|
|
 |
|
The underpinning ethos at Forensic Engineering Solutions is to distinguish evidence from coincidence, without ambiguity;
to provide an impartial critique on the facts and evidence provided, and discovered; to deliver a cogent and comprehensive,
yet easily digestible report; and,where necessary, provide sound witness testimony at trial.
In the scrutiny of forensic scientific evidence it is our philosophy to Accept Nothing, Assume Nothing, and Test Everything
|
|
|
Accept Nothing
A prosecution case has been said to be at its height on paper and before a trial starts:at Forensic
Engineering Solutions we take the view that every piece of scientific evidence stands to be tested and scrutinised.
If there are failings in the commentary or conclusions reached, or if a correlation is unsafe, then we will highlight same.
We apply the same rigourous test in civil cases, and never blindly accept the evidence of those involved in an accident,
or of the eyewitnesses.
Assume Nothing
Just because it might look like a pig doesn't mean it is a pig. At Forensic Engineering Solutions we
demand that it not only look like a pig, but that it smells like a pig, feels like a pig, tastes like a pig, dissects like
a pig, and has every other function of a pig. If it doesn't live up to an accepted definition of a pig,
then it's possible that it might be something else.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Green paint was suspected to have originated from a tractor, but was in fact household emulsion |
Test Everything
We believe in the proof of everything: as an example, in a dangerous driving
causing death case - where, if convicted, you will go to jail - the prosecution suggested that lighter coloured green paint
deposits on a bicycle frame indicated a corresponednce with the tractor that was involved in the accident. We argued that
only a proper forensic analysis could support such a hypothesis, and this was eventually carried out. The result was
that the lighter green paint deposits were ordinary household emulsions, and not tractor paint. Thus, the demand for
a test on everything proved the danger of assumption, and of course succinctly illustrated the principle of Reasonable
Doubt.
|
|
|
|
