Evidence On Trial: Why The Forensic Evidence Is Less Reliable Than We Think.

Jordan Hoang

Mr. Ippolito

Forensics C Odd 

1/5/20

Hardy, Elle. “Evidence On Trial: Why The Forensic Evidence Is Less Reliable Than We Think.” 

GQ, 16 Dec. 2019, 

https://www.gq.com.au/entertainment/tech/evidence-on-trial-why-the-forensic-evidence-i

s-less-reliable-than-we-think/news-story/27c34297d86970ec5867da91b0f6729e 

The article “Evidence on Trial: Why the Forensic Evidence is Less Reliable Than we Think” had an interesting perspective on the legitimacy of forensic evidence. The author, Ellie Hardy, brought up a case in Australia in which a 15-year-old girl was allegedly assaulted and kidnapped by a man named Adrian Shane Drummond. Forensic scientists failed to find evidence of DNA on either of the two individuals. However, they reported that “studies have shown in our laboratory that 10 percent of these swabs or samples actually only provide us with any useful information”. The second appeal of Drummond’s case later revealed that the scientists had mistakenly quantified the reliability of the swabs- and that “there will be DNA transfer in up to 90 percent of cases.” Hardy noted that this drastic misunderstanding may be the result of Australia not having strict rules on the legitimacy of forensic evidence. However, there have been multiple other cases involving forensics that have made us question the reliability of these tests. In one case, over 16,500 cases were questioned after a scientist named Sonja Farak was found to have stolen and used drug samples. Using phones have also been found to be unreliable at detecting origin or an individual's location at a specific time. With over 45% of forensic evidence being found to contribute to wrongful convictions in court, Hardy brings to light how forensic evidence may not be as reliable as it appears to be. 

I thought it was interesting to see such a different take on the reliability of forensic evidence. Like Hardy mentioned briefly in her article, we can be quick to agree with this scientific data because of how simple and straightforward it is portrayed in the media. It can also be hard for us to believe that science can be untrustworthy at times. However, I don’t believe that forensic science should be seen as a completely unreliable practice. Cases can be complicated and hard to solve- and forensic technology is rapidly evolving and helping us solve them. All things considered, however, we do have to be more aware of how we utilize, regulate, and interpret the evidence that we are given. Bias, tampering of evidence, and many factors can ultimately play a role in how reliable or unreliable forensic evidence can be. 

Although I thought Hardy brought up very convincing statistics and educated opinions on this paper, much of the data and examples she used were outdated. The trial that she exemplified at the beginning of her article dated back to 2010, and the drug scandal she mentioned dated back to 2012. Since then, technology and regulations have gotten more advanced- so I question if Hardy’s article is entirely accurate on the state of forensic reliability. In addition, I feel as though Hardy could have been more concise at points. The article was quite lengthy and may have been more appealing to readers if Hardy had condensed it. Overall, however, it was interesting and enlightening in some ways we can improve forensic evidence and persecutions in the future.