 8 hours per day, we are talking 500 days of training. Hyperbole and obfuscation have no place anywhere in the Courtroom. I say good to prosecute Halterman, but better to go back and make a complete investigation of her cases. A lot of forensic science is truly subjective and in essence are judgment calls especially in pattern recognition (such as latent fingerprint development and analysis and questioned document examination). In that this person's field of endeavor involves subjectivity and judgment calls, and as has been demonstrated above, this person apparently (if the allegations as reported above are true) did not make a good judgment call by massively over-stating her resume under oath, then it naturally follows that there is at least a question as to veracity of her body of work. Let this be a cry to other forensic scientists, the defense bar is awaking. The days of the free pass are over. The check and balance that is the crucible of cross-examination is coming back. Well, this one is a no brainer. I mean 4000 hours. Presuming most training session usually max out at 8 hours per day, we are talking 500 days of training. Hyperbole and obfuscation have no place anywhere in the Courtroom. I say good to prosecute Halterman, but better to go back and make a complete investigation of her cases. A lot of forensic science is truly subjective and in essence are judgment calls especially in pattern recognition (such as latent fingerprint development and analysis and questioned document examination). In that this person’s field of endeavor involves subjectivity and judgment calls, and as has been demonstrated above, this person apparently (if the allegations as reported above are true) did not make a good judgment call by massively over-stating her resume under oath, then it naturally follows that there is at least a question as to veracity of her body of work. Let this be a cry to other forensic scientists, the defense bar is awaking. The days of the free pass are over. The check and balance that is the crucible of cross-examination is coming back.

]]>