Forensic anthropology, scientific evidence, and the law

This chapter explores important considerations in the application of forensic anthropology to the law. Difficulties associated with legal admissibility and interpretation of forensic anthropology scientific evidence and expert testimony are the focus. It is seen that many of these difficulties relate to the differential and oftentimes adversarial nature of the relationship between science and the law. There are inherent contrasts between science and the law regarding definitions of terms (such as “proof”) and their methods of operation—science is a continuous process of discovery whose objective is a truthful explanation of world phenomena, while the legal process seeks finality in its conclusions in the pursuit of justice. However, there are important commonalities. Both rely on abductive logic and reasoning, engage in dialogues between competing theories and inferences, and seek to define and rely on data that are plausible and relevant to the question at hand. Bayesian inference is a statistical model common to both arenas that is an important potential source of probabilistic strength of both scientific and legal evidence. Forensic anthropology evidence has, for the most part, met Daubert challenges in court through its reliance on the scientific method and peer review. However, deficient areas to be addressed include more explicit hypothesis statements and testing research hypotheses and probabilistic assessments of strength of evidence through comparison to appropriate reference populations. The chapter concludes by discussing ways that understanding and appreciation between science and the law can be enhanced, benefitting both in a legal setting. Evaluation of evidence through a sound theoretical and scientific framework is at the heart of reconciling tensions between law and science and strengthening the value and accuracy of forensic anthropology testimony.