A place to ask questions and add to probative and informative discussions associated with the various aspects of the field of fire investigation. -- FORUM RULES---BE CIVIL AND NO NAME CALLING, NO BELITTLING, NO BERATING, NO DENIGRATING others. Postings in violation of these rules can be removed or editted to remove the offending remarks at the discretion of the moderators and/or site administrator.
Re: Acceptable Level of Certainty
Posted by:
Jim Mazerat (IP Logged)
Date: February 05, 2007 10:37AM
I agree the trier of fact is the last line for making a determination as to who is right and who is wrong, but when it gets as far as the court room many times the winner is the side with the best presentation. What if the question is never asked of the investigator as to what he or she believes is the level of certainty for their conclusion. It was by accident that the attorney got the information from the expert I mentioned. The expert gave it when trying to justify his position by saying this was the industry standard and he did not need to take it further. I have no problem with a person, that has 100% confidence in his or her findings and there being others that disagree. I understand they both can not be correct but at least they have attempted to support their finding to the point the believe there can be not other reason.
When it comes to the trier of fact, I do hope if they get the information that the expert only believes his opinion has the chance of being correct by slightly over 50% they will throw out the testimony.
What I am curious about is, are we as a profession satisfied in saying our standard for reaching a conclusion only needs to be above 50% for it to be valid.