Conclusion

Forensic evidence doesn’t speak for itself. How it is identified, collected, documented, recorded, recovered, analysed, evaluated and reported all affect whether it is ultimately trusted.

In the CJS, forensic scientists work within an adversarial setting. This means they may be instructed by the prosecution, the defence, or sometimes both. Regardless of who instructs them, their role is to act as independent experts, using science to analyse evidence and explain what it means in the context of a case.

However, the pathway to that analysis matters. Decisions made in an investigation, such as which items are sent for testing, what questions are asked, and which lines of inquiry are pursued, can shape the scientific work that follows. These choices may subtly influence how evidence is interpreted.

Because of this, forensic scientists and expert witnesses have a crucial responsibility: they must remain objective, transparent, and independent, ensuring the integrity of their evidence at all times (Roberts, 2009).

Trust in forensic evidence is not only about the science itself. It also depends on how well that science is analysed, evaluated , and reported in court.

This week we looked at the courtroom. The police and the forensic scientists shared Dave’s case with the prosecution’s legal team and a suspect, Mike, was identified using DNA and digital evidence.

Next week we’ll see what research underpins this work. For example, we’ll look at how different groups of people trust and distrust forensic science and their impact on criminal investigations and outcomes.

Now go to Week 4 [Tip: hold Ctrl and click a link to open it in a new tab. (Hide tip)] .