I believe each person can use the phrase that they believe they can support. That was your definition for the phrase, and I accept you believe as to the definition. I do believe the forensic science community is no longer supporting the use of that phrase.

What is the purpose of using that phrase. You state it is to imply the person used the scientific method. Can you not just say the conclusion was reached through the use of the scientific method.

It appears to be a fact that the phrase originated from an attorney asking a hypothetical question. It was a court that interconnected this term to the quality of the expert’s opinion. In that case the expert did not use the phrase. The applet court stated, “In most instances it is for the jury to decide which conduct contributed or caused all or part of the damage involved. If the witness, based upon his background skill, possesses extraordinary training to aid laymen in determining facts and if he bases his answer upon what he believes to be reasonable scientific or engineering certainty, generally the evidence should be admitted, subject, of course, to the cross-examination of the adversary”.

What this leads one to believe this phrase was made up by the legal profession for their own interest and not by any scientific group. Yes, may scientific groups have adopted its use. When one looks at their adopting one finds the reasoning behind it was to satisfy the legal community.

What is one doing when this phrase is used. Does it make a difference in the conclusion? I do not believe it does. It is nothing more than an embellishment or sound bite that is used as a comedic addition to the report. It is not factual information that was used to reach the conclusion. I do not believe that by putting some type of cosmetic in one’s report or opinion is not a help if it does not help the investigator’s confidence and reliability.

Jim Mazerat
Forensic Investigations Group