Comments

1. blf says

   May 30, 2018 at 12:25 pm

   The article linked-to in the OP contains some additional horrifying stuff, for instance:

   Young in his writings has lambasted the field of forensic pathology for applying the scientific method to physical evidence in death investigations where there is no eyewitness testimony, and theorizing what may have led to someone’s death. Young said that approach does not work and has led to countless false accusations, especially in child abuse and child homicide cases.

   Young adopted his own methodology which he says is “always true,” and says that, absent eyewitness testimony or the existence of only one clear-cut explanation, one cannot reliably surmise past events.

   He described his approach in an interview published by CriminalJusticePrograms.com.

   “When I’m confronted with a case, I listen to the accounts given by eyewitnesses, people who were actually there to see it. I look at their accounts, and then I look at the physical evidence. Then, I ask the question, ‘Is the physical evidence explained by their account?'” Young said. “If the physical evidence is consistent with their account, I believe the account because I have no reason not to believe it. The evidence fits what they said.”

   […]

   Young calls evolution and the Big Bang theory “untested hypotheses” that have been repeated over and over again to the point of rivaling the dogma hoisted upon scientists by the Catholic Church in the Dark Ages, before Enlightenment, which he described as men turning their backs on God. He also says that marriage is “under attack by “largely secular…Western Society.”

   Apparently, some people have seen through this eejit:

   A Kansas judge in 2013 refused to let Young testify for the defense in a child death case, and cited some of his writings.

   The judge issued a blistering order accusing Young of developing his own rules, rooted in archaic Biblical principles that would make it nearly impossible to convict anyone of an unwitnessed killing, all in order to make money testifying for defense lawyers.

   The judge wrote that Young is “a team of one” and that “no other expert in his field agrees with him.”

   “In his testimony, Dr Young accused forensic experts of using junk science,” the judge wrote. “This court believes that it is Dr Young who uses junk science.”

   And from the referenced interview (Q&A with Forensic Pathologist, Thomas Young, MD, link embedded in above excerpt):

   Sherlock Holmes looks at clues, that’s what he claims to do. He claims to take the number 14 and tell you the pattern that led up to it, and he claims to do so with great intelligence and certainty. The only problem with the whole thing is that it’s a logical fallacy. Even if you might be able to predict what an outcome would be if you heard the past events, you can’t look at the evidence and surmise the past events that led to that evidence. There may be numerous scenarios that might have led to the same evidence. […]

   Even though we might come up with a theory or hypothesis about what happened, that’s just basically a guess. All these forensic scientists get up in court and propose guesses and state that they are scientifically certain of their statements. Whenever you’re reasoning from an effect to a cause, you’re hypothesizing. […]

   The same Sherlock Holmes model is being applied to every single detective show that you see on TV, including CSI. It’s all the same kind of backward inference, and it doesn’t work.

   I’m inclined to suggest the so-called “lawyers” who hired this obvious fraud have done their client a significant disservice — legal malpractice ?

2. Reginald Selkirk says

   May 30, 2018 at 1:32 pm

   If someone has bizarre views on a topic unrelated to the case, should that be an automatic disqualifier? Is it possible to be credible in a narrow area of science while believing in crackpot ideas in other areas?

   These questions do not seem relevant to the current case, since from the excerpts it is quite clear that he imports the kookiness into his “expertise”.

3. Reginald Selkirk says

   May 30, 2018 at 1:34 pm

   Sherlock Holmes looks at clues, that’s what he claims to do. He claims to take the number 14 and tell you the pattern that led up to it, and he claims to do so with great intelligence and certainty. The only problem with the whole thing is that it’s a logical fallacy fiction

   Talk about missing the boat

4. Reginald Selkirk says

   May 30, 2018 at 1:41 pm

   “If the physical evidence is consistent with their account, I believe the account because I have no reason not to believe it. The evidence fits what they said.”

   This reminds me of an interview I heard on NPR over the weekend.
   Weekend Edition Sunday: interview with Jill Wine-Banks

   Wine-Banks: “The other reason that you don’t want information public is because when you are dealing with witnesses who are prone to lying, who are willing to alter the truth, if you give them information, they will conform their testimony to accommodate whatever they know you know. And that hurts your ability to proceed in an investigation…”

5. mynax says

   May 30, 2018 at 3:34 pm

   Wow, someone who actually does use “were you there?” in a murder trial.

6. jrkrideau says

   May 30, 2018 at 3:47 pm

   Young adopted his own methodology which he says is “always true,”

   The first and most telling indicator that we have a real quack. Quack results are always infallible.

   “In his testimony, Dr. Young accused forensic experts of using junk science,” the judge wrote. “This court believes that it is Dr. Young who uses junk science.”

   I vote for both the forensic experts and Dr. Young using junk science. It is just that Young sounds really nutty. His assertion about “eyewitness testimony” is completely mad. Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable.

   If you have a bit of time to terrify yourself have a look at the US National Research Council’s report Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/228091.pdf

   Essentially the NRC committee seems to feel that Forensic Science is an oxymoron.

   @ 4 Reginald Selkirk
   Re the interview with Jill Wine-Banks.
   You don’t even have to assume any attempt to deceive. Exposure to differing accounts of the same incident can distort memory just by being seen or heard. Memory is much more mailable than many people realize.

7. robertbaden says

   May 30, 2018 at 5:48 pm

   One of the people convicted by bite mark analysis and cleared by DNA is spending his time going to trials challenging so called “experts” in that “forensic science.”