THEY call it the CSI effect. The seemingly endless succession of glossy TV shows about forensic science has created a popular perception that the dazzling array of techniques now available can produce fast and firm evidence for convictions.
It is well known that traditional methods such as bite-mark and fingerprint analysis rely to some extent on analysts’ opinions, and as such they are viewed with a healthy measure of scepticism. However, DNA evidence has so far escaped this treatment.
Profiling is generally seen as routine, infallible and always able to get its man. One recent study found that jurors rated…
