Published 3 hours ago • loading... • Updated 2 hours ago
Some Common Forensics Techniques Aren’t as Reliable as Courts Presume: Professor
Sara Gordon says courts have accepted unvalidated forensic methods for decades, even as studies found dog alerts and bloodstain analysis can be highly error-prone.
University of British Columbia law professor Sara Gordon published research challenging the reliability of forensic techniques used in Canadian courts, arguing judicial systems often overstate scientific validity.
While many forensic methods possess a "veneer of science," Gordon notes most were developed within police departments rather than labs, with validity tested empirically only within the last 20 years.
Data from New South Wales, Australia, shows sniffer dog false alerts occurred 74 per cent of the time, while bloodstain pattern analysis shows error rates up to 32 per cent.
Courts have admitted ballistics evidence for nearly a century without subjecting claims to meaningful scientific scrutiny, as Gordon observes a tendency for attorneys to "assume that all of these different techniques are reliable."
To comply with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Gordon argues forensic techniques with error rates exceeding 30 per cent should not be relied upon to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.