Forensic reports carry method gaps, missing disclosures and conclusions the data does not support. They go unchallenged because the defence has had no scientist of its own.
An FSL report reaches court as a conclusion, and the scientist who signed it has the raw data behind it. Defence counsel is trained in law, not laboratory method, so the defence has no way to tell whether the examination used the right method and procedure for the exhibit received.
A forensic examination can leave room for error: contamination, carry-over, a degraded sample, a method that does not fit the exhibit. That has to be checked. Without a scientist of its own, the defence can only take the prosecution’s word for it.
A forensic report passes through many hands and many steps before it reaches court. Each one is a place where the science can slip, and where the report deserves a second reading by a scientist.
The exhibit changes hands between seizure, the malkhana and the laboratory with gaps in the record, so no one can show that what was tested is what was seized.
Samples sit in heat or in the wrong container, or reach the laboratory weeks late, and degrade before anyone examines them.
A sample too small, degraded or contaminated to give a reliable result is tested anyway, and the report never says so.
The laboratory uses a method that was never validated for this kind of exhibit, or that cannot answer the question the court is asking.
Controls are missing, instruments are out of calibration, or steps at the bench are skipped, and the result carries those errors forward.
The raw data is read for more than it shows: artefacts counted as results, weak signals called, and the laboratory’s own thresholds set aside.
The report states its finding more strongly than the results allow, and leaves out the limits that would weaken it.
The opinion comes from an examiner working outside their field, or without the training and experience the analysis needs.
Know early whether the forensic evidence will hold. We tell you which samples and records to have preserved or produced, and where the prosecution’s science is likely to be weak, before charges are framed.
A short scientific note on what the FSL report actually proves and what it does not, so you can argue the real strength of the evidence at the bail hearing.
A point-by-point audit of the report, the questions to put to the State’s analyst in cross-examination, and a signed expert opinion, with our scientist available to depose when the case needs one.
A scientific reading of the forensic evidence on the trial record, showing which findings were overstated or never tested, set out for your grounds and supported by technical affidavits.
Know early whether the forensic evidence will hold. We tell you which samples and records to have preserved or produced, and where the prosecution’s science is likely to be weak, before charges are framed.
A short scientific note on what the FSL report actually proves and what it does not, so you can argue the real strength of the evidence at the bail hearing.
A point-by-point audit of the report, the questions to put to the State’s analyst in cross-examination, and a signed expert opinion, with our scientist available to depose when the case needs one.
A scientific reading of the forensic evidence on the trial record, showing which findings were overstated or never tested, set out for your grounds and supported by technical affidavits.
Send us the forensic report. Our scientists respond within 48 hours with a clear view on whether an independent review is needed.