This is a news story, published by MSN, that relates primarily to Robert Farquharson news.
For more Robert Farquharson news, you can click here:
more Robert Farquharson newsFor more Australia business & economics news, you can click here:
more Australia business & economics newsFor more news from MSN, you can click here:
more news from MSNOtherweb, Inc is a public benefit corporation, dedicated to improving the quality of news people consume. We are non-partisan, junk-free, and ad-free. We use artificial intelligence (AI) to remove junk from your news feed, and allow you to select the best business news, entertainment news, world news, and much more. If you like this article about Australia business & economics, you might also like this article about
expert evidence. We are dedicated to bringing you the highest-quality news, junk-free and ad-free, about your favorite topics. Please come every day to read the latest Forensic scientists news, expert witnesses news, news about Australia business & economics, and other high-quality news about any topic that interests you. We are working hard to create the best news aggregator on the web, and to put you in control of your news feed - whether you choose to read the latest news through our website, our news app, or our daily newsletter - all free!
forensic science evidencePhys Org
•88% Informative
The conviction of Robert Farquharson for the murder of his three sons on Father's Day 2005 is being questioned in the media, with doubts raised about the reliability of prosecution's medical, traffic reconstruction and sinking vehicle evidence.
Australian courts ignore criteria recommended by peak scientific organizations such as the U.S. National Academy of Sciences .
Forensic scientists can implicate defendants without reference to validation studies and without appropriate caveats.
Expert evidence of dubious reliability is regularly admitted and left to the jury.
Such a body, operating outside the traditional adversarial system, may help persuade complacent criminal courts that seemingly damning "expert" evidence should not always be taken at face value. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article. Provided by The ConversationThis story was originally published on Phys.org . Subscribe to our newsletter for the latest sci-tech news updates..
VR Score
91
Informative language
94
Neutral language
28
Article tone
informal
Language
English
Language complexity
71
Offensive language
not offensive
Hate speech
not hateful
Attention-grabbing headline
not detected
Known propaganda techniques
not detected
Time-value
medium-lived
External references
23
Source diversity
20
Affiliate links
no affiliate links