The justice system does not fail only when evidence is missing or fabricated. It also fails when we stop questioning what evidence actually proves. Lawyers, investigators, experts, and jurors must learn to examine evidence with discipline and skepticism, because a piece of data can be completely authentic and still be dangerously misunderstood.
This matters to everyone, not just people who enter a courtroom. A photograph, GPS record, surveillance video, medical record, or digital timestamp can influence whether someone loses their freedom, reputation, livelihood, or future. We often assume that, because something looks objective, it must also be clear.
That assumption is where problems begin. Evidence does not explain itself. Humans interpret it, and human interpretation is vulnerable to error.
I have seen this happen firsthand. In one case involving a devastating collision between a passenger vehicle and a large commercial vehicle, the initial impression was that the crash was simply a head-on collision. But when I carefully examined the images, I saw something different.
The damage pattern showed a significant difference between the driver’s side and passenger side of the vehicle. What appeared obvious at first glance required a deeper analysis to understand what actually happened. That experience reinforced a lesson that has shaped my career: the first explanation attached to evidence is not always the correct one.
Once a narrative takes hold, it can influence everything that follows. Investigators may unconsciously search for facts that support their theory. Lawyers may build arguments around assumptions that have not been fully tested.
Extract — continue reading at the source.
