Malaysia CSI : Clueless of clueless

I think the pathologist shouldn’t feel bad, because New York post has write an articles about the absurd of fingerprint proof in CSI : WITHOUT A CLUE

It seems Bolehland pathologist that “help investigate” the high profile case, are clueless about this articles. Even better, he derive “conclusion” that even the head of investigator dare not to.

Read the NY post article, there is some interesting facts to learn.

  1. Fingerprint : it is not reliable
  2. Hair shaft CANNOT uniquely identify a person or animal, although it can narrow down the pool.
  3. toolmark identity : there is no study support various toolmark analysis
  4. Blood splatter : Actually , it doesn’t tell much
  5. Bite mark : Difficult as scientific proof
  6. DNA : golden rules. But susceptible to fraud or mislabeling

TBH case now force us to rethink various myth and validity of profession that held by the investigator.

Transcript from the articles CSI : Without a clue

The “evidence never lies,” says the charismatic character Gil Grissom on “CSI,” giving millions of viewers the false impression that, across the board, forensic science equals certainty. In fact, these programs show scientists brainstorming with cops on the guilt of a suspect – exactly what scientists should not be doing. Worse, they zip through analyses so fast it all looks automatic. The courtroom becomes a mere formality, because science has solved the crime. They use techniques – yes, even lip prints – that are unproven, or even worse, debunked.

The pathologist watch too much CSI.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s