Forensics Under Fire: Are Bad Science and Dueling Experts Corrupting Criminal Justice? [Hardcover]

Jim Fisher (Author)

Book Description

Publication Date: April 30, 2008

Television shows like CSI, Forensic Files, and The New Detectives make it look so easy. A crime-scene photographer snaps photographs, a fingerprint technician examines a gun, uniformed officers seal off a house while detectives gather hair and blood samples, placing them carefully into separate evidence containers. In a crime laboratory, a suspect's hands are meticulously examined for gunshot residue. An autopsy is performed in order to determine range and angle of the gunshot and time-of-death evidence. Dozens of tests and analyses are performed and cross-referenced. A conviction is made. Another crime is solved. The credits roll.

The American public has become captivated by success stories like this one with their satisfyingly definitive conclusions, all made possible because of the wonders of forensic science. Unfortunately, however, popular television dramas do not represent the way most homicide cases in the United States are actually handled. Crime scenes are not always protected from contamination; physical evidence is often packaged improperly, lost, or left unaccounted for; forensic experts are not always consulted; and mistakes and omissions on the autopsy table frequently cut investigations short or send detectives down the wrong investigative path.

In Forensics Under Fire, Jim Fisher makes a compelling case that these and other problems in the practice of forensic science allow offenders to escape justice and can also lead to the imprisonment of innocent people. Bringing together examples from a host of high-profile criminal cases and familiar figures, such as the JonBenet Ramsey case and Dr. Henry Lee who presented physical evidence in the O. J. Simpson trial, along with many lesser known but fascinating stories, Fisher presents daunting evidence that forensic science has a long way to go before it lives up to its potential and the public's expectations.

Editorial Reviews

Review

A compelling exploration of the dark side of forensic science. Jim Fisher delves into the arenas where conflicting and scientifically shaky forensic research, methods, and opinions are used to the disadvantage of justice in the United States and abroad. Forensics Under Fire is highly recommended to anyone interested or involved in criminal justice, constitutional law, civil rights, forensic science, or law enforcement. Fisher offers readers the chance to see behind the new headlines and the portrayal of forensic science by the entertainment industry. --Science 6/27/2008

About the Author

Jim Fisher worked as a special agent, conducting criminal investigations for the FBI from 1966 to 1972. Later he taught criminal investigation, criminal law, and forensic science at Edinboro University of Pennsylvania.

Product Details

• Hardcover: 324 pages
• Publisher: Rutgers University Press (April 30, 2008)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 0813542715
• ISBN-13: 978-0813542713
• Product Dimensions: 9.3 x 6.3 x 1.3 inches
• Shipping Weight: 1.3 pounds (View shipping rates and policies)
• Average Customer Review: 2.5 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (2 customer reviews)
• Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #432,774 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)

More About the Author

Discover books, learn about writers, read author blogs, and more.

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

2 of 2 people found the following review helpful:

4.0 out of 5 stars Forensics Under Fire - Life imitates art and what a small world we live in., July 23, 2009

By 

Thomas Glowacki (Madison, WI USA) - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)   

This review is from: Forensics Under Fire: Are Bad Science and Dueling Experts Corrupting Criminal Justice? (Hardcover)

I stumbled into this book while Googling the other side's expert witness. Much to my delight, a significant part of one of the chapters discusses him and the information was very useful in uncovering more information about him keeping his "expert" opinion out of court. Lots of names are brought up and that is useful, but I would have liked to see organized appendices on the "experts" discussed in the book. As it is, the books falls somewhere between being an interesting book for the layperson and not as useful as it might have been for the attorneys reading it.

4 of 5 people found the following review helpful:

1.0 out of 5 stars Ramsey chapters are poorly researched and lack objectivity, January 14, 2009

By 

So Many Books, So Little Time - See all my reviews

This review is from: Forensics Under Fire: Are Bad Science and Dueling Experts Corrupting Criminal Justice? (Hardcover)

Jim Fisher has chosen a topic worthy of objective discussion. Unfortunately, in the three chapters that deal with the JonBenet Ramsey case, Fisher has relied too much on his fellow ABFDE members, Lloyd Cunningham and Howard Riles (whom the Ramseys hired as their personal handwriting experts), as well as Ramsey friend, Lou Smit, for his case information.

Fisher peppers the Ramsey chapters with adjectives that are favorable to those who believe the Ramseys innocent, calling Alex Hunter "courageous" and praising Ramsey defender, Lou Smit. He also declares Smit's intruder evidence "credible." Anyone with Ramsey case knowledge knows immediately on which side of the aisle Fisher stands, and that has a negative effect on any reader's expectations of objectivity. I was surprised that Fisher was not more careful to present the facts of the case without personal bias, especially since his book is meant for criminal justice instruction.

It is a shame that Fisher relied on Lou Smit for his case evidence as it is woefully outdated. It almost seems like Fisher wrote the Ramsey chapters years ago before more factual evidence became public. On p. 194, Fisher states in his book: "Lou Smit had made a credible case for an intrusion, which included an unidentified crime-scene pubic hair, a mysterious boot impression, an unidentified palm print, marks made on the corpse that could have been made by a stun gun, and broken basement window."

Apparently, Fisher does not know (as many Ramsey case followers do) that the unidentified hair was sourced to a female Paugh relative (and that it wasn't a pubic hair), the boot impression was only a half impression, and it matched the Hi-Tecs worn by Burke Ramsey, the unidentified palm print was sourced to Melinda Ramsey, the marks on JonBenet were not made by a stun gun as they were described by the Medical Examiner as abrasions, and John Ramsey, himself, said he broke the basement window.

Furthermore, Fisher does not take care to quote the Ramsey case ransom note correctly in his book, and in so doing, he changes it's meaning. It is imperative that any author who takes on a non-fiction subject make sure he not only gets his facts straight, but also quotes known documents correctly. The following paragraph is taken verbatim from p. 183 of his book:

"Quoted in the Rocky Mountain News on September 3, 1997, in an article by Charlie Brennan, the note began: "Mr. Ramsey, Listen Carefully! We are a group of individuals that represent a small foreign nation." The ransom note writer then warned the Ramseys not to notify the police: "If you talk to a stray dog, you die." The extortionist also taunted Ramsey: "Don't try to grow a brain, John." It was oddly and mysteriously signed: "victory, S.B.T.C.""

Fisher completely changes the word "faction" to the word "nation." He also changes the wording (and verb tense) of the threat from "if we catch you talking" to "if you talk to." More importantly, Fisher changes the object of the threat (and the accompanying verb tense) by substituting "she dies" to "you die."

There are many copies of the Ramsey ransom note available in print and on the internet. In his book, Fisher states that he quoted the original Rocky Mountain News article of September 3, 1997, but a look at that article shows no mistakes in the wording of the ransom note.

[..]

If Fisher truly used the Rocky Mountain News as his source, he did a poor job of copying the exact words from the ransom note article. It's almost as if he tried to recite it from memory. Surely, Fisher's readers deserve better.

In addition, Fisher misrepresents the credentials of expert witness, Cina Wong, whom he calls a graphologist. Ms. Wong has never been a graphologist, but is a Certified Document Examiner. Fisher also leads the reader to believe that ABFDE members are the only court-accepted forensic experts, but that not true.

In my opinion, Fisher should have been more careful in what he stated was evidence and presented the Ramsey chapters without personal bias, especially since some readers (especially students) may have no other reference for Ramsey case information.