Why guilt and science don't mix
The revolt at the forensic science continues. At an emergency meeting yesterday several members called chairman John Bradley to task for calling Cameron Todd Willingham a guilty monster. For some reason they thought that might call his objectivity into question. I don't why they would think that his opinion on guilt would influence his decision on the issues before the commission.
Dr. Sarah Kerrigan had some insightful comments that point out the role should play in criminal cases - a role that has largely abandoned. She asked what guilt or innocence had to do with whether the investigation was flawed. When asked to read all the transcript, she asked why the character of the individual should make a difference in determining what the science shows. In my opinion, she nailed the reason for most of problems we have had with forensics.
Numerous studies have demonstrated how bias can alter the interpretation of the evidence. If you believe someone is guilty, you interpret the evidence to support that opinion. In fact, it should have nothing to do with it; science is neutral, and should not be concerned with guilt or innocence. The problem is when scientists become advocates.
Whether or not Cameron Todd Willingham is guilty has nothing to do with whether the investigation. If he is guilty (which I don't believe), they got lucky; it doesn't somehow transform the investigation. If the investigation is flawed it's flawed, regardless of whether the defendant is guilty or not.
I've said before that we have lost focus in many of these cases. The focus should not be on guilt, but on whether bad science was used to obtain the conviction. If it was, then how can we make sure that doesn't happen. Dr. Kerrigan is a breath of fresh air - she brings the perspective of a scientist - and not an advocate. If more scientists did that, we would go a long way toward solving many of the problems with forensic evidence.
