I often get asked about my role as a scientist in light of my primary employer. “Have you ever worked for the defense?” How does it feel working for law enforcement?” These are just a few of the questions that I’ve faced in trial.

As a scientist, I really don’t have a dog in the fight. My answer to that line of questioning usually goes like this, “Regardless of who’s signature is on my pay cheque, I work for the Trier of Fact – assisting the judge and jury in correctly interpreting these complex pieces of evidence. The results of my tests are grounded in science. They are reliable and repeatable. My tools and techniques are based on generally accepted, peer reviewed image science. The academic references for the algorithms used, for each of the steps performed, are noted in my report.”

That being said, I have assisted the court in uncovering fraudulent evidence presented as impeachment evidence in People v. Abdullah (BA353334). It could be said, in that case, that I was working in the defense of the accused. But again, I was there to assist the Trier of Fact in correctly interpreting the evidence. In that case, the correct interpretation was that it was a forgery. In Hor v. City of Seattle, I assisted the Trier of Fact in correctly answering the question about if/when a particular sound is heard in a recording (10-2-34403-9SEA) – seemingly in the defense of the City of Seattle – but more correctly in defense of the facts of the matter.

Trier of Fact n. the judge or jury responsible for deciding factual issues in a trial. If there is no jury the judge is the trier of fact as well as the trier of the law. In administrative hearings, an administrative law judge, a board, commission, or referee may be the trier of fact.

Taken a step further, there are certain trade groups that are geared towards law enforcement that will expel a member who is perceived or accused of having worked “for the defense.” The perception is that law enforcement are the “good guys” and the criminal defendants are the “bad guys.” Yet, to an image scientist, a 1 or a 0 is neither good nor bad. They’re just numbers. I’ve worked a few cases where the government’s “experts” got everything completely wrong, their work product was not repeatable nor grounded in science, and thus their conclusion was complete rubbish (scientifically speaking). In these cases, who’s the “good guy” and who’s the “bad guy?”

[As a side note, in the famous treason trial of Aaron Burr, he was defended by Edmund Randolph and Luther Martin, both delegates to the Constitutional Convention and among the most prominent men of the day. The Burr trial is one of the more famous examples of how politics and ego can enter into court proceedings.]

But back to the point, if you’re one of those scientists that think in terms of “good guys” and “bad guys,” are you not biased towards a presupposed outcome – good will overcome evil and the bad guys will be punished? Is this form of presuppositional bias a good thing or a bad thing for scientists who serve the court system? I am certainly not one of those types of scientists. I work the case and the facts are the facts, regardless of who is signing my paycheck.

In the end, A either equals A or it doesn’t.

It’s with this in mind that I received and began to read Ferguson, MO: What Really Happened: A Systematic Scientific Analysis by Bruce E. Krell, PhD.

11224624_10153724450689310_2227425306252171875_n 12046631_10153724629699310_6680000301377871745_n

If we are to rely upon the media and various special interest groups to inform the Trier of Fact in Ferguson, MO, as to the “truths” of the case, the shooting incident will look a certain way depending on which “truths” are presented. White vs. Black. Powerful vs. powerless. State vs. the people. Bully vs. bullied. Etc. But true experts are relied upon to present facts. In this case, Dr. Krell uses his many years of experience in reconstructing shooting incidents to examine the facts and come to a conclusion. His science is presented without distractions and superfluities. In a very methodical way, Dr. Krell takes the reader through the crime scene to examine what actually happened – what the evidence at the scene says happened.

It’s a thoroughly refreshing point of view – science (facts), as opposed to the many political angles that have been previously presented (truths). It may be uncomfortable to read, but facts are facts. Dr. Krell is working neither for the state or the people, neither for the prosecution or the defense. He’s working for the Trier of Fact, applying the science of shooting incident reconstruction to the evidence in the case.

Three cheers for Dr. Krell, though I doubt the biased media outlets will pick up on this book. Unfortunately, the facts of the matter don’t fit their narrative.