Episode II: Forensic Fictions — Discussion
This thread is dedicated to discussion of Episode II of SYSTEMIC: Forensic Fictions. Use this space to examine how forensic science, expert testimony, and evidentiary rituals operate inside the UK legal system. Focus on the gap between scientific validity and courtroom authority: junk science, probabilistic abuse, institutional incentives, disclosure failures, and the cultural power of the “expert”. Contributions should reference specific cases, methods, judgments, or procedural mechanisms where possible. Counter-arguments are welcome where grounded in evidence and articulated in good faith. Speculation, abuse, or unfounded claims are not appropriate here. I would particularly like to hear which forensic practices or cases most challenged your assumptions about truth in court.
How to Participate
- If you choose ‘Challenge’ when replying to a person, begin with a Steel Man summary.
- Engage ideas, not individuals.
- Clarify before criticising.
- Protect clarity and intellectual honesty.
Full guidelines: TGK Community Charter .