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: 921 & arson
Posted by:
J L Mazerat (IP Logged)
Date: March 31, 2022 08:32AM
By saying the most reliable are you saying the one that based on the evidence is most likely to be correct or true?
I would say based on the Daubert decision that the court believes that science is the bases to support any opinion being rendered. The court said that if science is being used in the testimony that science must be accepted and have been peer reviewed. Specifically, the court stated:
1. Whether the theory or technique in question can be and has been tested
2. Whether it has been subjected to peer review and publication
3. Its known or potential error rate
4. The existence and maintenance of standards controlling its operation
5. Whether it has attracted widespread acceptance within a relevant scientific community
Can these conditions be met as to a person’s conclusion without one say they followed the scientific method outlined in 921? These conditions have been interpreted by our profession to relate directly to the scientific method. What the court is looking for is for the conclusion to have support. It lists what the support should be. Nowhere in there is the court calling for an absolute.
What we are giving the court is the most reliable answer possible. That is the way it should be expressed. If we say to them that what we are giving them is the most reliable answer possible based on known data, then we are defeating our position.
Jim Mazerat
Forensic Investigations Group