The American TV drama CSI: Crime Scene Investigation, where handsome young forensic specialists solve gruesome murders with scientific eureka moments makes great TV viewing.
But the forensic science on show is largely “bunk”, according to leading South African forensic scientist David Klatzow. Worse, the series (and others like it) gives the public the wrong impression of how dependable forensic science is.
“The show idealises the sort of situations which occur,” said Klatzow who was joined by Judge Dennis Davis at the talk at the Franschhoek Literary Festival on Saturday.
The topic of the discussion was moderated by crime writer Deon Meyer, who looked at the role forensics play in criminal cases.
“The instruments are real, the ideas are real, but it doesn’t happen that way,” said Klatzow, author of Justice Denied: The Role of Forensic Science in the Miscarriage of Justice.
“In fact, CSI has created a problem in science, particularly in the court system, that we call the CSI effect.”
This effect led lay juries to have unreasonable expectations about forensic science.
While South Africa did not use a jury system, Klatzow said how crime scene evidence was used in South African courts was cause for concern.
While DNA sequencing and fingerprint identification were thought of as fail-safe ways to secure convictions by the public, Klatzow said the reality was more messy. The science was never cut and dry.
“You never get a nice clear ink print,” said Klatzow.
“What you end up with is a partial print, which has got smudges, the cat peed on it, somebody else has double touched it, the cop has probably stood on it.
“The real question is, whether there is enough information in a smudged rotten print, to formulate an opinion.”
Klatzow said that, often in criminal cases, where the identity of a fingerprint may lead to conviction, only the prosecution calls an expert forensic scientist to interpret the findings.
Or, more commonly, only the police’s own forensic specialist gives evidence.
The defence, lacking sufficient funds, was unable to bring the validity of what had been presented into question.
Judge Davis agreed that in his experience only the prosecution generally put forward an expert. He said he would be very hesitant to convict on the basis of a single fingerprint, saying it was vital that judges look for a “tapestry of evidence” as a single piece of forensic evidence could be misleading.
He gave the example of the Fred van der Vyver case, where police had allegedly planted a fingerprint on a DVD cover to attempt to better secure a conviction. Judge Davis said he was troubled that, in cases where the defence didn’t have anyone to question the forensics, judges couldn’t know whether police had fiddled with or misinterpreted the evidence.
Klatzow said this was a “huge problem”. He warned judges to not let people like fingerprint experts “take over their fact-finding role”.
When asked by Judge Davis, if judges should become fingerprint experts, Klatzow replied yes, the sooner the better. He also urged legal professionals to study cases where forensic evidence had been debunked.
The festival continues on Sunday.
Sunday Argus