Many years ago when I first started engaging in police studies I chose forensics. It worked out to be just the beginning of a long road.

When I had qualified as a forensic investigator DNA was relatively new in respect of a tool to be used in criminal investigations. Even back then I saw issues it would create because of its complexity.

This absolutely played out in the case where OJ Simpson was charged for killing his estranged wife and the lover Ron Goldman she chose to move onto her husband’s property.

I was often baffled as to what kind of ‘little man’ would actually move into another man’s house, but I guess men will do anything for a free ride, both home and abroad.

The acquittal though, heralded by many as a victory for black America, occurred primarily because the attorneys managed to sell a farce that someone’s DNA can appear to look like someone else’s if the sample is not properly preserved.

This is total hogwash. Someone’s DNA cannot look like someone else’s own.

What can occur is that it can be less identifiable, but not ever look like someone else’s.

So in essence, a man, although properly provoked, got away with murder using a fantasy defence.

I have my own fears, as I see science playing a greater part in trials in Jamaica.

Why? Because I am not sure that juries are exposed enough to differentiate junk science from real science.

What is the level of training of our prosecutors, judges, and even defence counsel in the area of science?

What is the educational level of our juries?

Can an OJ ruse one day free a killer or prosecute an innocent man?

Should we start to insist on only university graduates being jurors in major cases? Or maybe a judge’s panel, like they do in China. Let’s look at examples.

In recent time, police procedures include swabbing all recovered guns for DNA.

Does our legal system realise how difficult it is for DNA to be transferred to a firearm. It can happen, but usually it requires a hair that may be caught in it, or significant sweating into the weapon.

It is extremely unlikely by simple touching or holding it for DNA to be transferred.

Therefore, a weapon that has been recovered from a man’s waist has a significantly high probability of not having the offender’s DNA on it.

On the same token, there is a remote possibility that an individual’s DNA can be transferred to an object through third-party exposure. The aforementioned is touch DNA.

So I touch you, you touch Sally, and my DNA is on Sally. This is highly unlikely, but possible. However, it is often sold to juries as probable or, depending on the expert, impossible.

The fact is it’s really not an exact science, but it’s rarely sold as such.

Then even in simplistic areas like pistols or revolvers, is the study of guns part of our judges’ curriculum?

Do they know that pistols emit a spent shell and revolvers don’t? Or that hard ball bullets over-penetrate and hollow point rarely do?

I know as a fact that these basic facts are not taught in schools and the average jury does not know them.

I have seen experts matching projectiles from Glock pistols to individual guns, usually to our police officers’ detriment.

This is not possible. Hammer-forged barrels cannot be matched to expended bullets. There are no striation marks that would be created in the production of a regular barrel to compare it to.

If this is confusing, think on the barely literate man who may sit on your son’s jury and be subjected to ‘white coat’ indoctrination.

Even an old science like fingerprints, do you realise how difficult it is to find a fingerprint on a gun?

It’s really difficult. I tested 400 when I was studying and didn’t lift one, despite handling all of them.

An average juror may just believe no fingerprint means no one held it.

Science has its place in rape cases where fluids and hairs are involved; and murder when committed close quarter for DNA and ballistics when guns are used.

The wholesale use of it without significant training to our judges and prosecutors is dangerous.

I’m not a fan of the system that utilises a jury of your peers in any situation whatsoever, but I am particularly against it in cases where science is involved.

We can solve this issue with significant training of the actors in our judicial system, particularly the decision makers.

But have we put the cart before the horse? Have we gone all science crazy before we have done the training?

Looking to the future, is one of our political parties going to move us towards a system that does not include juries at all? It can’t seem ridiculous to me alone.

Constitutional change is happening as we speak.

Do you know how you can participate in the revision of the Constitution?

It’s important that it’s not minor areas that don’t matter, or major areas that will destroy us further.

You may remember what the removal of the exceptions that allow for remand acts has done to our ability to function in a crisis. We need to be involved.

This could be the end of the jury system. Let’s do it.

I close with this proclamation: If science and scientific evidence is going to be a major part in our judicial system going forward, then we will have to end trial by jury.

Also, if we go to total trial by judges then we must train our judges, prosecutors and defence attorneys to at least a functional level in basic forensics that involve DNA, fingerprints and ballistics.

If not, the ‘white coats’ are going to walk us around the mulberry bush over and over again.

Feedback: drjasonamckay@gmail.com