Fingerprints at the scene?
October 19, 2007 by Ruthie
Ruthie often watches with amusement her fellow lawyers with their A levels in Greek and Fine Art and degrees in comparative philosophy, grappling with the most basic challenges presented by modern technology. An infinite number of monkeys with an infinite number of typewriters will bang out the complete works of Shakespeare eventually, but when the Judge is baying for the amended document from her colleague who has dragged his cross examination out so thinly Marco Pierre White would accept it as a salmon slice, Ruthie takes pity. Whilst Ruthie is not the most technologically competent, in the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king, and ineptitude is still an improvement on hopelessness.
Unsurprising then to learn that when it comes to the latest developments in science and technology, lawyers as a group are somewhat behind the curve. Indeed court proceedings are postively medieval in the lack of use of information management technology that would be taken for granted in most businesses. Whilst steps are apparantly being taken to drag the Court System into the 20th Century, Ruthie sees little evidence in practice.
Rather more worrying than the requirement to contact the list office by carrier pigeon, is the unquestioning admission by the courts of easily manipulated evidence. Photoshop and OCR software permit sophisticated document manipution on a home computer by those with merely basic computer skills. Ruthie can think of a number of instances where these applications could effectively be applied to pervert the course of justice, but will not recite them here for fear of aiding and abetting, counselling or procuring.
DNA evidence has for far too long been treated as the Word of God, somehow eternal and inviolable. DNA can easily be planted, and as ever more of us become logged on the police national computer, the chances of two people having the same profile increase. Even fingerprints are not immune from the efforts of the determined planter and manipulator.
Courts and lawyers should look a lot more closely at the documents that are being presented, Judges direct more tightly on cases where DNA or fingerprint evidence influences the verdict, and defence lawyers need to wake up and start bringing more challenges.
