Footprint identification test

[TraneWreck]

Interesting that what would appear to be your most important 'qualification' for an expert is that they are paid for it. Or is that you just misunderstand the meaning of amateur?

Every jurisdiction has strict requirements for what qualifies as an expert. Often times publishing requirements will be cited, but recognition among peers is usually a basic necessity.

For example, most states have developed laws on medical witnesses that require experts to spend at least 50% of their professional time practicing medicine. This is aimed at combating the "professional witness" problem that you're bringing up.

It's a contentious issue and many times opposing attorneys will challenge the credentials of expert witnesses.

 

[drkitten]

I'm intrigued that you know so many professionals (in the strict sense) in the field of footprints - assuming you're using the majority of your words in a strict sense...and assuming that you're entirely truthful, as everyone on the internet with an argumentative claim is. (I use 'is' in a rather loose sense...)

Forensics is a growth area in the modern academy -- lots of teenagers want to do "CSI," basically. While I don't know a lot of footprint experts, forensics experts generally are easy to find.

On some colleges you can barely open a door without barging into some forensics professional delivering an enrichment lecture of some sort.

What is the looser sense of 'professional' you had in mind, by the way?

Certified expert and member of an appropriate professional organization such as the AFCEI. In the same way that anyone with an M.D. and a license to practice medicine is a medical professional, even if they make a better living writing detective novels. (I think that would describe P.D. James, for example.)

 

[drkitten]

Every jurisdiction has strict requirements for what qualifies as an expert. Often times publishing requirements will be cited, but recognition among peers is usually a basic necessity.

Hmmm. My understanding is slightly different; what qualifies as an expert is decided on a case-by-case basis during voir dire. Part of the reason for this is that many types of "expertise" do not have corresponding formal study or credentials -- e.g., a footprint expert didn't major in the footprintology program at Harvard and hasn't published in the American Journal of Footprints, because neither of those exist. So you can be the most far-out lunatic in the asylum as long as you can talk a good enough line to fool the judge into signing off on your expertise.

.... which, of course, opposing counsel will work hard to prevent. Kitzmiller provides an instructive example; Barbara Forrest was called as an expert on the history and philosophy of creationism. Of course, this isn't a recognized field (and she's actually a professor of philosophy more generally), but the defense recognized that if she was able to testify, as an expert, that ID was really just creationism, that would harm their case a lot.

Now, of course, Dr. Forrest is a genuine expert, and was able to produce hectares of papers that she had authored on this subject, so she had only minor trouble with the voir dire. Oddly enough, "recognition among peers" never came up (probably because counsel recognized that as a losing card to play on a tenured professor).

It's a contentious issue and many times opposing attorneys will challenge the credentials of expert witnesses.

Absolutely. And justifiably so.

There's an interesting web site here that defines the "ideal" qualifications for an expert to have (at least in one lawyer's opinion), and it definitely includes being a professional in a strict sense. Someone who refrobnitzes bellaria for a living is going to be a much more credible witness on the subject of refrobnitzing bellaria -- "A practitioner expert witness can look the jurors in the eye and confidently assure them that his or her opinions are correct. This confidence stems from the fact that the practitioner expert successfully performs the questioned procedure on a regular basis. An expert witness who has little or no hands-on experience can be vulnerable to cross examination, even if the expert has an impressive curriculum vitae. An expert witness with practitioner experience, on the other hand, can quiet critics, whether they are judge, jury, or opposing counsel contending that the expert is merely restating opinions he has only read about. Quite simply, there is no substitute for doing."

 

[IMST]

As I have no interest in spending 5 seconds in the main thread, can someone spoiler what was argued in the actual case about this?

 

[stilicho]

As I have no interest in spending 5 seconds in the main thread, can someone spoiler what was argued in the actual case about this?

I'd like to know too.

 

[stilicho]

There's an interesting web site here that defines the "ideal" qualifications for an expert to have (at least in one lawyer's opinion), and it definitely includes being a professional in a strict sense. Someone who refrobnitzes bellaria for a living is going to be a much more credible witness on the subject of refrobnitzing bellaria -- "A practitioner expert witness can look the jurors in the eye and confidently assure them that his or her opinions are correct. This confidence stems from the fact that the practitioner expert successfully performs the questioned procedure on a regular basis. An expert witness who has little or no hands-on experience can be vulnerable to cross examination, even if the expert has an impressive curriculum vitae. An expert witness with practitioner experience, on the other hand, can quiet critics, whether they are judge, jury, or opposing counsel contending that the expert is merely restating opinions he has only read about. Quite simply, there is no substitute for doing."

So what happens when the witnesses on both sides are practitioner experts?

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

As I have no interest in spending 5 seconds in the main thread, can someone spoiler what was argued in the actual case about this?

The print on the right belongs to one of the three convicted of Meredith Kercher's murder, Rudy Guede. The print on the left belongs to another of the three, Raffaele Sollecito.

Raffaele's defence argued that the print was Rudy Guede's (on the right).

The prosecution's expert witness claimed that the print was definitely that of Raffaele Sollecito (on the left), the judges accepted this claim, and Raffaele was convicted partially on this basis.

If Dan O. prefers I will delete this post or have a mod do so. Mods, if Dan reports this post and wants it removed then I would prefer it be removed.

 

[Dan O.]

As I have no interest in spending 5 seconds in the main thread, can someone spoiler what was argued in the actual case about this?

Not here.

As soon as someone does, someone else will give the opposing view and the arguments of the existing threads will fill this thread until the moderators are forced to close it. That is why I specifically prohibited discussing the case here.

I will however look to see if there are a couple of summary posts about the footprints that can be linked to without comment.

 

[stilicho]

The print on the right belongs to one of the three convicted of Meredith Kercher's murder, Rudy Guede. The print on the left belongs to another of the three, Raffaele Sollecito.

Raffaele's defence argued that the print was Rudy Guede's (on the right).

The prosecution's expert witness claimed that the print was definitely that of Raffaele Sollecito (on the left), the judges accepted this claim, and Raffaele was convicted partially on this basis.

If Dan O. prefers I will delete this post or have a mod do so. Mods, if Dan reports this post and wants it removed then I would prefer it be removed.

What you mean, of course, is "an opinion of probable identity" [Massei, 342], and not anything that you claimed above about "definitely".

Apology accepted in advance.

---------------

 

[drkitten]

So what happens when the witnesses on both sides are practitioner experts?

In theory, the one with the better case should be the more convincing witness, because she'll be the one with a better theory that better explains the facts with better support from the scientific literature.

In practice, the one with the worse lawyer will be torn to pieces during cross-examination and collapse.

 

[brenn]

I voted "not enough evidence" but, looking closer and measuring a little, I think the footprint could show a couple of things: (a) the person who made it was about the same size as a suspect and, (b) with a full-sized picture or the actual samples I might even think one of the footprints (probably the left) is somewhat more likely to be from the same person who stepped in the blood, but it's stretching to say even that much based on this picture.

 

[TraneWreck]

Hmmm. My understanding is slightly different; what qualifies as an expert is decided on a case-by-case basis during voir dire. Part of the reason for this is that many types of "expertise" do not have corresponding formal study or credentials -- e.g., a footprint expert didn't major in the footprintology program at Harvard and hasn't published in the American Journal of Footprints, because neither of those exist. So you can be the most far-out lunatic in the asylum as long as you can talk a good enough line to fool the judge into signing off on your expertise.

It depends on the subject. For something out of the ordinary, like an expert on ancient Egyptian Hieroglyphics, for example, something that rarely enters the courtroom, chances are there is little to work with.

For medical experts and fingerprint experts, there are generally statutes and certainly lots of case history that will guide judges on whether to accept them or not. So like I said, with medical experts in malpractice trials, there are statutes that lay out basic requirements.

In a case like Kitzmiller, where nothing severe was on the line, no one was going to prison, chances are a judge will be more lenient with testimony, relying on the cross to expose whatever faults an expert may have.

A print expert in a criminal trial, however, will have to have legitimate credentials. Judges don't like wasting time on hacks.